Rural Kent for me means those parts of Kent outside the Greater London built-up area.
I have started using this term after reading the description of Kent County Amateur Swimming Association:
The former association (in the Greater London built-up area) belongs to the London Region and the latter association belongs to the South East region.
Worth saying that this is not a distinction anybody I know would use. I'd suggest very little of Kent considers itself against London, but against the rest of the county - and having towns and cities with a population close-to or exceeding 100,000 would definitely be considered urban, not only by the population, but by an insurance firm as well.
Insurance firms will have a huge amount of background data on the area, which is how they make their quotes. If a truly rural area (think 50 houses and fields) has had a particular crimewave recently, prices will be higher however idyllic it looks. Likewise, an urban area does not necessarily mean higher prices just because it looks a little down at heel - even the smartest neighbourhood could be a risk if there is nightlife in the area and the risk of damage on a Friday night if you on-street park.
To take one example locally, a regular street a mile or so away from the town centre, nothing particularly out of the ordinary ever happens except the odd prang... a party got out of hand, and the police had to be called to stop "youths" damaging cars, not least by walking over them and climbing on the bonnets and roofs. Numerous dents and smashed glass. Will there be a minor premium increase for all houses in the area next year? Maybe it might be considered a one-off and no, maybe it will invoke an increase, at least for the year.
As others have done across many threads, I strongly suggest you visit somewhere and get a feel for the place, rather than trying to draw random conclusions based on clicking around on a website with an incorrect starting premise!
If something is essential for your work then it isn't a luxury. I'm sure there are still plenty of rail commuters paying way more than £1714 for their season tickets.
(Hopefully this will automerge, I can't see how to add a second quote in post edit)
This is the key point: it's what you determine to be a luxury. Some
need a car to go about their business, so will opt for a car over travelling around the country to engage in enjoyable, but arguably unnecessary, sporting activities. By contrast, the OP places high value on those activities, so for him, they are the greater importance, although this has to be balanced over difficulties of getting there without the private transport. In further contrast, there are others for whom both a car and the activities are absolute luxuries.
I have, so far, chosen not to drive and accepted time penalties as a result because I'm mainly travelling for leisure nowadays. Would that still be the case if I hadn't spent life working in London and then from home? I hate to say it, but probably not.