As indicated in our responses to Questions 12 and 13, Turnstone consider that the key is that the CNFE is developed as an exemplar commercial-led employment site at a density that is appropriate to this edge of City location. That implies a mixture of densities but adopting the higher densities envisaged in Options 3 and 4, but appropriately sited. Densities should be graduated so that highest density parcels are delivered within the centre of the site and where it connects with existing commercial sites such as Cambridge Business Park, Cambridge Science Park and St John's Innovation Park. At its eastern edges, the scale and form of development should 'break down' and reduce in order to provide an acceptable interface with the edge of the City and the transition into open countryside and Green Belt beyond the main railway line.

Turnstone consider that if housing is to be included - and the case for it is not clear - then it should not be at a level any more significant than proposed in either of Options 3 or 4.

Question 12 Response to "Do you support option 3?":
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 periphery of the AAP area and density, scale and massing should generally fall as one reaches the edges of the defined AAP area, except where the AAP area meets with large scale commercial premises on other established sites such as the Cambridge Business Park and St John's Innovation Park. In a similar vein, Turnstone also consider that there is no obvious reason why the AAP should not include as a perfectly reasonable objective/aspiration to increase the density of existing business or other employment parks nearby, as there is evidence that there is scope for intensification.

Question 13 Response to "Do you support option 4?":
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.