Village · 181 residents
Fair · among the lowest-scoring villages
Check Local Score out of 100 · 60 is typical for the country
Each arc is a topic, coloured by its score
Map outline: Official built-up area
Shudy Camps scores 50/100 overall, which the scorecard rates as fair — 60 is typical for the country.
It stands out for safety (82).
It scores lowest on food & drink (29) and transport (31).
Scores come from official data on safety, schools, transport, prices, health, food & drink and the local environment, for Shudy Camps in East of England, each measured against the national average.
Shudy Camps is the kind of place where the houses do the talking and there isn't much else competing for your attention — a scatter of period cottages and a few newer infill homes, fields on every side, and barely enough people to fill a large office. This is deep rural Cambridgeshire, not a commuter satellite with a parade of shops; there's no high street scene to describe because there isn't one.
The numbers back up what you'd sense walking round: a population you could count in the tens rather than thousands, and a median age pushing 51 tells you this is a settled, older community rather than a starter-home magnet. Housing here is almost entirely freehold houses — semi-detached and detached in even measure, with terraces making up the rest — and a For Sale board on this street means a proper house with land around it, not a flat conversion. At a median of £375,000, property runs cheaper than the South Cambridgeshire average by around ten percent, though still comfortably above the national median, which puts Shudy Camps in that particular rural bracket where land is plentiful but wages and infrastructure haven't caught up to city prices. For schooling, Castle Camps Church of England Primary sits in the village orbit, a small voluntary controlled school with just over a hundred pupils — the kind of place where your child would be known by name, though there's no Ofsted rating on record here to lean on.
Day-to-day life is quiet by design. Green space is minimal in formal terms — under half a hectare logged locally — but that undersells it: you're surrounded by open countryside, so a managed park is beside the point when the fields themselves are the amenity. There's no rail station in the picture, no bus network worth naming, and full-fibre broadband reaches a little over half of properties, which matters more than it once did if you're working from home out here. Healthcare and connectivity both land in the middle of the national pack rather than standing out either way. Crime is genuinely low in absolute terms — a handful of incidents across the year, split mostly between violent/sexual offences, anti-social behaviour, and burglary in the kind of small numbers where one or two incidents swing the percentages — and safety is graded well above the national average, holding steady rather than improving or worsening. That's the quiet spine of the place: an otherwise unremarkable set of scores around housing and transport, sitting underneath a strong safety picture that residents clearly feel and value.
This suits people who've made peace with distance — from shops, from stations, from the pace of anywhere bigger — in exchange for space, quiet, and a level of safety that's hard to find once you're back inside a town boundary. It's less suited to anyone who needs a rail commute or a wide choice of schools on the doorstep; those compromises are real and worth sitting with before you commit to a postcode this small.
Data last updated: 19 October 2026
Pick another area to line them up side by side — the verdict, both Check Local Scores, and what actually separates them.