Anonymised example only — not live planning data

Every figure below is illustrative and relates to a fictional site. Your own report is generated from published planning data for the boundary you draw.

Logical Planning — Strategic Land Promotion

Planning
intelligence
report

Example Site — edge of settlement

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire · NG12 5EA

68Good PotentialPlanning Potential Score · confidence Very High (86%)

Local planning authority: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Site area: 4.62 ha
Potential development type: Residential (Use Class C3) — edge-of-village greenfield release
Report generated: 01/08/2026

This report is an evidence-based appraisal drawn from published planning data. It is not a planning decision and does not constitute formal planning advice. Please read the caveats and data sources at the end.

Site report

Example Site — edge of settlement

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire · NG12 5EA

Back to my sites

Exports the full report — boundary map, score breakdown, planning considerations, flood risk, comparable decisions and data sources — as a single A4 PDF.

Site boundary and context

Site location plan

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

NG12 5EA · 4.62 ha (11.42 acres)

Boundary and context

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

Postcode: NG12 5EA
Local planning authority: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Site area: 4.62 ha
Centroid: 52.86800, -1.07700
Boundary: Drawn site boundary

Key nearby features

Retrieving nearby features…

Ordnance Survey-style topographic mapping © Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors. Nearby features © OpenStreetMap contributors. Boundary shown is indicative and not a substitute for a title plan or measured survey.

Site at a glance

Planning opportunity

68/ 100

Moderate opportunity · improving

Indicative capacity

87–121homes

25–35 dph on 3.47 ha net — indicative only

Strategy

PREPARE FOR CALL FOR SITES

Rushcliffe cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing to Regulation 19. Submit the site to the current Call for Sites with a Green Belt / Grey Belt assessment, a highways access appraisal and ownership evidence.

Trend

+4 points

Previous score 64

Site area

4.62ha

11.42 acres · Residential (Use Class C3) — edge-of-village greenfield release

Local planning authority

Rushcliffe Borough Council

Emerging plan: Pre-submission (Regulation 19 expected)

Five-year supply

4.1years

Below the five-year requirement — potential positive factor. Position as at 01/04/2026

Principal risk

Highway access — evidence not held

Highway access is not confirmed — further checks required. Missing evidence lowers the Data Confidence Score and must be resolved before this element is relied on.

Executive summary

Site summary

The position at a glance

Logical Planning Score: 68 / 100
Confidence: Very High (86%)
Planning prospects: Moderate (58%)
Best use on the evidence: Battery storage — Strong
Indicative capacity: 87–121 homes
Local Plan opportunity: Yes — Call for Sites open
Green Belt: Yes
Grey Belt potential: 68%
Nearby approval rate: 60% of 5 decided cases

Key opportunity

Housing land supply — Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.

Main risk

Highway access — evidence not held — Highway access is not confirmed — further checks required. Missing evidence lowers the Data Confidence Score and must be resolved before this element is relied on.

Recommended strategy

Promote through the Local Plan and submit a Call for Sites representation.
Submit a Call for Sites representation while the current window is open.
Seek pre-application advice from the local planning authority.
Test whether a Grey Belt case can be evidenced under the current NPPF.

Recommended next steps are indicative and should be reviewed by an appropriate planning professional.

Professional evidence report

The deliverable report: each finding cited to a numbered source, the red-line plan, the sources schedule and a statement of how far the evidence can be relied on.

Part 1 · Executive summary

Example Site — edge of settlement, Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire — 4.62 ha (11.42 acres) in Rushcliffe Borough Council.

Planning Potential Score 68/100 (Good Potential); Data Confidence Medium (64%). The score is rule-derived from the evidence scheduled in this report and is not a prediction of consent.

Recommendation

PREPARE FOR CALL FOR SITES

Boundary analysis
Context
Constraints in this report were tested against the drawn site boundary (4.62 ha), not a postcode point, so the results relate to the land itself. The boundary centroid is latitude 52.86800, longitude -1.07700.
Evidence: S4
Principal risk: Highway access — evidence not held
Evidence gap · Unknown
Highway access is not confirmed — further checks required. Missing evidence lowers the Data Confidence Score and must be resolved before this element is relied on.
Evidence: S3
Green Belt — Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries
Adverse · Medium
Green Belt is recorded against the site (Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries). It is a material consideration for any allocation or application and shapes the promotion strategy.
Evidence: S3
Agricultural land quality — Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed)
Adverse · Medium
Agricultural land quality is recorded against the site (Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed)). It is a material consideration for any allocation or application and shapes the promotion strategy.
Evidence: S3
Comparable decisions: 60% of 5 decided cases
Supports the case
Comparable residential and mixed-use decisions retrieved within 1km of the site; withdrawn and undetermined cases are excluded from the percentage. Calculated from the case list published in this report. It is a record of past decisions on other land, not a probability of consent for this site.
Evidence: S3
Indicative capacity: 87–121 dwellings
Context
On a net developable area of 3.47 ha at 25–35 dwellings per hectare, the site could accommodate 87–121 dwellings. Indicative only — requires professional verification, and it is a capacity calculation only — it carries no implication that consent would be granted.
Evidence: S4 (with calculation in this report)

Every statement above is traceable to a numbered source in the sources schedule. Where a source could not be obtained, the position is reported as not confirmed; it must not be read as an absence of constraint.

