Bridge Farm Luffenham Road Ketton Rutland PE9 3RN Data via plota.co.uk

Proposal

Proposed replacement Gospel Hall (Use Class F.1[f]) with extended car parking, lighting, landscaping and conversion of existing building to employment (Use Class E[g][iii], B2 and B8). Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
2 Jan 2026
✓
Consultation
2 Mar 2026
✓
Committee
17 Mar 2026
✓
Approved
8 Jun 2026

Approved on 8 Jun 2026 · Committee Decision · Last checked 1 Aug 2026

Planning committee

Decided by Rutland Planning Committee on 17 Mar 2026.

Approved unanimously

As officers recommended.

  • Officers advised approval because the established rural facility, employment reuse, design, highways and biodiversity measures were acceptable.
  • Consultees raised no objections and 15 public comments supported the improved hall, parking, safety, landscaping and employment reuse.
  • Members unanimously approved the application with eleven votes in favour, subject to conditions and a biodiversity net gain agreement.
Read how the committee decided The proposal, site history, officers’ assessment, public views, committee debate, vote and decision. Includes the meeting recording

Source: Plota analysis of Rutland's committee minutes of 17 Mar 2026.

Documents 57

Consultation & comments 24

PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 15 May 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 12 Mar 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 25 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 17 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 5 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 5 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 3 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 3 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 2 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 2 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 2 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 2 Feb 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 30 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 29 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 29 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 29 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 29 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 28 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 28 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 26 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 26 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 26 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 23 Jan 2026 View ↗
PDF Commenter’s name hidden Show Representations · 20 Jan 2026 View ↗

All documents on the council site ↗

Site constraints 2

Agricultural land, grade 3a
Best and most versatile land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Source: the Predictive Agricultural Land Classification Map (Defra and Natural England, 2025; the Welsh Government's Predictive ALC Map 2 in Wales), a model rather than a site survey. Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) agrees.
Where development of farmland is needed, policy prefers poorer land over the best and most versatile (grades 1, 2 and 3a). Three sources: Natural England's post-1988 field surveys, which are definitive where they exist; the Defra predictive map for England (2025) and the Welsh Government predictive map, modelled from the soil map with 3a and 3b split; and the 1970s provisional map, which planners and other services still show, coarser and with grade 3 undivided. Where the provisional and predicted grades disagree, treat the predicted grade as the current estimate and expect an application to carry its own survey.
Habitat network: Network Expansion Zone
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · Not green belt · No listed building at the site

Checked on 11 September 2026. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Rutland - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Council
Rutland
Application type
Full Application
Postcode
PE9 3YA
Received
2 Jan 2026
Validated
2 Jan 2026
Ward
Ketton Ward
Parish
Ketton Parish Council
Case officer
Show
Target decision
3 Apr 2026
Decision
Approve
Decision date
8 Jun 2026
Decision level
Committee Decision
Applicant
Show
Agent
Andrew Beard Planning

How this decision compares

Decided in 157 days from validation, 101 days slower than Rutland's median of 56 for demolitions. Approved, as 83% of demolitions here are.

66%decided within 8 weeks
83%approved
34decided in the last year

Plota live figures for demolitions decided by Rutland in the last twelve months, from validation. Rutland decision record →

Public comments

No public comments yet.

16 neighbours consulted · Last counted 1 Aug 2026

Read the comments on the council site ↗

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14424756
Consultation
2 Mar 2026
Comments by
2 Mar 2026
Site or press notice
22 Jan 2026
Committee
17 Mar 2026
Env. assessment
No
Rutland
Planning Authority Score
6.2/10
Average
#93 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Householder decisions

Rutland is faster than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #87 out of 296. Householder applications are slightly more likely to be approved here (92%) than the national average (90%).

Faster than most councils
for householder decisions
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Rutland decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
89%
Overall approval rate
Above avg (87%) #142 of 296
92%
Householder approved
Above avg (90%) #164 of 296
74%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #87 of 296
34%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #91 of 296
65%
Minor dwellings approved
43 decided (1-9 homes)
87%
Major dwellings approved
15 decided (10+ homes)
83%
Change of use approved
24 decided
520
Total decisions
57 refused in the year to March 2026