Climate Thoughts with Brian

Rushcliffe Borough Council under pressure from campaigners as deadline looms for plan adoption.

Save Nottingham City Airfield Group is calling on Rushcliffe Borough Council (RBC) to pause its plans to approve a significantly revised planning document and instead allow proper public consultation.

The Council’s cabinet is due to consider adopting an updated version of the East of Gamston / North of Tollerton Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) at its Cabinet meeting on the 23rd of June – just days after publishing the significantly amended draft.

Campaigners say this effectively excludes Rushcliffe residents from the decision-making process, despite the scale of the changes involved.

Lead campaigner, Sarah Deacon, said in a social media post that ‘Rushcliffe Borough Council is planning to adopt a fundamentally rewritten planning document for the airport site at its Cabinet meeting on Tuesday the 23rd of June, without any public consultation- something our legal team has advised them is unlawful.’ 

She continued ‘The ‘track changes’ in the revised document [Supplementary Planning Document] show dozens of amendments across the whole thing- it has been substantially rewritten. This means, therefore, that public consultation is required, by law. The public were consulted on one document, and now the Council is now asking Cabinet to adopt a different one… without giving anyone the opportunity to see what has changed, let alone respond to it.’

Less assurance of infrastructure and services

Rushcliffe Borough Council, in recent days, have called for the Save Nottingham City Airfield group (SNAG), to drop their legal pursuit of a judicial review. In their statement, they argued, ‘The Save Nottingham City Airfield group has lodged the review over the Council’s adoption of a supplementary planning document, known as an SPD, earlier this year that covers the former airfield site and wider area.

The SPD document provides guidance to help RBC and NCC scrutinise plans developers put forward, for the proposed development of thousands of new homes at the site. 

Without it, the Councils do not have the benefit of the guidance to help hold developers to account on their plans to build homes with more detailed assurances such as key infrastructure on schools and doctors’ surgeries being built in a way that can help new communities – and avoid placing increased pressures on existing local services.’ 

The Council’s statement went further, accusing the campaign group of wasting taxpayers’ money. ‘The Council considers that the Judicial Review should not go ahead because: If successful in the courts, it will not prevent development on the site but instead could make it less accountable and sustainable and threaten the impact on local amenity and services.

The site has been allocated for development, subject to planning application processes, since 2014. It is important so RBC can reach government housing targets and there are enough homes for future generations to live in Rushcliffe.

The cost to the taxpayer would be expected in excess of £100,000 – money that could be better invested in services to Rushcliffe people.’

When having ‘merit’ is questioned

In a rather torturously worded document published before the meeting on the 23rd, Rushcliffe Borough Council simultaneously admitted that the claims and arguments made by the campaign were ‘considered beneficial’, but then also described the claim as not having any merit. This has led campaigners to question why this illogical description of their position as having merit enough to be addressed, has also been dismissed as having no weight.

In relation to the judicial review claim, the Council has sought legal advice and is to defend the JR. The Council does not consider the claim to have merit. 

However, as a precautionary approach before the “cut off” date for SPD’s to be adopted or amended by the end of June 2026, the Council has undertaken the following to address the claims made:  Minor changes have been made to the adopted SPD to respond to some points raised in the claim. The amendments are not considered necessary for legal robustness purposes but are recommended on a precautionary approach and are thus considered beneficial to make.’ 

‘Not liaison but litigation’

Campaigners have also challenged the Council over its public statement that ‘RBC continues to liaise with the campaign group and listen to their concerns.’  

In a press release they commented that, ‘SNAG states unequivocally that this claim is factually incorrect.

The Council has made no direct contact with SNAG in relation to either the Judicial Review or the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) prior to it being adopted by RBC.’

The group added, “The Council’s statement that it ‘continues to liaise’ with us is not accurate, and we are putting that clearly on record.

We have received no phone calls, no invitations to meet, no emails, and no direct correspondence, either from officers or elected members about the SPD or the Judicial Review.

What we have received are formal legal documents filed by RBCs legal team in the proceedings RBC have chosen to defend. That is not liaison. That is litigation.”

The Cabinet Meeting on Tuesday 23rd June will clearly be an important opportunity, in campaigners’ eyes, for the Council to withdraw the proposal to adopt the new version of the SPD and for trust with the community to be rebuilt.

As SNAG commented, “There is still time to do this properly. Taking a step back now would allow the Council to rebuild trust, ensure that the final decision is sound, transparent, and fair, and avoid further legal action.”