Part 2 · Red-line site plan

Red-line site plan — Example Site — edge of settlement

Red-line site plan

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

NG12 5EA · 4.62 ha (11.42 acres)

Red-line site plan

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

Postcode: NG12 5EA
Local planning authority: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Site area: 4.62 ha (11.42 acres)
Centroid: 52.86800, -1.07700
Boundary: Red line — site extent as supplied

Site extent (red line)

The red line encloses the application/promotion site as supplied, and is the extent every constraint in this report was tested against.

Indicative plan for appraisal purposes. It is not a title plan, land registry extract or measured survey, and it does not confirm ownership, access rights or the position of boundary features. A surveyed red-line plan is required before an application is submitted. Ordnance Survey-style topographic mapping © Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors.

Site area: 4.62 ha / 11.42 acres
Plan basis: Drawn site boundary
Centroid: 52.86800, -1.07700
Boundary evidence: S4

Part 3 · Sources schedule

Every source relied on in this report

Findings in the executive summary cite these reference numbers. A source shown as not obtained means the check could not be completed — it is never a finding that the land is unconstrained.

Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement (sample)Obtained

Relied on for: Housing land supply and delivery figures extracted from the authority's own evidence base.

Figures read from page 12; verify against the published document.

Source date: 01/04/2026

Retrieved: Not stated

Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (sample)Obtained

Relied on for: HELAA / SHLAA assessment of this site.

Source date: 01/11/2025

Retrieved: Not stated

Sample data — illustrative onlyPartly obtained

Relied on for: Green Belt designation (scoring); Five-year housing land supply (scoring); Housing Delivery Test (scoring); Flood risk (scoring); Relationship to the built-up area (scoring); Highway access (scoring); Green Belt (constraint screening); Flood risk (constraint screening); Heritage (constraint screening); Ecology (constraint screening); Agricultural land quality (constraint screening); Local planning authority position, housing requirement, five-year supply and Housing Delivery Test; Comparable decisions, refusal reasons and appeal outcomes; Highway access — evidence not held (risk assessment); Green Belt — Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries (risk assessment); Agricultural land quality — Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed) (risk assessment).

Highway access is not confirmed — further checks required from this source.

Source date: 01/07/2026

Retrieved: 01/08/2026

Site boundary supplied by the clientObtained

Relied on for: Red-line site plan, site area and the geometry every constraint was tested against.

The boundary is as supplied or drawn in the platform and has not been verified against a title plan or measured survey.

Source date: Not stated

Retrieved: Not stated

Part 4 · Data-quality statement

How far this report can be relied on

Sources scheduled

Factors evidenced

5/6 (83%)

Evidence dated

100%

Data confidence

Medium (64%)

This report was compiled from 4 sources, each listed in the sources schedule with its date and the use it was put to. Of 6 scored factors, 5 were evidenced from data actually obtained (83%), 1 in part and 0 not at all.

Constraints in this report were tested against the drawn site boundary (4.62 ha), not a postcode point, so the results relate to the land itself. The boundary centroid is latitude 52.86800, longitude -1.07700.

Data Confidence is reported as Medium (64%) and is stated separately from the Planning Potential Score of 68/100, so a well-evidenced weak site is never confused with a poorly evidenced strong one. All capacity, value and cost figures are indicative only — requires professional verification.

1 evidence gap was identified and are scheduled below. A gap is an absence of retrieved data, never a finding that the land is unconstrained, and each is carried into the risk register until it is closed.

The automated checks applied to this report — covering the score, band, confidence measure, approval evidence and risk findings — found no disagreement between sections. These checks cover those figures only; they are not a verification of every value displayed.

Evidence gaps and the work needed to close them

Highway access

Only part of the data was obtained from Sample data — illustrative only, so this factor is not confirmed — further checks required and it lowers the Data Confidence Score.

Obtain highway access directly from the source or through a site-specific technical check before this element is relied on.

Planning Investment Committee decision

PROMOTEPromote the land through the plan-making process rather than by application.

Best advanced through plan-making rather than by application at 68/100.

Confidence: Medium · 64%
Evidence confirmed: 88%
Spend before next gate: £4,200 – £10,500

Next decision gate: Call for Sites submission by 2026-09-30.

Reasons for the decision

Planning Potential Score of 68/100 (Good Potential) on 8 register entries, 88% of them confirmed.
Constraints: Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.
Housing need: A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.
Housing land supply: Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.
The authority's Call for Sites is open and closes 2026-09-30, giving a direct route into the plan.
The authority reports 4.1 years of housing land supply, below the five-year requirement.

