A growing church has been refused plans for a new gospel hall on grazing land in Rutland.

Ben Whyles, trustee of the Morcott-based Cavendish Gospel Hall Trust, wants to build the hall on land adjacent to 1 Stamford Road, Ketton,.

The 0.1ha site is presently a paddock, which also has the timber frame Springfield Stables, which would be replaced by the building, which would be used for worship, but not social events.

As Nub News previously reported, the hall would provide a local facility for about people from Ketton, Empingham and Tinwell.

The trust is part of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church. Currently the Stamford Congregation numbers 217 and has been increasing by around 10 members per annum.

However, a report by Rutland Council planning staff noted public consultation led to nine letters of objection.

Opponents were concerned about loss of habitat, anti-social hours of use, noise, light, disturbance, traffic and the scheme being contrary to local plans.

But the council also received 25 letters of support, with comments including the scheme was within walking distance of the village, was sustainable as it would reduce travelling and it would use waste land for a good purpose.

However, council planning staff noted the site is within the open countryside, where development is restricted to what has an essential need.

Their report said: "While there is general support for the development of new community facilities and places of worship in appropriate locations in local and national planning policy. Key consideration for this proposal is therefore whether the proposed site is an appropriate location.

It continued: "The comments from Planning Policy above set out the Local Planning Authority's position that the site is not in a sustainable location and is a car reliant site as opposed to offering sustainable transport links. This is echoed by the comments from the Highway Authority and local residents."

Council planning staff also concluded: "It is considered that the site is an unsustainable location, and reliant on car dominated trips, as opposed to sustainable transport links. There is no provision for walking or cycling to the site, and the proposed access and parking layout/provision is not acceptable. Furthermore there is no Ecology survey for bats and