We support the principle/policy of providing a range of employment uses across the District rather than focus on provision purely at London Southend Airport.

We also support the principle of a new employment allocation west of Rayleigh. As highlighted in paragraph 11.38 of the Core Strategy, west Rayleigh is an ideal location for strategic employment development. As we have stated in previous submissions to the council, land to the west of Rayleigh has the most direct and least congested link to the two principal roads serving the district (A130 and A127) and the immediate road network has capacity to accommodate further vehicular traffic. Land west of Rayleigh would therefore clearly be an attractive location for commercial/ business operators.

However, we consider that the future employment allocation should be north of London Road, not south of London Road as specified in Policy ED4. We put forward several reasons for this:

• Countryside Properties has extensive experience in providing mixed use developments, including schemes that provide both residential units and employment allocations. Bearing in mind the extent of land under option, north of London Road, we could provide a business or employment park on this land without detriment to the residential amenities of the occupiers of any new residential development, providing a comprehensive sustainable mixed use development through careful masterplanning. The viability of an employment allocation north of London Road would be assisted by the sharing of infrastructure costs with any (adjacent) residential led mixed use scheme (the residential element identified in Policy H2)

• If the employment allocation is to provide for a minimum of 2ha for business/ industrial park (as recommended in the employment land study), plus land for some of those users (to be relocated) on the Rawreth Industrial Estate (which is approximately 10ha), then probably a minimum of 10 to 12ha of land would be required. We are not sure that this size of site could be found south of London Road without affecting/requiring land occupied by existing buildings e.g. Swallows Aquatics, and/or bringing development close to the Little Wheatleys Road or the Little Wheatleys estate (see further bullet point below re green belt boundaries). There may therefore be questions over the deliverability of this allocation (without a clearer understanding of its location). We consider that 10/12 ha of land could be accommodated north of London Road, without encroaching into the flood zone or affecting any existing properties.

• Our experience shows us that for a location to be attractive, a high quality masterplanned business park of sufficient size must be available to provide the quality of environment that many businesses are now looking for. 10/12 hectares would probably be a minimum, especially if the site is to accommodate and support an Eco-Enterprise Centre (see Policy ED1). A 10 ha site could equate to 400,000 square foot of floorspace. We suggest that such a site should accommodate a variety of uses and size of units. This would enable those smaller/start up business who start on the site to have the ability to grow and still remain on the site, utilizing the enterprise centre, small start up units or urban hives (typically providing 2,000 - 5,000 square foot) then moving up to medium sized warehouse units or hybrid/ bespoke buildings. Urban Hives can be adapted to provide office or industrial space.

• As part of our previous "call for sites" submission we stated that a "hopper" or "shuttle" bus service could be provided to serve the site and nearby communities and link the area to the town centre and rail station (transport and service hubs). The benefit of a larger site allocation (mixed use residential/employment and other uses) North of London Road will be more likely to support such a service and help make it more sustainable.

• We question how a new green belt boundary south of London Road could be defined. We would suggest that any allocation here would be separated/divorced from the existing built up area (west of Rayleigh/little Wheatleys) by existing woodland planting, recreational areas, the school and plotlands to the north and west of the school. Any employment site here could not we believe integrate with the existing residential area, unless for example the plotlands are to be included within this allocation (delivery issues with various different ownerships/land assembly) or the woodland or recreation areas are to be lost, contrary to other policies and principles within the Core Strategy and bringing proposed commercial development closer to existing residential properties, to the detriment of their amenities.