Risks

Local decision climate (risk): 9 supportive and 6 negative comparable outcomes recorded near the site.
Evidence integrity (risk): 1 of 8 register entries are superseded or awaiting verification (88% confirmed).

Missing evidence

Highway access — not verified (Sample data — illustrative only).

Recommended expenditure before the next gate

Evidence verification

£500 – £1,500

Confirm the superseded or unverified sources behind the current conclusions.

Comparable decision and appeal analysis

£1,200 – £3,000

Establish how comparable schemes have been determined locally and on appeal.

Call for Sites submission

£2,500 – £6,000

Put the land formally before the authority in the plan-making process.

Indicative total: £4,200 – £10,500

This committee decision is automated planning intelligence generated from the evidence held for this site. Costs are indicative only. It is not planning, legal, valuation or investment advice, and professional planning advice may still be required.

Planning risk matrix

Overall planning risk exposure 30/100 across 10 assessed issues.

Critical

Risk

Neutral

Positive

Local decision climate

RiskSeverity 24/100

Evidence: 9 supportive and 6 negative comparable outcomes recorded near the site.
Mitigation: Design out the reasons cited in the local refusals and lead on the allowed decisions.
Effect on deliverability: A hostile local decision record raises the likelihood of appeal and additional cost.
Recommended action: Commission a comparable decision analysis and reflect refusal reasons in the scheme.

Policy support

NeutralSeverity 8/100

Evidence: Green Belt location weighs against the principle, but the parcel reads as contained and may meet the Grey Belt tests introduced by the NPPF.
Mitigation: Build a policy case against the development plan as a whole, including any out-of-date policies and the tilted balance.
Effect on deliverability: Policy support is neither a driver nor a blocker on current evidence.
Recommended action: Commission a planning policy statement and test the argument at pre-application stage.

Evidence integrity

RiskSeverity 8/100

Evidence: 1 of 8 register entries are superseded or awaiting verification (88% confirmed).
Mitigation: Verify the affected sources directly with the authority, or replace them with the latest published evidence.
Effect on deliverability: Some conclusions carry uncertainty until the underlying sources are confirmed.
Recommended action: Work through the evidence register and confirm each unverified entry before the next decision gate.

Site status

NeutralSeverity 5/100

Evidence: Unallocated but adjoining the settlement boundary, in single freehold ownership with no ransom strips identified.
Mitigation: Address the site's designation directly — brownfield credentials, Grey Belt tests, or edge-of-settlement relationship.
Effect on deliverability: Site status is neither a driver nor a blocker on current evidence.
Recommended action: Obtain a site status and designation opinion before further spend.

Constraints

PositiveSeverity 4/100

Evidence: Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.
Mitigation: No mitigation required — protect this position as the case develops.
Effect on deliverability: Constraints supports deliverability and should be relied on in the strategy.
Recommended action: Cite this in the promotion strategy and monitor for change.

Housing need

PositiveSeverity 3/100

Evidence: A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.
Mitigation: No mitigation required — protect this position as the case develops.
Effect on deliverability: Housing need supports deliverability and should be relied on in the strategy.
Recommended action: Cite this in the promotion strategy and monitor for change.

Housing land supply

PositiveSeverity 3/100

Evidence: Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.
Mitigation: No mitigation required — protect this position as the case develops.
Effect on deliverability: Housing land supply supports deliverability and should be relied on in the strategy.
Recommended action: Cite this in the promotion strategy and monitor for change.

Infrastructure and accessibility

PositiveSeverity 3/100

Evidence: Keyworth is a main village with a secondary school, health centre, shops and frequent buses; the Nicker Hill frontage offers a credible access subject to visibility splays.
Mitigation: No mitigation required — protect this position as the case develops.
Effect on deliverability: Infrastructure and accessibility supports deliverability and should be relied on in the strategy.
Recommended action: Cite this in the promotion strategy and monitor for change.

Comparable decisions

NeutralSeverity 2/100

Evidence: Approval rate on nearby decided cases as set out in the comparables schedule for residential schemes within 1km; refusals turn on Green Belt harm and highway capacity.
Mitigation: Lead with allowed appeals in comparable circumstances and distinguish refusals on their reasons.
Effect on deliverability: Comparable decisions is neither a driver nor a blocker on current evidence.
Recommended action: Commission a comparable decision and appeal analysis.

Emerging policy

PositiveSeverity 1/100

Evidence: The Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing towards Regulation 19 and a Call for Sites window is open.
Mitigation: No mitigation required — protect this position as the case develops.
Effect on deliverability: Emerging policy supports deliverability and should be relied on in the strategy.
Recommended action: Cite this in the promotion strategy and monitor for change.

