Controversial Ketton Housing Plan Approved by Rutland County Council Despite Strong Local Objections
Video to follow:
Rutland County Council has controversially approved a major residential development for 41 new dwellings on land off Manor Green in Ketton. The decision to grant planning permission, application 2025/0267/MAF, was made despite a high number of objections from local residents and a formal objection from the Ketton Parish Council.
The application is a resubmission of an earlier, comparable proposal (2022/0066/MAF) that had been refused by the Council and subsequently dismissed at appeal by a Planning Inspector.
Objections Centered on Highways and Rural Character
The local opposition was significant, with the Ketton Parish Council leading the objections on multiple grounds. The main points of concern included the development being on a greenfield site, outside the village's planned development limits, and the loss of valued green space.
Crucially, the Parish Council raised specific concerns about highway safety, citing issues with pedestrian footfall, access, existing parking pressures, and the increased creation of traffic that the development would generate.
Housing Shortfall Tips the Balance
The key to the application's current approval—despite the earlier appeal dismissal—was a fundamental shift in the planning balance.
The initial application was refused in June 2023 on the grounds that it conflicted with the development plan because the Council could demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years. However, following the publication of the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024, Rutland County Council can no longer demonstrate the required five-year housing land supply.
This shortfall immediately engaged the 'tilted balance' outlined in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, which creates a presumption in favour of granting permission for sustainable development.
The Council's officers noted that the lack of a five-year supply "tilts the balance in favour of an approval". This procedural change meant that existing local policies against the development were considered "out-of-date," making it highly difficult to refuse permission without strong, demonstrable adverse impacts. The ultimate decision to approve, subject to conditions, was therefore driven by the need to urgently address the housing numbers shortfall and the consequential risk of losing a costly appeal to the developer under the tilted balance rules.
While acknowledging the high number of objections, the approval allows for the provision of 41 homes, including a commitment to 37% affordable housing (15 dwellings), open space, and ecological enhancements, which were deemed significant benefits that outweighed the local harm under the new planning rules.
