Judicial Review?

If Rushcliffe Borough Council decides to adopt the Supplementary Planning Document for the proposed Gamston/Tollerton “SUE”, in its current form, it would be counter to their own commitments, it would contradict their own precedents and the council’s own previous practice. In short, pushing ahead with the SPD in its current form would be against the rules.

The Planning Inspector stipulated, in 2014, there needed to be a detailed Masterplan for the site. The detailed masterplan should set out (and include) that the A52 needed to be a dual-carriageway from the Gamston roundabout to the Wheatcroft roundabout. It was also stipulated a bridge needed to be built across it, and that traffic modelling needed to be completed for these, and other details.

RBC committed to these actions. RBC also said, when Taylor Wimpey submitted their 2020 planning application to build on the site, the Masterplan was needed back then.

They committed to these things again, in 2024, when Vistry submitted their application.

And then, in March 2025, RBC committed to these things again, when Vistry took the deliberate decision to force the – unnecessary and early – closure of the airfield to try and shut our campaign down… .

In the March 2025 press release, you can see RBC committing to “detail the future… infrastructure for the development “ through the Masterplan:

That’s a commitment to DETAIL, not a statement about making later decisions based on vague aspirations and facts not yet discovered!

[Have a look at the Edwalton SPD (2015) for a properly detailed Masterplan that RBC have produced in the past.

Without the required traffic modelling, nothing can be finalised for the Highways and access strategies, and this affects locations of services as well as all other infrastructure dependencies.

RBC know these things, and that’s why they stopped the SPD adoption in January.

However, if, RBC decides to adopt the SPD (as it appears they intend to in March) WITHOUT these details being completed, such action would be entirely unreasonable.

A decision to adopt the SPD without the evidence needed to make lawful planning decisions now, and in the future, is precisely the reason Rushcliffe residents can, and should, ask for a judge to review.

Rushcliffe deserves better!