SPD response: Heritage

HERITAGE

This is a guide to submitting an effective objection to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Land East of Gamston and North of Tollerton. It focuses on Heritage, particularly the site’s military history and the preservation of its Grade II listed pillboxes.

Why Heritage Matters

The site the SPD covers includes RAF Tollerton, a historically significant WWII airfield. It contains:

Seventeen Grade II listed pillboxes

Wartime “bomber command” runway alignments

Scene of numerous fatal wartime crashes

A unique role in the national war effort

Preserving and interpreting this heritage is vital for community identity, education, and respect for those who served.

­Concerns with the SPD

While the SPD acknowledges the pillboxes and runways, it lacks key commitments:

No mention of the Protection of Military Remains Act (POMRA): The site includes locations of fatal crashes. The SPD does not explain how developers will comply with POMRA obligations.

No museum or heritage centre proposed: Despite the site’s rich history, there is no plan for a permanent space to educate the public or honour its wartime role.

No detailed interpretation strategy: The SPD refers to a heritage trail and interpretation boards but lacks detail on content, funding, or community involvement.

No timeline or enforcement: There is no clear schedule for heritage surveys, repairs, or public engagement.

Limited preservation of heritage assets: Only 4 of the 17 Pillboxes are proposed to be conserved, and there is no indication what will happen with the others

Use your own words, but try to include the following elements:

1. Quote the SPD

Refer to Sections 3.48–3.51 and 5.1, which discuss heritage assets and interpretation.

2. Highlight the Gaps

Explain that the SPD lacks:

A plan for complying with POMRA

A proposal for a museum or permanent heritage centre

A detailed interpretation and education strategy

A timeline and enforcement mechanism for heritage commitments

3. Explain the Risks

Say why this matters:

  • The site’s unique history may be lost or underappreciated
  • Obligations under POMRA may be overlooked
  • Future generations may miss the opportunity to learn from this important site

4. Refer to Planning Policy

Mention:

NPPF Paragraph 199 (great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets)

NPPF Paragraph 200 (heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance)

Rushcliffe Local Plan Policy 11 (historic environment)

5. Request Specific Changes

You could ask for:

A formal commitment to comply with POMRA, including consultation with the Ministry of Defence

A dedicated museum or heritage centre on-site

A funded and detailed interpretation strategy developed with local historians and veterans’ groups

A timeline for heritage surveys, repairs, and public engagement

­Example Phrases for Reference

Please do adapt these into your own words:

“The SPD does not explain how developers will meet obligations under the Protection of Military Remains Act.”

“There is no proposal for a museum or heritage centre to honour the site’s wartime history.”

“The heritage interpretation strategy lacks detail and funding commitments.”

“Without clear timelines, the site’s heritage risks being sidelined or lost.”

­Where to Send Your Objection:

This is the email address for comments to Rushcliffe Borough Council on the SPD: localdevelopment@rushcliffe.gov.uk