See attached [below]

12.1 Option 3 relates to a higher level of development and assumes that Anglian Water will decide on a significant reduction in its site area and a consolidation to the eastern part of the area close to the railway line. The presence of the Anglian Water site will still mean that the edge of the
new development area will be formed by appropriate employment uses (B2 and B8) more compatible with such a large infrastructure facility. Beyond this ring of employment uses, a series of further B1 and research and development uses is proposed, which would complement the area
around the St John's Innovation Park as well as those uses on the Cambridge Business Park. New residential space around the station and on Nuffield Road would create a better balance of activities and increase the sustainability credentials in this part of the City.

12.2 Option 3 recognises and acknowledges the development potential around the St John's Innovation Park in terms of being able to maximise employment and investment opportunities through new floorspace. As stated in response to Q10 and Q11, it is important that one major
objective of the Plan - to maximise employment opportunities - is afforded across the existing employment areas within the CNFE and this is entirely consistent with the findings in the SQW report. No logical differentiation can be maintained between the opportunities for new employment floorspace afforded on the Cambridge Business Park and those at the St John's Innovation Park. We fail to understand why the Innovation Park has not been identified for plot intensification with Options 1 and 2

12.3 In addition, we note that the proposed household waste recycling centre/recycling facility continues to be a land use proposed in the northern part of the Plan area. Option 3 is worse than Options 1 and 2 because under this option the facility shifts westwards and even closer to the Vitrum building on the St John's Innovation Park. Our response to Q10 has highlighted the inappropriateness of such a land use in close proximity to B1 offices and research and development uses as a result of noise, dust and other environmental impacts. We object strongly to such an industrial use being located in close proximity to high technology uses, which remain a key component of the City's economic profile and a driver of regional and national growth. Even if such a facility is in a covered building, we cannot see how its proposed location provides a suitable neighbour to the existing clean, high technology uses already on site.

12.4 We therefore cannot support Option 3