Question 24d

We need to be aware of additional traffic as part of this development

With extra housing well back from the road and provided with adequate parking facilities and green spaces

No comment.

No.

No comment

Potential for relocation of uses beyond the AAP boundary should also be considered as creates a greater opportunity for the area.

There is no strong preference on the Nuffield Road options but there are two comments: (i.) a flexible mix may be most appropriate to allow the market to respond but avoid the redevelopment of the site for 100% residential given the opportunity of this site to attract employment generating uses in this location. (ii.) The site adjoins the proposed guided busway route and has good accessibility on foot to the new station, therefore it would logical to locate more intensive employment uses on the site.

Turnstone does not object per se to the possibility of some or all of the Nuffield Road estate being redeveloped for housing if that is considered locally to be a more appropriate use for the area having regard to access constraints. Turnstone however notes that it is not essential to develop this land for housing and the City Council is not reliant on it to meet its housing targets in the emerging Local Plan. It is noted that one of the suggested provisos to the possible development of this land for housing is that uses should be relocated within CNFE. Two points can be made here. The first is that it may be the case that not all occupiers of the Nuffield Road estate wish to move at all and they ought not to be forced to. The second point is that even if they are willing to be displaced it should not be automatically assumed that they must be relocated onto the CNFE site. For a host of reasons that may not be appropriate or necessary.

I find all proposed options to be too restricted with the use of space. A mix of residential use, offices and industry would be preferable to give it a more natural feel. For example, leave the Nuffield Road industrial area and more residential use development further north. Also consider a more modular approach that allows to develop toward a future goal, but doesn't depend on things (like moving the water recycling centre) from the get go.

*******************


9) Objective 3 shouldn't get highest priority.
14) 11-13 are too divided in to use of space, a more natural mix of residential, offices and industrial would be better. Also, re-use as much of what is already there as possible.
15, 16, 17) No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.
18b) Would destroy the feeling of that part of the city.
23c) Science Park should be independent.
24d) This should only be considered if there are no other options. Moving the businesses will be expesive, so leave them there and build the residential area somewhere else.
30e) Student accomodation should be integrated so they won't all be in the same area.
36) Whatever makes best sense for transport at the current stage of the project.