Tollerton residents and the Parish Council have been left frustrated and angry after their attempts to question how Rushcliffe Borough Council propose to allow development on the Tollerton Airport site were refused permission to be put to the leaders of the council – and an extraordinary twist has emerged in the Council’s approach to the planning of the consultation on the proposals.
Rushcliffe Borough Council has a process where borough residents are allowed to submit questions to be asked at the start of Full Council and Cabinet. Just 15 minutes is allowed for questions but even this is very rarely taken up by any questions at all.
Ahead of the Full Council meeting on 27th November, questions regarding the process for developing the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) including what dialogue was had with the County Council about roads and how the Rushcliffe was going to comply with the decision made in 2014 about a ‘Green Buffer’ to protect the existing village of Tollerton were submitted.
The proposals within the SPD will enable the construction of 4000+ new homes across the Airfield site and the wider area.
Despite being submitted ahead of the deadline and being in line with Rushcliffe’s own policy for accepting questions, none were accepted for response at the Full Council meeting.
Rushcliffe Borough Council have claimed that the questions were not acceptable as they would be dealt with when the Council’s response to the consultation on the SPD was published.
The questions which local residents intended to ask Rushcliffe Borough Council can be seen at the end of this article.
This is a shocking decision by Rushcliffe Borough Council to avoid scrutiny of its flawed SPD document and poorly organised consultation. The claimed rationale for rejecting the questions is clearly spurious – these questions were about the process and next steps for the consideration of the consultation on the SPD, not about the substance of the document as Rushcliffe have claimed. Tollerton residents are being poorly served by our local elected representatives and the Council itself. When a public authority can’t even bring itself to allow 15 minutes of discussion about such an important topic it is clear that something has gone badly wrong with normal standards of democracy
Tollerton Parish Council
No records kept
Since this debacle the likely reason that RBC were so reluctant to face any questions on their proposals has emerged.
In an extraordinary development, Rushcliffe Borough Council admitted on 8th December 2025 that there are no written records of how the consultation was developed, planned and approved.
In a response to a Freedom of Information Act request for the records of how the consultation was developed, planned and delivered, Rushcliffe Borough Council have admitted that, “the precise details of the consultation were operational matters which did not necessitate the documentation of alternative options and recommendations. As such, there is no documentation which exists, as all decisions on this subject were made verbally”. 
The full Freedom of Information Act request is listed below.
This means that there are more written records of the second hand Christmas jumper sale at the primary school than there are for the consultation for the proposed development on the airport site of 4000 homes.
This also means that there are more written records in your own household of which bus to get to your work Christmas party than there are for the consultation for the proposed development on the airport site of 4000 homes.
This undoubtedly means that there are more written records within Rushcliffe Borough Council regarding the colour of the lid for the new glass recycling bins than there are for the consultation for the proposed development on the airport site of 4000 homes.
No questions allowed to be asked on a critical development for Tollerton.
No records kept by our local council on how they planned to hear from local residents.
No engagement from our local elected member.
The questions which were never even allowed to be asked by Rushcliffe Borough Council…
Could the Portfolio Holder comment on the feedback received from Nottinghamshire County Council regarding the Supplementary Planning Document for the land north of Tollerton, east of Gamston including “Critically the draft SPD does not adequately address the need for safe and improved pedestrian and cycle links between the site and the existing Gamston area beyond the A52”, “Crossings over the A52 are inadequate”, “The viability of safe and suitable provision [of connections to Gamston] has not been demonstrated as part of the SPD” and “The pedestrian cycle link across the A52 interfacing directly with Ambleside is Unsafe”. Why is there such a mis-match between Rushcliffe’s plans for this development area and the opinions of the Highways professionals at Nottinghamshire County Council?
In 2014 the Rushcliffe Local Plan was adopted which included land north of Tollerton and East of Gamston to be allocated as housing. The Local Plan includes a provision that there should be “permanent defensible Green Belt boundaries between the development and Tollerton and Bassingfield”. Does the cabinet member consider that the recently consulted upon Supplementary Planning Document for the land north of Tollerton, east of Gamston adequately follow through with this legal requirement? Does the cabinet member consider a ‘bund’ or a ‘green edge’ or indeed some landscaping with a ‘surface water attenuation’ to fulfil either the spirit or the letter of that commitment in the Local Plan?
What does the Cabinet member think about Nottinghamshire County Council’s comments on RBC’s Supplementary Planning Document for the land north of Tollerton, east of Gamston, as recently revealed through an FOI request? In particular what are his thoughts on the embarrassingly long list of omissions including the complete lack of a Highways plan. Will he commit to publishing any correspondence with the Highways Authority, Nottinghamshire County Council regarding what to include in the SPD on Highways matters?
Could the Portfolio Holder comment on the feedback received from Nottinghamshire County Council regarding the Supplementary Planning Document for the land north of Tollerton, east of Gamston including the view that a proposal to “reduce the level of vehicular traffic travelling through Tollerton village and vice versa, and further deter rat running” will, in the view of Nottinghamshire County Council “fundamentally not work”. Will the Portfolio Holder commit to visiting Tollerton and the location identified for this proposal at a morning and evening rush-hour to observe the traffic and will they further agree to report back on their observations at a future meeting?
The Freedom of Information Act request to Rushcliffe Borough Council…
Please provide all documents that supported the decision-making regarding the arrangements for the Consultation on the ‘East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document’ that concluded on 5 November 2025.
In this instance documents means but is not limited to emails, formal proposals, discussion papers and notes of meetings.
In particular please provide documents which offer options and recommendations relating to any of;
- The commencement date of the consultation.
- The length of the consultation.
- The location and number of public meetings related to the consultation.
- The methods by which the consultation would be publicised to the residents of Tollerton Parish.
- The format and style of the documents supporting the consultation, including any consideration of the production of “Easy Read”, simplified, Braille, video or recorded versions.
- The mechanisms by which consultees could provide their feedback.
- The identity of key stakeholders and consultees, including statutory consultees.
- The techniques and strategies to reach and hear from residents with protected characteristics as defined under the Equality Act 2010.
- Consideration of the Gunning Principles for consultations.
Other arrangements for the conduct of this consultation.