The consultation document proposes that this Policy will group together “similar settlements into categories that reflect their scale, characteristics and sustainability”. For each category, it is proposed that the Policy will also set out the scale of development that would be considered acceptable through windfall applications on unallocated sites.

Categories
The approach proposed is very similar to that set out in the adopted South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, including the following categories:
• City
• Town
• Rural Centre
• Minor Rural Centre
• Group Village
• Infill Village

Supporting text (page 47-48) states that “an updated assessment of settlements has been carried out, informed by the level of services and facilities, education, public transport and employment available at each settlement”. It proposes to change the position of only three settlements: Cambourne, Cottenham and Babraham. We have no objection to these three changes. However, given that the categorisations are stated to be based on an assessment of existing services, we believe that it is premature to include both Waterbeach New Town as one of three ‘Towns’ (alongside Cambourne and Northstowe) and to include Bourn Airfield New Village as one of four ‘Rural Centres’ (alongside Histon & Impington, Great Shelford & Stapleford and Sawston). Given the stage of development at both locations, these categorisations are not consistent with the approach taken to assessing existing settlements. They are based entirely on the future development of these strategic sites.

We consider that the policy approach is confusing and should be clarified. If the revised Settlement Hierarchy is to consider not only the existing levels of services and facilities within a settlement, but also the settlement’s potential as a location for sustainable future growth during the plan period, then this approach should be taken to all of the villages. In the absence of this evidence and approach, the strategy is inherently flawed. Where a village lacks existing services for its size, the development plan offers the potential to address that lack of provision in a planned manner.

We are strongly of the view that, based on a current assessment, Hardwick Village should be re-classified as a ‘Minor Rural Centre’ within the Settlement Hierarchy. However, if the future development potential of the village is to be taken into consideration (as per Waterbeach New Town and Bourn Airfield New Village), then Hardwick Village should be identified as a ‘Rural Centre’ and a key location for sustainable development.

The Site Assessment findings are set out in Topic Paper 1 (page 246 onwards). The text on Hardwick is as follows:
“Hardwick has a population of 2,550. It has a high proportion aged between 16 and 69 (70%) and a low proportion of the population is over 70 (10%). Hardwick does not have a secondary school. It has good public transport links as it is on the Citi 4 bus route, although the bus stop is approx. 10-minute walk from the village centre. It is also on the planned Greater Cambridge Partnership route between Cambourne and Cambridge and is awarded an additional point for transport to reflect this. Although well connected, Hardwick does not offer a range of shops and services to warrant moving up the hierarchy. It is in close proximity to the proposed new settlement at Bourn Airfield which will perform as a centre for the surrounding rural hinterland.”

Firstly, it is important to note that the planned centre for Bourn Airfield is 3.5km (as the crow flies) from Hardwick. Further, development is yet to progress at Bourn, has been subject to delay and uncertainty, and will take at least 10 years to deliver a centre that can serve the wider area. In this context; (a) why should residents of Hardwick have to travel 3.5km to additional services at Bourn, when it can be provided in the village; (b) why should residents of Hardwick be subject to the uncertainty over what comes forward there; and (c) why should they have to wait 10 years for these to be available? Travel to Bourn (for what is likely to be limited local services that could be provided in Hardwick) is not considered to be a sustainable strategy.

Whilst somewhat dispersed between the old village core, the 1970s village centre and St Neots Road, there are a range of facilities within Hardwick. These include: a school, pre-school, post office, pub, village store, veterinary surgery and a range of additional shops and services on Cambridge Road and St Neots Road (beauty, hairdressers, pet shop, cafe, tutoring services, etc). In addition, there is an active social club at the recreation ground and a number of community, sport and church groups.

Hardwick scores strongly in terms of accessibility (markedly better than Bourn) to Cambridge and occupies a sustainable location that will benefit from the Cambourne-to-Cambridge public transport scheme, once implemented. In the meantime, the Citi 4 bus route provides a fast and efficient route along St Neots Road with as many bus services as Cambourne and yet benefiting from being significantly closer to Cambridge. In addition, there are safe cycle routes and Hardwick is a commutable cycling distance from both Cambridge and Cambourne. It would seem entirely appropriate to plan for the local needs of Hardwick within the village (as opposed to reliance on Bourn Airfield), given that Hardwick is closer to Cambridge, which will serve its broader needs.

At the strategic scale, Hardwick lies within the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford (CAMKOX) arc, a key focus for future infrastructure improvement including East West Rail.

Recent developments in Hardwick include Grace Crescent and Land south of St Neots Road. Like the previous Meridian Close development, both of these recent developments were unallocated, windfall sites. However, each site was granted planning permission for major residential development – of a scale much greater than the thresholds suggested for Group Villages within the second part of S/SH (see below). The Green Belt designation has led to the development of Hardwick extending westward from the centre of the village. Our proposed development site at ‘Land east of Cambridge Road’ (Site No. 40414) provides a strategic opportunity for the future sustainable development of the settlement.

Limits of Windfall Developments
It is proposed in the consultation document that S/SH should place a restriction on individual housing scheme size, based on the categorisation of the village in question within the Settlement Hierarchy. This proposes that Cambridge, the Towns and Rural Centres have no limit on windfall scheme size. However, the following are suggested for the remainder of the Hierarchy:
• Minor Rural Centre: indicative maximum scheme size of 30 dwellings.
• Group Village: indicative maximum scheme size of 8 dwellings, and exceptionally consist of up to about 15 dwellings where this would make the best use of a single brownfield site.
• Infill Village: indicative maximum scheme size of 2 dwellings, and exceptionally consist of up to about 8 dwellings where this would lead to the sustainable reuse of a brownfield site bringing positive overall benefit to the village.

We object to this policy approach, and do not consider that these limits should be included as they are overly restrictive and inflexible. We would highlight the policy approach set out in NPPF (paragraph 78) for rural housing:
“In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.”

Particularly given the lack of village allocations that are proposed in the consultation document, it is important that the policy allows adequate flexibility to respond to needs – which should be the subject of a more rigorous and informative assessment of settlements. As mentioned previously, one of the benefits of allowing medium- and large-scale housing development within villages is that it facilitates the delivery of affordable housing. By comparison, schemes of 2-8 dwellings will rarely include affordable accommodation and therefore does little to address existing or emerging local need.

As mentioned above, Hardwick is currently categorised as a Group Village and yet the scale of windfall developments permitted in recent years has been significantly larger than the thresholds suggested in S/SH. This is considered to provide further evidence that the village should be re-categorised to a higher tier of settlement in the hierarchy. Taking into account recent and ongoing development within Hardwick, and the settlement’s potential within the Plan Period – including the development of the promoted site at land east of Cambridge Road (Site No. 40414) – it is realistic that Hardwick be re-categorised as a Rural Centre.