The proposed settlement hierarchy will not be effective at delivering required levels of growth to support the vitality of rural villages. Policy S/SH proposes to continue the current policy allowance for certain sized developments to come forwards in each tier of the settlement hierarchy, but in combination with Policy S/SB it will only allow development on sites that are within settlement boundaries.

For the majority of villages, current settlement boundaries are drawn tightly around the built up area and there are few if any sites suitable for redevelopment within them. As set out under Policy S/DS, to resolve this issue, we consider that some growth should be allocated to all settlements or a flexible policy should be adopted to allow a certain level of development on the edge of all villages according to their position in the settlement hierarchy. One such flexible policy would be to draw settlement boundaries more loosely so that they include small sites promoted for development on the outskirts of villages. In this way, it would be possible allow suitable sites to come forward under Policy S/SB.

We are also concerned that the proposed settlement hierarchy has not sufficiently distinguished between the sustainability of settlements based on access to high quality public transport connections. In this respect, we note that the accompanying assessment (Greater Cambridge Local Plan: Topic paper 1: Strategy (Settlement Hierarchy Review appendix) gives 1 point for settlements that are within 8km of Cambridge or a market town (where active travel is deemed possible) and 1 point for settlements with a railway station. It is clearly absurd to suggest that being able to cycle 8km to a nearby town is as sustainable as being able to walk to a railway station. People will not generally cycle 8km to work, but they will get on a train.