Development potential

Planning Opportunity Score

Moderate opportunity

Improving +4 points

Moderate opportunity50–69

A mixed picture. Progress usually depends on Local Plan timing, housing supply movement or further technical work.

Up +4 points since the previous assessment — the policy or evidence position has moved in the site's favour.

Confidence in the underlying data: 86% — Very Highassessed separately from the score
Recommended action: PREPARE FOR CALL FOR SITES; A submission window is open or imminent. Prepare boundary plans, ownership evidence and a deliverability statement.
Previous score: 64+4 change
Assessed: 01/08/2026, 09:00:00

Opportunity score history

Is the planning position for this site improving or deteriorating?

Vertical scale 59 to 70

Feb 2026 → Aug 2026+7 over the period

Show the figures behind this chart

Date	Value	Event
Feb 2026	61	—
May 2026	64	—
Aug 2026	68	—

What does this mean?

Up +4 points since the previous assessment — the policy or evidence position has moved in the site's favour.

Source: Logical Planning stored assessments for this site · Updated: Aug 2026 · Sample: 3 · Confidence: Very High

Housing land supply12 / 15 pts
Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.
Housing need12 / 15 pts
A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.
Emerging policy4 / 5 pts
The Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing towards Regulation 19 and a Call for Sites window is open.
Constraints11 / 15 pts
Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.
Infrastructure and accessibility7 / 10 pts
Keyworth is a main village with a secondary school, health centre, shops and frequent buses; the Nicker Hill frontage offers a credible access subject to visibility splays.
Site status10 / 15 pts
Unallocated but adjoining the settlement boundary, in single freehold ownership with no ransom strips identified.
Comparable decisions3 / 5 pts
Approval rate on nearby decided cases as set out in the comparables schedule for residential schemes within 1km; refusals turn on Green Belt harm and highway capacity.
Policy support12 / 20 pts
Green Belt location weighs against the principle, but the parcel reads as contained and may meet the Grey Belt tests introduced by the NPPF.

What supports this site

Housing land supply
12 / 15 pts
Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.
Housing need
12 / 15 pts
A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.
Constraints
11 / 15 pts
Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.
Site status
10 / 15 pts
Unallocated but adjoining the settlement boundary, in single freehold ownership with no ransom strips identified.
Infrastructure and accessibility
7 / 10 pts
Keyworth is a main village with a secondary school, health centre, shops and frequent buses; the Nicker Hill frontage offers a credible access subject to visibility splays.
Emerging policy
4 / 5 pts
The Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing towards Regulation 19 and a Call for Sites window is open.
Comparable decisions
3 / 5 pts
Approval rate on nearby decided cases as set out in the comparables schedule for residential schemes within 1km; refusals turn on Green Belt harm and highway capacity.

What counts against it

No factor currently scores in the adverse range on the published evidence.

Balanced factors: Policy support.

Where this score came from

Sample data — illustrative only6 factorsupdated 01/07/2026

AI-generated planning intelligence produced by deterministic rules applied to published planning, policy and environmental data. It is not planning advice and does not guarantee that planning permission will be granted — professional planning advice may still be required.

Bands: Low 0–29 · Limited 30–49 · Moderate 50–69 · High 70–84 · Exceptional 85–100. Direction of travel compares this assessment with the previous stored assessment for the same site.

Potential use class / development type: Residential (Use Class C3) — edge-of-village greenfield release
Site area: 4.62 ha (11.42 acres)
Estimated net developable area (indicative only): 3.47 ha at a 75% net ratio
Indicative dwelling capacity (indicative only): 87–121 dwellings at 25–35 dph
Current use: Agricultural grassland

NPPF (August 2026) opportunity assessment

Assessing the site against the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework…

Sustainable development assessment (NPPF August 2026)

