Climate Thoughts with Brian

Tollerton Airfield housing development reaches significant moment

This coming week will see Rushcliffe Borough Cabinet meet again to discuss and decide on a planning decision which will allow for around 4,000 houses to be built on around the former Tollerton Airfield site.

The Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and its implementation was paused earlier this year, owing to concerns about transparency and a need for new information.

The council stated in January, ‘‘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.’

Cllr Upton complained about this lack of information, when he commented, ‘“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.

However, no new information has since been uploaded to the planning portal since then, leaving Save Nottingham City (Tollerton) Airfield campaigners puzzled by this seeming reversal of the council’s own process and priorities.

A house of cards

Campaigner Sarah Deacon, commented, ‘There is nothing new in the ‘revised’ SPD…absolutely nothing. So absolutely nothing that, in fact, the “new” diagram which the developers have included for their proposed access point, is actually 20 months old.’

She continued, ‘Policy 25 of Rushcliffe’s own Local Plan (2014) requires that the proposed development be “appropriately phased to take into account provision of necessary infrastructure, including improvements to the highway along the A52.”

You cannot phase development around infrastructure that hasn’t been designed, costed or agreed. Rushcliffe residents, community groups and stakeholders who engaged with this process in good faith were told the Council needed specific information before it would proceed. That information has not arrived. But, the Council is looking to proceed anyway.

We believe that decision is legally vulnerable and fundamentally premature.”

Preparation for judicial review

Owing to this apparent ‘steamrolling’ of the decision from the campaigners’ perspective, they now claim that this could be open to a judicial review on the grounds of irrationality and are preparing a fundraising event in anticipation of this course of action being needed if Rushcliffe Borough Council do indeed agree that the Masterplan can go ahead, despite the information that they paused the decision for, still not being available.

Deacon summarised this undue haste, when she said, “They said the SPD “could not proceed” because they were still awaiting detailed traffic modelling data. They said they needed comments from Notts County Council and National Highways before making any decision. They stressed this modelling was essential to understand traffic, safety and road impacts. RBC can’t have it both ways. They can’t adopt a document they know is legally vulnerable, call it deliverable, and expect the Inspectors (or the courts) to agree.”

Campaigners gather outside council offices in 2025

Contamination of Tollerton Park

Residents and campaigners alike fear the conclusions of a 2008 investigation into radiation contamination- a document that presently appears on Rushcliffe Borough Council’s own website– which indicated areas of radium-226 contamination. ‘The caravan site at Tollerton is situated on a decommissioned Royal Air Force Air Base. After the Second World War it was used as a base to demolish Lancaster bombers. A particularly significant part of this process was the disposal of the luminising dials from the cockpits. Radium was used universally in the first half of the 20th century in dials, watches, etc. The disposal of the luminised instruments from aeroplanes generally took the form of burning or burial. The migration of radium to the environment from such practices is documented.’

Two areas of radiation were detected- one in the grounds of the airfield, which is being proposed for the housing development. ‘However, two areas of radium-226 contamination were detected outside this area: one in the airfield just outside the perimeter of the site, and one in the caravan parking area.’

The national press also highlighted the radiation fears of some residents of Tollerton Park, ‘All we want now is a thorough, invasive survey done on the park for a clean bill of health. We just want answers. We want to live a peaceful life. We came here to retire, not to fight the council.’

In November 2025, only a few months ago, the UK Health Security Agency urged that there was ‘suitable justification’ for another radiation survey to take place on Tollerton Park, just north of the former Tollerton Airfield site. They stated, ‘Consequently, we suggest that RBC consider attaching a condition to the planning application that requires the developer to have plans in place in case any contaminants are uncovered during works so that any risks to health posed by those contaminants, both to the developers own employees as well as to future users of the land, are suitably managed.’

No such condition yet exists on the planning portal.

Military monument to World War 2

All local, regional and national eyes will be on Rushcliffe Borough Council’s decision this coming week, as it clear that they have knowledge of the radiation contamination on the proposed housing development site; do not appear to have received the detailed traffic monitoring date that they were waiting for; and have not made public any information gathered from Nottinghamshire County Council. 

To approve the planning application for the large housing development with this significant and necessary information missing, could leave RBC open to the planned judicial review, which in turn would create more delay and pose unwelcome legal questions for the council.