Appendix A

Object

Representation ID: 1752

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 1 - assumes an area was suitable for tourism use in the fist place which may not have been the case.
Too subjective a measure to require the applicant to provide evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 1758

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 2 - the applicant will have been trying to sell the business as a 'going concern'for a long time before thinking of trying to change its planning use. As a result he will not have the information requested in the last half of the last sentence.
This item duplicates a request for evidence of the condition of the building which is also asked for at item 8.

Object

Representation ID: 1759

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 3 - Why should an applicant provide 'a reasoned justification' for not producing a Business Plan? It is either in existance or it is not.This is a matter of management style and its production is given far to much weight.

Object

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 4 - after 'last five years' add 'or number of years trading if less'. It may well be that the business has failed within five years. Again, nobody anticipates that their venture will fail so will not have this kind of evidence going back five years. Three would be more reasonable.

Object

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 14/01/2011

7b - this list includes a degree of detail which non corporate hoteliers and guesthouses do not collect and therfore simply CANNOT produce.

Object

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 11 - This item seems to have been added on as an after thought. The original business plan could be twenty years old and have no relevance to anything current.

Object

Representation ID: 1763

Received: 14/01/2011

Item 12 - Maybe I dont understand planning law (indeed I dont!) but why would this be relevant? If the property can be converted to a more valuable planning use would the applicant have not already tried to do this?