Sustainable development is the organising principle of national policy, and every argument below is a policy test a decision-maker must apply. Each finding is read from the evidence held for this site. Read the full policy position.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development
Sustainable development (S) · S3, S4, S5
Supports the case
housing land supply stands at 4.1 years, below five, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development is capable of being engaged and the tilted balance argued.
Evidence expected: The authority's published housing land supply position and Housing Delivery Test result, the age and status of the adopted plan, and a planning balance that identifies each benefit and adverse impact separately.
Sustainable location and travel patterns
Transport (TR) · TR1, TR2, TR3
Supports the case
The site lies within or adjoining the built-up area, a walkable relationship to existing services that supports the sustainable location argument.
Evidence expected: Accessibility audit with walking and cycling distances to services, public transport frequency, a transport statement or assessment proportionate to scale, and a travel plan.
Making effective use of land
Land (L) · L2, L3
Neutral
Not previously developed land, so no brownfield weight applies; the density proposed should still be justified against the applicable minimum.
Evidence expected: Previously developed land status, a density schedule against the applicable minimum, and a design-led justification where density falls below it.
Flood risk, drainage and water
Flood risk (F) and water (W) · F5, F6, F7
Supports the case
Recorded within flood zone 1, the lowest probability of flooding, which satisfies the sequential preference.
Evidence expected: Flood risk assessment, sequential and exception test where engaged, drainage strategy with SuDS and betterment, and water efficiency standards.
Biodiversity, green infrastructure and landscape
Natural environment (N) · N6, N4
Supports the case
No statutory ecological designation is recorded on the site, so biodiversity net gain can be planned as a benefit rather than as mitigation of designated harm.
Evidence expected: Preliminary ecological appraisal and protected species surveys, a biodiversity net gain metric with a delivery route, and a landscape and visual appraisal.
Historic environment
Historic environment (HE) · HE5, HE6
Supports the case
No designated heritage asset is recorded as affected, so no heritage balance is engaged on current evidence.
Evidence expected: Heritage statement setting out significance and the degree of harm, archaeological desk-based assessment, and a public benefits schedule.
Green Belt, grey belt and the Golden Rules
Green Belt (GB) · GB6, GB7, GB8
Watch
Within the Green Belt, with a grey belt confidence of 68%: the GB7(1)(g) route is arguable, subject to demonstrable need and Golden Rules compliance.
Evidence expected: Green Belt purposes assessment following Annex E, a grey belt case, and a Golden Rules compliance statement with viability evidence where a lower level of affordable housing is proposed.

Policy summaries above are drawn from NPPF (August 2026) and are intended as an evidence-led reading of that document, not a substitute for professional planning advice. Findings for a specific site are derived from the evidence held for that site; items shown as requiring confirmation have not been evidenced and are not scored for or against the site.

Planning opportunity timeline

Next key date

30 September 2026

Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan — Call for Sites (sample)

Time remaining

Open now

Submissions are being accepted — act now

Recommended action

Submit the site now — this is the single highest-value action while the window is open.

Basis: Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan — Call for Sites (sample) is open now

Planning opportunity timeline

When can this site realistically be advanced, and what happens next?

Local Plan adopted — Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies
Completed
10 October 2019
The adopted plan is the starting point for determining applications on this site.
Recommended action: Read the site against the adopted allocations and spatial strategy before committing to a promotion route.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Housing Delivery Test measurement published
Completed
1 December 2025
86% of the requirement delivered.
Recommended action: Check whether the consequences of under-delivery apply to decisions on this site.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Five-year housing land supply position published
Completed
1 April 2026
4.1 years of deliverable supply reported.
Recommended action: A shortfall strengthens the case for sustainable sites — test whether the tilted balance applies here.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan — Call for Sites (sample)
Open now
30 September 2026
The authority is currently accepting site submissions.
Recommended action: Submit the site now — this is the single highest-value action while the window is open.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Regulation 19 publication and representations
Upcoming
2 November 2026
Published plan-making milestone for this authority.
Recommended action: Prepare the promotion evidence so representations can be lodged as soon as the window opens.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Emerging plan stage — Pre-submission (Regulation 19 expected)
Date not published
Date not published
Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing through plan-making.
Recommended action: Track the emerging plan timetable — a site promotion is normally strongest at the earliest consultation stage still open.
Source: Sample data — illustrative only

What does this mean?

Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan — Call for Sites (sample) is open now. Submit the site now — this is the single highest-value action while the window is open.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Planning balance

Factors in favour

What supports development here on the published evidence?

Housing land supply
12.0 / 15 pts
Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.
Housing need
12.0 / 15 pts
A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.
Constraints
11.0 / 15 pts
Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.
Site status
10.0 / 15 pts
Unallocated but adjoining the settlement boundary, in single freehold ownership with no ransom strips identified.
Infrastructure and accessibility
7.0 / 10 pts
Keyworth is a main village with a secondary school, health centre, shops and frequent buses; the Nicker Hill frontage offers a credible access subject to visibility splays.
Emerging policy
4.0 / 5 pts
The Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing towards Regulation 19 and a Call for Sites window is open.
Comparable decisions
3.0 / 5 pts
Approval rate on nearby decided cases as set out in the comparables schedule for residential schemes within 1km; refusals turn on Green Belt harm and highway capacity.

Factors against

What weighs against development, and how much weight does it carry?

No factor currently scores in the adverse range on the published evidence.

Where the balance sits

59.0 points are earned by supportive factors and 0.0 points are lost to adverse factors, producing an overall opportunity score of 68/100 (moderate). A mixed picture. Progress usually depends on Local Plan timing, housing supply movement or further technical work.

Constraint severity

Which constraints carry the most weight against this site?

Green BeltMedium/High impact
Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries · Source: Sample data — illustrative only
EcologyMedium impact
No statutory designations; hedgerows and mature boundary trees require survey and BNG accounting · Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Agricultural land qualityMedium impact
Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed) · Source: Sample data — illustrative only
Flood riskLow impact
Flood Zone 1 (low probability of river and sea flooding); surface water ponding on the eastern boundary · Source: Sample data — illustrative only
HeritageLow impact
No listed buildings or conservation area within 250m · Source: Sample data — illustrative only

What does this mean?

