SPD response: Highways

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 Highways, Access, and Traffic Impact, which are key Material Planning Considerations.

­Why Highways and Access Matter

Large-scale developments must demonstrate that they can be safely and sustainably accessed, and that they won’t overwhelm existing road networks.

This includes:

  • Clear plans for junctions and access points
  • Traffic modelling to show expected vehicle movements
  • Coordination between National Highways (for trunk roads like the A52, A46, A606) and Nottinghamshire County Council (for local roads)

­Concerns with the SPD

The SPD does not provide detail or certainty about how the site will be accessed or how traffic impacts will be managed:

No confirmed access solution: The SPD refers to multiple potential junctions (A, B, and C) on the A52 but does not commit to a single, deliverable plan

Missing traffic modelling: The developers have not completed the traffic modelling requested by the authorities. There is no data on expected vehicle numbers, peak hour flows, or cumulative impacts

No costings: There are no estimates for the cost of junction upgrades, road widening, or mitigation measures (e.g. whether the A52 will need to be dualled)

Unclear responsibilities: It is not clear how responsibilities will be split between National Highways and Nottinghamshire County Council, or how coordination will be achieved

No mitigation strategy for Tollerton village: The SPD mentions traffic calming and possible closure of Tollerton Lane, but provides no actual proposals

­ How to Structure Your Objection

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

1. Quote the SPD

Refer to Sections 3.65 and 4.71–4.72, which discuss highways and traffic mitigation.

2. Highlight the Gaps

Explain that the SPD lacks:

A confirmed access strategy

Completed traffic modelling

Costed infrastructure proposals

3. Explain the Risks

Say why this matters:

The development may overwhelm both trunk  and local roads

Without modelling, mitigation cannot be planned

Residents of Tollerton and surrounding areas may face increased congestion and safety risks

4. Refer to Planning Policy

Mention:

NPPF Paragraph 110 (safe and suitable access)

NPPF Paragraph 111 (development should not have unacceptable impacts on highway safety)

Rushcliffe Local Plan Policy 19 (developer contributions)

5. Request Specific Changes

You could ask for:

  • Completion and publication of traffic modelling before SPD adoption
  • A single, deliverable access strategy agreed with National Highways and NCC
  • Costed mitigation measures for trunk and local roads
  • A clear plan for protecting Tollerton village from rat-running and congestion

­ Example Phrases for Reference

Please do adapt these into your own words:

“The SPD does not provide a clear or deliverable access strategy for the site.”

“Traffic modelling has not been completed, so the impact on the A52 and local roads is unknown.”

“There is no costing or funding plan for junction upgrades or mitigation.”

“Without concrete proposals, the SPD risks enabling development that will overwhelm local infrastructure.”

­Where to Send Your Objection:

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