Specialist Workspace Occupier Demand and Viability Evidence Room

- Schemes can be designed around generic market reports rather than financeable occupier evidence. - Developers may discover technical mismatch after planning or funding decisions. - Inward-investment enquiries are not consistently converted into aggregated demand evidence. - Confidential early-stage occupier requirements remain invisible to public investment appraisal. - Overbuilding the wrong specification ties up public and private capital for years.

Developers and public funders pay for evidence that supports a viability-gap or investment decision. Occupiers participate confidentially because accurate requirements improve their chance of suitable space. Agents may contribute market evidence but should not control the only demand record.

There is a genuine need to validate specification, location, timing and affordability before capital commitment. The evidence supports a paid research and evidence-room service first. It does not yet support a self-serve national marketplace.

Choose one proposed lab or industrial scheme. Recruit 15-25 credible occupiers, investors and intermediaries under confidentiality, capture technical and commercial requirements, and produce an evidence-weighted demand curve plus site-fit analysis. The pilot succeeds only if the developer or funder pays and changes specification, phasing or investment terms.

Defensibility would come from structured technical requirement profiles, verified occupier intent, longitudinal demand changes, site-specification matching and an auditable evidence hierarchy distinguishing enquiry, active search, heads of terms and pre-let. Trusted neutral handling of confidential data is essential.

Better-specified workspace, fewer speculative mismatches, stronger viability-gap cases, earlier pre-let conversations and faster rejection or redesign of schemes without sufficient demand.

Proxy based — medium confidence.

- Scheme or typology demand-validation sprint: test £20,000-£40,000, including interviews, requirement verification, demand analysis and a funder-ready evidence pack. - Regional annual evidence room after at least three paying sponsors: test £45,000-£90,000 per year. - No directly comparable public product price was found, so these are service-effort and capital-risk hypotheses, not market quotations.

Evidence basis: Agile AI Planning Validator (£15,000–£60,000 per licence) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.

Ask one planning authority, developer or planning consultancy with a live case pipeline to fund a paid test of Specialist Workspace Occupier Demand and Viability Evidence Room lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £20,000-£40,000 and covering 20 live applications, sites, conditions or evidence packs from one planning workflow. Paid scope: An analyst-assisted evidence room that captures confidential occupier requirements, scores the strength and timing of demand, matches it to candidate sites and produces a financeable demand, specification and viability report for funders and developers. Charge by authority, professional team, development site or assessed case and compare the fee with planning-officer and consultant time, avoidable invalid submissions and repeated evidence assembly. Measure validation time, missing-document rate, rework, officer overrides, applicant resubmissions and decision lead time. Continue only if handling or rework falls by at least 25%, at least 90% of required evidence is correctly identified and no material planning issue is suppressed. Stop or reprice if experienced officers find material false assurance, the workflow does not beat current practice or the buyer will not renew.

Raise above 80 if a developer pays for the pilot and multiple verified occupiers change a scheme's specification or phasing. Reduce below 60 if existing advisers already maintain an equivalent confidential demand ledger or if sponsors will not share proposed schemes early enough.