1 constraint score in the material range (high or medium/high).

Source: planning.data.gov.uk and Environment Agency datasets · Sample: 5

Planning prospects

Estimated planning prospects

Indicative planning prospects

58%

MODERATE

Based on current policy, nearby decisions, site constraints and the planning evidence available for this location.

Under current planning policy
58%
Reflects an approval rate of 60% of 5 decided cases nearby. Calculated from the case list published in this report. It is a record of past decisions on other land, not a probability of consent for this site.
If allocated through the Local Plan
84%
Allocation removes the principle-of-development objection in most cases.
If accepted as Grey Belt
76%
Assumes the site satisfies the NPPF Grey Belt tests and the golden rules are met.

These figures are indicative planning prospects derived from published planning data. They are not statistical probabilities and do not guarantee that planning permission will be granted.

Confidence assessment

Policy and Local Plan data held

Adopted plan position identified for the authority.

Held

Housing supply position published

Five-year supply figure available.

Held

Comparable decisions available

5 nearby decisions retrieved.

Held

Mapped constraint coverage

5 constraint datasets returned.

Held

Evidence carries source dates

5 of 6 evidence rows carry a published date.

Held

Development capacity

Site area

4.62 ha

11.42 acres

Net developable

3.47 ha

at a 75% net ratio

Working range

87–121

homes used in this report

Indicative residential capacity by density scenario
Scenario	Density	Indicative dwellings	Typical character
Low density	25 dph	87	Detached and semi-detached, generous plots, edge-of-village character.
Medium density	35 dph	121	Typical suburban mix of houses with some terraces.
High density	45 dph	156	Terraces and small apartment blocks in a sustainable location.
Urban density	60 dph	208	Apartment-led scheme; usually only justified in town-centre locations.

These figures are indicative capacity estimates only and do not account for detailed design, highways, open space, biodiversity net gain, drainage or other site-specific requirements.

Development viability calculator

Site capacity & development viability calculator

An interactive financial screening tool. This is not part of the Planning Opportunity Score and does not affect it — it estimates residual land value from assumptions you control.

Not viable

Development type

Gross site area

Net developable

Density

dph

Avg unit size

sqm

Affordable housing

Build cost

£/sqm

Sales value

£/sqm

Affordable value

£/sqm

s106 / CIL

£/unit

Professional fees

Finance cost

Abnormal costs

Developer profit

% of GDV

Land value benchmark

Indicative capacity

121 dwellings

3.46 ha net developable

Gross development value (GDV): £32,397,750
Total development costs: £30,036,701
Residual land value: £2,361,049
Land value benchmark: £3,465,000
Surplus / (deficit) vs benchmark: -£1,103,951

Sensitivity range (±10% on gross development value)

-£878,726£2,361,049£5,600,824

This calculator is an indicative financial screening tool based on assumptions you enter. It is separate from, and does not influence, the Planning Opportunity Score elsewhere in this report. It is not a RICS red book valuation or formal viability appraisal and should not be relied upon without professional advice.

Policy-linked appraisal and land value per acre

Policy-linked site appraisal

Residual land value with Rushcliffe Borough Council’s own policy requirements applied, expressed per acre. Every requirement below is quoted from a held Local Plan policy, or shown as not confirmed.

VIABLE

Reading held Local Plan policies…

Land value per acre

£319,131

11.42 gross acres

Residual land value

£3,643,276

£30,110 per plot

Surplus over benchmark

£69,131

per acre vs £250,000

Cost of policy compliance

£0

per acre, affordable + CIL + s106 + net gain

Sales value

£/sqm

Build cost

£/sqm

Benchmark land value

£/acre

Affordable housing

Density

dph

Developer profit

% of GDV

Average unit size

sqm

Abnormal costs

Sensitivity step

Scheme and appraisal

Net developable area: 3.46 ha (8.56 acres)
Capacity: 121 dwellings — 121 market, 0 affordable
Floorspace: 10,285 sqm
Gross development value: £37,026,000
Total development cost: £33,382,724
Policy obligations: £0
Land value per hectare: £788,588
Break-even sales value: £3,504 per sqm

Cost lines

Construction, externals and abnormals£21,310,520
Professional fees£2,131,052
Contingency£1,065,526
Community Infrastructure LevyPOLICY£0
Section 106 contributionsPOLICY£0
Biodiversity net gain deliveryPOLICY£0
Finance£1,470,426
Developer profit£7,405,200

Sensitivity — land value per acre

Rows vary sales values, columns vary build costs, in 5% steps. Shaded cells fall below the £250,000 per acre benchmark.

