Objection is raised in respect of the proposed approach to settlement boundaries (and rural settlements more widely). In this regard, the policy approach of including the present extent of the built up area, and deliberately excluding farm buildings even if they are contiguous with or within the settlement, stifles opportunities to deliver much needed growth at rural settlements, many of which within the Plan area would positively benefit from new development through opportunities to deliver affordable housing for local people, as well as much needed growth and investment into communities. If settlement boundaries are to be defined, the Plan approach should be adapted to include obvious development opportunities, such as large-scale farm buildings contiguous with existing settlements within the settlement boundaries. These buildings are frequently unsightly, overly dominant in scale and give rise to amenity complaints, making them bad neighbour uses. Their redevelopment can deliver significant planning benefits, yet they are needlessly hindered by an unjustified approach to settlement boundaries that precludes them from being brought forward.

Bury Farm in Meldreth is a relevant case example, where a large scale farm complex within/adjoining the settlement of Meldreth, with bus and rail services adjoining, is needlessly excluded from coming forward as a windfall site, despite the potential to deliver a highly sustainable development, comparable with or superior to most development sites in the Plan area.

The policy approach of precluding farm buildings/sites beyond settlement boundaries from being developed is irrational. There are very few allocations at rural settlements in the draft Plan, there are very few windfall sites within such settlements and the Plan can ill afford to ignore and hinder such an obvious and suitable source of supply.