I was wondering if anybody had any recent experience of dealing with applications where the applicant is basically rejecting units because they can't afford them. This is not to say that they aren't viable for the proposed use (i.e. A1) but that they aren't viable for the proposed user (i.e. a retailer with a certain 'business model' that only has a low turnover ratio). It seems to me that retail proposals, and their justification, are now based not on the use of the land but the particular operator and their business model. With the same proposal, we are getting the 'goldilocks' approach to the sequential test.... "this ones too small", "this ones too big"... "this ones just right"... for our business model. I'm really struggling to assess how far these arguments should be accepted. Any advice?