Residual land value per acre sensitivity to sales values and build costs
Value / cost	-10%	-5%	0%	+5%	+10%
-10%	£287,218	£173,443	£59,669	-£54,105	-£167,880
-5%	£416,948	£303,174	£189,400	£75,626	-£38,149
0%	£546,679	£432,905	£319,131	£205,356	£91,582
+5%	£676,410	£562,636	£448,862	£335,087	£221,313
+10%	£806,141	£692,367	£578,592	£464,818	£351,044

Policy requirements applied

No policy requirements have been read for this authority yet.

Methodology

Residual land value: gross development value less construction, externals, abnormals, fees, contingency, policy obligations, finance and developer profit.
Capacity is the net developable area at the policy density, after deducting the policy open space requirement from the net area.
Affordable housing is valued as a stated percentage of open-market value; the percentage of dwellings comes from the cited policy.
Land value is expressed per gross acre (1 hectare = 2.47105 acres), per hectare and per plot.
Sensitivity varies sales values against build costs in equal steps; each cell reports residual value per acre and the surplus over the benchmark.
Requirements that could not be read from a held policy are shown as “Not confirmed — further checks required” and the labelled working assumption is used instead.
This is a financial screening appraisal, not a RICS Red Book valuation, and it does not feed the Logical Planning Score.

Title boundaries and transaction evidence

HM Land Registry INSPIRE Index Polygons and Price Paid Data, under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Ownership complexity is assessed separately from planning merit and never changes the score.

Full land intelligence

Loading HM Land Registry evidence…

Indicative registered parcels

Registered parcel outlines are indicative only. They come from HM Land Registry INSPIRE Index Polygons, show the approximate extent of registered freehold land, are not the legal boundary and do not prove ownership. Confirm against the official register and title plan.

No matching registered freehold parcel is held for this site yet. Use “Refresh title parcels” to request the published file for this local planning authority. Until a parcel is held, this remains a title data gap requiring further investigation — it does not establish that the land is unregistered.

Price Paid transaction evidence

HM Land Registry Price Paid Data records completed residential sales only, published in arrears. Absence of a record is not evidence that no transaction took place, and no figure here is a valuation.

No Price Paid records are held around this site yet. Use “Refresh transactions” to query HM Land Registry for the surrounding postcodes. An empty result means the dataset holds no recorded residential sale here, not that the land has never changed hands.

Title register, title plan and corporate ownership

Order official copies from HM Land Registry and screen the site against the licensed corporate and overseas ownership registers. Nothing here proves ownership on its own.

Loading title evidence…

Alternative uses

Best development options

Which uses this site supports

Ranked on site area, settlement relationship, designations, flood zone and the local decision record. No market or demand assumptions are made where demand data is not held.

1.
Battery storage
Compact sites near substations; landscape and noise are the main constraints.
76 / 100Strong
2.
Mixed use
Mixed schemes can resolve viability and policy conflicts on larger sites.
75 / 100Strong
3.
Leisure
Open-space and leisure uses tolerate constraints that housing cannot.
70 / 100Good
4.
Affordable housing
Rural exception and affordable-led schemes can succeed where open-market housing would not.
68 / 100Good
5.
Hotel
Location, visibility and accessibility drive hotel prospects.
68 / 100Good
6.
Care home
Needs a site of roughly 0.4–3 ha within reach of services and public transport.
66 / 100Good
7.
Retirement living
Accessibility to shops and healthcare is the dominant policy test.
66 / 100Good
8.
Retail
Sequential and impact tests apply outside defined centres.
66 / 100Good

Use rankings are an automated screening aid. Any change of use or alternative development route should be tested with a planning professional before it is pursued.

Green Belt and Grey Belt assessment

Green Belt status

Green Belt: Yes

Potential Grey Belt candidate

68%

Potential Grey Belt Opportunity

A Grey Belt screening could not be completed because one or more required datasets were unavailable for this location.

This is an automated policy assessment only. Grey Belt status requires assessment against current national and local planning policy and site-specific circumstances.

Mayoral strategic planning powers (prospective)

Screening mayoral strategic planning powers…

Site and location description

Location and administrative context

The site comprises approximately 4.62 hectares (11.42 acres) of land at Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire, NG12 5EA. It is a medium-sized parcel capable of supporting a small housing scheme or commercial unit.

The land falls within the administrative area of Rushcliffe Borough Council, which is the determining local planning authority for any application and the plan-making body for any allocation.

The site: character, use and indicative capacity

The land is recorded as being in agricultural grassland use.

Brownfield register status is data currently unavailable, so the greenfield or previously developed status of the land has not been confirmed.

On an indicative basis, a net developable area of about 3.47 hectares (a 75% net ratio, allowing for access, drainage and open space) could support in the order of 87–121 dwellings at 25–35 dwellings per hectare. This is a capacity indication only and is not a scheme design or a yield the authority has accepted.

