Turnstone do not object per se to the potential inclusion of an element of housing within the CNFE AAP area. However, the objective must be to maximise employment opportunities from this site and this must be the absolute priority. The emerging Cambridge Local Plan is not reliant on new housing in this location to meet the Council's assessment of objectively assessed needs. Housing should only be pursued if there are site specific reasons for doing so on the fringes of the AAP area, and land is available and deliverable for these purposes.

The Movement/Transportation section of this Chapter (paragraph 6.8) appears to downplay the fact that the site is off a major north/south, east/west highway network with Milton Road, the A14 and the A10 all carrying high volumes of traffic including buses. These modes will remain important in terms of the long-term accessibility of the site, irrespective of capacity issues.

In light of odour issues detailed (see paragraph 6.11) relating to the WRC, it will be important for the AAP in its final form to provide the necessary promptings to encourage and facilitate modernisation of the WRC in a manner, and in a timescale, which will enable the potential of the AAP area to be maximised as a new employment cluster sitting alongside existing areas.

In a similar vein, the AAP will need to provide support to the concept of relocating non-conforming uses away from the area so that uses causing environmental impacts of an adverse nature are directed away from this location e.g. aggregate batching. It will be difficult to deliver the high quality of development aspired to if new employment uses need to sit alongside visually intrusive and environmentally unneighbourly land uses.

Any open space which is seen as a potential resource for local communities should be located proximate to those communities and should therefore be on the periphery of the CNFE AAP area. It would not be logical or desirable to try and accommodate public open space in the heart of a commercial business or science park and there would seem to be far greater logic for situation such space close to the new railway station, possibly as part of its public realm.

In terms of visual impact of new development, it is clear that there is scope for higher density development in this part of the City and also that there is potential for some taller buildings. However, as ever, locations for these need to be carefully considered and it is not thought there would be rationale for pursuing large scale buildings around the new station in the manner of CB1, even if these are moderated to reflect the edge of City location. The station location is on the very fringes of the AAP area, adjoining the Green Belt and open land beyond the travellers' sites to the east of the main railway line.

Turnstone consider that the better scope for denser, taller development will be more inboard of the AAP area, towards its centre, with the scale of development generally reducing at its margins.

Paragraph 6.16 of the AAP Issues and Options report identifies infrastructure providing important services for Greater Cambridge and which need to be taken into account in any future development proposals. The absence of the new railway station seems to be an odd omission. It is also suggested that it should be acknowledged that there is potential for future changes to the WRC and the aggregates railhead so they are both possible variable constraints.