Council meetings - Questions from Councillors and Responses

Questions from Councillors and Responses

The following questions and responses are provided where there is not sufficient time in a meeting for these questions to be asked.

Council 17 September 2026

Question - Cllr Birch

Do you agree that the Seven Principles of Public Life, commonly known as the Nolan Principles, should underpin the conduct, decisions and actions of all elected members of this Council?

Response - Cllr Clarke

Yes. The Nolan Principles are the foundation of ethical public service and should guide the conduct, decisions and actions of all elected members. That expectation is already reflected in the Council's governance framework, Constitution and Members' Code of Conduct, and I fully endorse it.

Question - Cllr Jen Walker

Following the UKHSA’s conclusion that an updated radiological assessment at Tollerton Park is justified due to ground disturbance since 2008, this Council chose to rely on a voluntary request to the site owners. Given the total lack of response from the site owners, does the Leader agree that waiting indefinitely leaves a vulnerable community exposed to unnecessary anxiety? If so, what immediate steps will this Council take to step in, fund, and execute the investigation themselves, ensuring that the health and safety of Tollerton Park residents is never outsourced to the compliance of uncooperative landlords?
 
Response - Cllr Inglis
 
Firstly I think it’s important to clarify that the Council did not choose to rely on a voluntary request to the site owner. The reality is the Council’s ‘choice’ in the matter is clearly set out in the national contaminated land regulatory framework and the Council would be putting itself at risk of a legal challenge if it strayed beyond that remit. 
 
As a Local Authority our powers and responsibilities with respect to the investigation of potential radioactive contaminated land are set out in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the associated Radioactive Contaminated Land (Modification of Enactments)(England) Regulations 2006 and Statutory Guidance (Radioactive contaminated land: statutory guidance - June 2018). These set out clearly when a Local Authority should seek to take action under Part 2A and the process the Local Authority needs to follow when this course of action is deemed appropriate.

Under Part 2A the starting point should be that land is not radioactive contaminated land unless there is reason to consider otherwise. Only land where unacceptable risks are clearly identified, after a risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Statutory Guidance, should be considered as meeting the Part 2A definition of “contaminated land”. The trigger for a local authority to cause land to be inspected is where it considers that there are reasonable grounds for believing that land may be radioactive contaminated land.

The Statutory Guidance states a local authority will have such reasonable grounds where it has knowledge of relevant information relating to (a) a former historical land use, past practice, past work activity or emergency, capable of causing lasting exposure giving rise to the radiation doses set out in the Statutory Guidance; or (b) levels of contamination present on the land arising from a past practice, past work activity or emergency, capable of causing lasting exposure giving rise to the radiation doses set out in the Statutory Guidance.
 
As stated in previous responses and in our communications with both the site owner and residents, the works undertaken back in 2008 by Rushcliffe BC, in conjunction with a range of partners, concluded that the site did not meet the statutory definition of contaminated land and our recent review has not identified any reasonable grounds to suggest that this conclusion is no longer valid.
 
The Part 2A regime is one of several ways in which land contamination can be addressed. For example, land contamination can be addressed when land is developed (or redeveloped) under the planning system, during the building control process, or where action is taken independently by landowners. Our conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for further investigation under the Part 2A regime does not preclude other parties including the site owner from taking action to allay any residual concerns that local residents may have around potential radioactive contamination at the site and the Council will continue to encourage the site owner in this regard.