Climate Thoughts with Brian

Campaigners against the controversial proposals of Vistry Homes to build 4,000 homes in and around the site of Nottingham City Airport were jubilant recently, as the local council voted to pause its decision, while more information was sought to support moving forward.

However, campaigners appeared very uneasy about the knowledge that Vistry Homes- the developer- would be making several financial payments to the local council over the first half of this year if planning momentum carried forward.

The Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) document uploaded to the planning portal in December 2025 revealed that Vistry Homes, the applicant, would pay Rushcliffe Borough Council totalling £202,006 as various planning stages moved ahead over a period of seven months. Payments of £28,858 for each stage to the council shocked campaigners as transparency and undue pressure became their new financial concerns, in addition to their environmental concerns.

Challenges over financial payments

Cllr Roger Upton, RBC Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, responded to campaigners’ claims that financial payments from the developer to Rushcliffe Borough Council were untoward, stating that PPAs are a commonplace method in planning matters.

“Residents and stakeholders can also be assured developers contributions to the planning process or PPA amounts are placing no pressure on the Council than any other current application. This in the same way PPAs for other previous larger proposed sites have been managed appropriately and effectively in the past.

“PPA amounts vary from document to document that are submitted to Councils across the country. These can vary, such as in this case, where the amount is guided by the size and complexity of the proposed site and the extensive work the Council will have to undertake to fulfil its role.”

When asked to give detailed examples of other contributions to local projects, Cllr Upton asked the Communications and Customer Services Manager of Rushcliffe Borough Council to answer on his behalf. This response gave the information that, ‘In recent years PPAs have been agreed for the current significant Newton development near Bingham, Nottingham Forest Football Club’s proposed developments of the City Ground and proposed solar farms at Thoroton, Ruddington and Stragglethorpe.’  

The level of payments from the developers to the local council for these other projects was questioned further to better understand the context of receiving a payment of over £200,000 in seven months and whether the perception of this timeframe and cost could be viewed unfavourably. Rushcliffe Borough Council told me that the PPA for the Newton development was £70,000, for each solar farm the PPA was £18,500 and for the development of Nottingham Forest Football Club City Ground was £150,000.

A large housing development of 4,000 homes may then have a larger financial payment to the council than a solar farm, especially when remediation work of the radium contaminated land at Tollerton Park would have to be included.

RAF Tollerton history

Nottingham City Airport is also known as RAF Tollerton and has a long and illustrious military past, being used regularly in World War 2 and then later as an area for aviation repair and disposal, potentially being the source for the radium discovered in the soil. In more modern times, the site has seen various uses and businesses operate, from flight training, an emergency landing site for the air ambulance and an established local cafe.

Vistry Homes have earmarked the site for a large housing development, though these plans have been dealt a blow by Rushcliffe Borough Council which voted for a pause in the planning process, while more evidence about the impact to the local area is confirmed, especially with concerns coming from the Highway Authority.

In a press release this week, the Council stated,

‘Rushcliffe Borough Council’s (RBC) Cabinet has voted to pause a decision on the next stage of planning at Tollerton Airfield whilst more detailed information is requested from the developers on highways.

It met on Tuesday January 13 and chose to not proceed with a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or masterplan for the site at this stage, requesting developers submit more information on highways modelling data that can inform traffic projections.

It follows consultation on the SPD last year, aware of the points local residents and key stakeholders have raised as part of the planning process for the proposed Gamston/Tollerton Development.’

Cllr Roger Upton, RBC Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, bemoaned the lack of information requested from the developer, saying,

“We currently have applications sitting with the Council to build on the Gamston and Tollerton site, and we have been clear that we want a Masterplan for the entire development, to offer clear guidance on where the infrastructure should be sited as part of the planning process. 

“We have been awaiting detailed traffic modelling data from developers, and comments from Nottinghamshire County Council and National Highways on the data and plans for the transport highway solutions in and around the site, and it is yet to arrive. 

We have therefore decided to delay a decision on the SPD whilst we request this information. We do need to make a decision by June 30, 2026 and will be calling upon the developers and highways agencies to provide this information, which they have had months and years to complete.

We are aware of concerns around possible contamination on areas around Nottingham Airport, and these must be addressed as part of any planning applications.”

From Rushcliffe Borough Council

More transparency over planning issues needed

Rushcliffe Borough Councillor Debbie Soloman called for more transparency over the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and had asked for a request to delay its adoption days before the council meeting took place.

On the 11th January, she posted on social media, ‘I am very concerned the RBC is rushing through the decision on the Tollerton/Gamston Fields development.  Therefore I have written to all Rushcliffe Borough Council cabinet members asking them not to adopt the East of Gamston / North of Tollerton (SUE) Development Framework SPD. If the Gamston Fields/Tollerton development does go ahead it needs to be done the right way -with full transparency.’

Her letter continued to highlight some of the specific concerns raised before by campaigners.

‘Dear Cabinet Members,

East of Gamston / North of Tollerton Development Framework – Request to Delay Adoption

I am writing to express my serious concern ahead of your scheduled vote on Tuesday 13 January 2026 regarding adoption of the East of Gamston / North of Tollerton (SUE) Development Framework SPD.

The issues emerging from consultation responses, particularly from National Highways, Nottinghamshire County Council and Tollerton Parish Council indicate that key technical and environmental matters remain unresolved. Chief among these is the question of land contamination across the former airfield site.

It is clear that this site carries a complex legacy of contamination, including historic industrial waste, PFA (“forever chemicals”), and deposits associated with former aviation operations. Yet the SPD moves forward without a comprehensive contamination study, a remediation framework, or the involvement of accredited specialists independent from developer control.’

She appeared to be also concerned about the public perception and the ‘optics’ of rushing through the process, which might damage the reputation of Rushcliffe Borough Council, when she stated, ‘the optics of rushing adoption are extremely poor. What confidence can the public have if we appear to be hurrying to avoid scrutiny? A short delay would protect the Council’s reputation far more than pressing ahead under the shadow of unanswered questions.’

Campaigners pleased with calls for more investigation

Responding to the council’s decision, Sarah Deacon, one of the leading campaigners from the Save Nottingham Airfield Group, said,

‘SNAG are really pleased that RBC have taken this important step. Pausing the adoption of the SPD will allow for the collection of critical data to inform the proposed highways and transport strategy for the site both locally and regionally. This will then allow for proper costings to take place which will mean that realistic viability assessments can be produced.’ 

She continued her statement, saying, ‘We know from preliminary calculations that the site is not viable in terms of delivering full policy obligations – and we want the people of Rushcliffe to be fully informed about what would not be delivered. If the site is not fully viable with the delivery of 30% affordable homes, for example, because of the costs of Highways or remediation of contamination, the people of Rushcliffe deserve to know this.’ 

It now appears that these housing development plans will undergo closer examination and scrutiny, with the success of pressure from campaigners for transparency and dialogue.