Stable conversion to one home at Land At Aldgate Farm Aldgate, Ketton

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Rutland Planning Committee on 24 Feb 2026.

2025/0933/FULRefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application sought to convert an existing stable into one self-build home, with a rear extension, patio, residential curtilage and retained boundary landscaping.

“Application: 2025/0933/FUL ITEM 5 Proposal: Change of use and conversion of existing stable building to form 1 residential dwelling (Use Class C3) including a single-storey rear extension, installation of a rear patio and formation of a curtilage with retention of all existing boundary landscaping.”

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks permission to change the use of the stable into a single dwelling, the erection of a single storey rear extension, the installation of a rear patio and the formation of a residential curtilage. The proposal would be a self-build dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a landscaped parcel at the northern point of Aldgate, with a timber stable, paddock, vehicle access and parking and turning space.

“Site & Surroundings 1. The site is located at the northern point of Aldgate and comprises a parcel of land accommodating a timber stable building and paddock. There is a vehicular access onto Aldgate and hardstanding within the site for parking and turning. The building is set well into the site which is well landscaped. Proposal 2.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permission covered stabling, fencing, access and a relocated stile, while a later Class Q dwelling proposal was refused.

“Application F/1990/0652 Erection of stabling and stock-proof post and rail fence to provide secure grazing land, construction of vehicular access and turning space and relocation of stile - Approved.”

“2025/0234/PAD Class Q change of use from agriculture to a single dwelling with associated building work – Prior Approval Refused on the following ground:”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in principle and would not cause undue harm to visual, residential, highway, flood, ecological or heritage interests.

“06/06/2023 V1 Conclusion The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, with no undue harm on the grounds of visual amenity, landscape, heritage, residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk, ecology, trees or use of the public footpath. It is acknowledged that objections have been received; however, on balance, it is not considered the application could be reasonably resisted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while the Highway Authority, flood, rights of way, forestry, ecology and archaeology consultees raised no objection subject to specified measures.

“Ketton Parish Council Object on the grounds of flood risk, not consistent with the Neighbourhood Plan on the grounds of the important open space, outside development limits, impact on the footpath, contary to policy SP6, increase in traffic. Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions and informatives. LLFA No objection subject to conditions. PROW No objection subject to an informative.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Eight representations objected over policy compliance, local character, green infrastructure, traffic, precedent, alternative uses, flooding, countryside location and the conservation area.

“Below is a summary of the comments. Full details can be viewed on the Council’s website.”

“A total of 8 representations were received, objecting on the grounds of non-compliance with policy, impact on local character and green infrastructure, traffic and safety concerns especially in close proximity to a play area, risk of setting a precedent, the proposal would double the size of the building, no attempt to find a non-residential use, increase of flood risk, in the countryside and impact on the conservation area.”

Officer report

What members debated

Members questioned alternative-use marketing, flood modelling and residual risk, and raised concerns about important open space, protected views, trees, hedgerows and historic village character.

“Maggie Pearson, Flood Risk Officer, explained that the applicant's flood risk assessment used Environment Agency’s hydraulic modelling from 2016, which showed the site was above the one in 1000 year plus climate change flood level, and that planning conditions would require finished floor levels to be raised and flood resilience measures to be implemented.”

“Members highlighted that the site was designated as an important open space in the Ketton’s Neighbourhood Plan and was adjacent to protected views, arguing that the proposal would harm the character of the historic village core. The removal of trees…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members first rejected a motion to approve by ten votes to one, then unanimously supported a motion to refuse the application.

“After further debate, the committee discussed to refuse the application, citing the lack of evidence for marketing the building for alternative uses, unresolved concerns about flood risk based on local knowledge and photographic evidence, and conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan Policy regarding Local Green Space KT8. Officers summarised the grounds for refusal, including policy SP6, the National Planning Policy Framework, and the Ketton Neighbourhood Plan.”

“Upon being put to the vote, with nine votes in favour, the motion was unanimously carried.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The resolution gives these reasons:

“For the reasons set out above. b) The full list of conditions can be found on the planning application page of the Council’s website: https://www.rutland.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and- building-control/planning/view-planningapplications-and-decisions/ 5b”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Sources

  • Rutland Planning Committee minutes, 24 February 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Rutland's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Council
Rutland
Date
Tuesday 24 February 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Vote
Unanimous
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

15 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →