Although much of the Greater Cambridge area has a dispersed settlement pattern, the draft plan does not support the ‘organic’ growth of smaller settlements. To ensure that local housing needs can be fulfilled and prevent any further loss of key local services, a more flexible and tolerant approach is needed towards development in the rural area.

Through the application of tightly drawn settlement boundaries, development is strictly controlled on sites in the ‘open countryside’. But it is not logical to treat all sites equally in policy terms. Whilst sites within sensitive valued landscapes and the green belt should receive a high level of protection, the sensitive development of some sites on the edge of a village would cause no significant harm. Such a pragmatic approach is often taken at appeal. For example, rounding off development where there is a defensible physical boundary or allowing a high-quality development with extensive landscaping where it would soften an existing harsh area of built form can be acceptable in certain locations.

Furthermore, for minor rural centres such as Linton, the current strategy to restrict schemes to an indicative maximum of 30 dwellings within settlement boundaries will not deliver the quantum of development required to meet the pressing local need for affordable homes. As a result, the affordability crisis will deepen in the rural area. For example, to deliver 25 affordable homes within Linton, a minimum of 63 dwellings will need to be permitted as part of major developments. With limited scope for development within the tightly drawn settlement boundary, it will be necessary to find suitable locations on the edge of the village. To discourage the development of less suitable sites and assist in the delivery of much needed affordable housing, the most logical approach is to allocate further sites on the edge of sustainable villages such as Linton.

In summary, a carefully worded criteria-based policy which was supportive of organic growth adjacent to existing built-up areas should not perpetuate unfettered incremental growth.