Council revises planning document for 4,000 home scheme following judicial review threat

The local authority's cabinet resolved to adopt the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document in March this year.

The SPD was prepared in collaboration between the council and the main landowners and developers of the site, and sets out the desired approach for building thousands of new homes on the land.

However, a group has launched a legal claim in an attempt to save an airfield on the site, which was closed in June in light of the plans.  

Save Nottingham Airfield Group (SNAG) sent a pre-action protocol letter to the council in May, challenging the cabinet's decision.

The group claimed the document had "serious gaps" relating to key evidence on traffic, highways, drainage, flooding and viability.

The council is now set to vote next week (23 June) on changes to the SPD that have been proposed in light of the legal challenge.

An officer's report says the claim "does not have merit", but recommends adopting the amendments as a "precautionary approach" before the deadline for SPDs to be adopted or amended at the end of June 2026.

The report adds: "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."

The revised document also includes a reconsidered and updated Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Opinion.

The updated assessments continue to conclude that the SPD would not itself give rise to any likely significant environmental effects, including any new or materially different effects from those assessed in relation to the adopted Local Plan.

The Screening Opinion also has regard to the SEA and HRA of the emerging Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan, the report says.

An updated consultation has been undertaken with statutory bodies in accordance with the relevant regulations in relation to the reconsidered and updated SEA/HRA Screening Opinion, it adds.

Elsewhere, the report argues that the proposed judicial review would not achieve SNAG's aim of bringing the airfield back into use because "the land is allocated within the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 for a sustainable urban extension and this [judicial review] cannot remove this allocation".

It says: "The real life impact of a successful JR would result in the quashing of the SPD which would remove the guidance as to the checks and balances to hold the developers to a higher standard and quality of development, including provision of appropriate community infrastructure."

The report also warns that the legal costs of defending the challenge could exceed £100,000.

Responding to the report, a spokesperson for SNAG claimed the council had revised its document based on "all of the issues our legal team have identified".

"Effectively, RBC are using our campaign and our legal team to mark their homework," the spokesperson added.

The group also said the updated document still contains "critical flaws".

Adam Carey