This option is to be preferred to Options 1 and 2 in that it starts to make more efficient use of the land at CNFE and delivers a more significant amount of commercial development floorspace. However in common with all of the options, it aspires to a density of development around the station area that is not considered realistic or desirable. Paragraph 8.9 of the AAP states that "Higher densities have been included around the proposed new railway station similar to the CB1 development in Cambridge. No account has been taken in these redevelopment options of potential additional floorspace arising from intensification of existing Business/Science Parks or taller buildings." It is considered that this is inappropriate on the eastern periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area and specifically where the defined area meets open countryside. Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration that of increasing the density of existing business or other employment parks, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.