Surrounding area and designation context

In settlement terms the site sits within or immediately adjoining the mapped built-up area. The relationship to the built-up area is one of the strongest predictors of whether the principle of development is accepted.

The wider designation context is: Green Belt — Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries; National Landscape / AONB — Data currently unavailable; National Park — Data currently unavailable.

The immediate heritage context is: conservation area — Data currently unavailable; listed buildings — Data currently unavailable. Heritage significance extends beyond the designated boundary, so setting effects must be considered even where nothing is mapped within the site.

Within 1000m of the site, 13 comparable residential decisions were identified, with an approval rate of 60% of 5 decided cases. Calculated from the case list published in this report. It is a record of past decisions on other land, not a probability of consent for this site.

Nearby planning evidence and comparable decisions

Nearby planning evidence

Within 500m

applications

Within 1km

applications

Within 2km

applications

Within 5km

applications

Approved: 3
Refused: 2
Pending: 0
Approval rate: 60%; Sample of 5 decided cases

Search criteria and sample

Comparable residential and mixed-use decisions retrieved within 1km of the site; withdrawn and undetermined cases are excluded from the percentage.

Calculated from the case list published in this report. It is a record of past decisions on other land, not a probability of consent for this site.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Why this matters

3 of the 5 nearby decided cases in this sample were approved (60% of 5 decided cases). The most frequent reason for refusal nearby was green belt harm, which should be addressed before any application is made.

Similar planning decisions

0.2 miles away · 46 dwellings

refused

Land north of Nicker Hill, Keyworth

Residential development of 46 dwellings

SAMPLE/2025/0188 · 04/07/2025

Green Belt harmHighways and access

0.4 miles away · 90 dwellings

approved

Land off Debdale Lane, Keyworth

Outline application for up to 90 dwellings with associated open space and access

SAMPLE/2025/0412 · 18/11/2025

0.6 miles away · 24 dwellings

refused

Land south of Wolds Drive, Keyworth

Erection of 24 dwellings and formation of new vehicular access

SAMPLE/2024/0655 · 09/10/2024

Green Belt harmLandscape and visual

0.7 miles away

appeal allowed

Land at Bunny Lane, Keyworth

Change of use of agricultural land to a roadside services and drive-thru unit

SAMPLE/2024/0921 · 27/02/2025

Principle of development

0.9 miles away · 38 dwellings

approved

Land at Selby Lane, Keyworth

Reserved matters for 38 dwellings

SAMPLE/2024/0301 · 14/06/2024

Flood risk analysis, suitability and mitigation

Mapped position and suitability

Not yet assessable

Data currently unavailable

The national flood risk dataset could not be reached for this boundary, so no flood risk conclusion can be drawn. This is not evidence that the site is free of flood risk.

Mapped fluvial and tidal position: Data currently unavailable. Source: Data currently unavailable.

The site measures 4.62 hectares, so a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment is required. Surface water, groundwater, sewer flooding, reservoir breach and ordinary watercourse risk are not covered by the national dataset used here and are recorded as data currently unavailable.

Rushcliffe Borough Council is the local planning authority; the lead local flood authority for surface water and ordinary watercourses is the county or unitary authority covering this area, and its consenting and SuDS approval role should be engaged pre-application.

Source: Data currently unavailable

Policy tests

Sequential test

Cannot yet be determined

Applicability cannot be determined until mapped flood zones are confirmed.

Exception test

Cannot yet be determined

Not engaged on the mapped position. It would be engaged for highly vulnerable uses in Zone 2 or for any more vulnerable use in Zone 3a.

Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment

Cannot yet be determined

Required for all development in Zones 2 and 3, for sites over one hectare in Zone 1, and for any site at risk from other sources of flooding. The assessment must include climate-change allowances for the relevant river basin district and development lifetime.

Drainage strategy and SuDS approval

Applies

All major development requires a sustainable drainage strategy following the discharge hierarchy — infiltration, then watercourse, then sewer — with attenuation for the 1 in 100 year event plus climate change, and a maintenance and adoption plan for the lifetime of the scheme.

Sources of flooding assessed

Rivers and sea (fluvial and tidal)

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable

Surface water (pluvial)

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable — surface water mapping is not part of the national planning dataset used here. It is a common reason otherwise unconstrained sites are refused or reduced in developable area, and must be checked against the Environment Agency risk of flooding from surface water maps and the authority's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Groundwater

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable — groundwater emergence and high winter water tables are assessed through infiltration testing and monitoring boreholes, which also determine whether infiltration drainage is viable.

Sewer and drainage system

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable — capacity and historic sewer flooding records are held by the sewerage undertaker and must be obtained through a pre-development enquiry.

Ordinary watercourses, ditches and culverts

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable — on-site ditches, land drains and culverts are identified by topographic survey and site walkover. Works affecting them require lead local flood authority consent, and an eight metre undeveloped margin is normally sought to main rivers.

Reservoir and canal breach

Not held nationally

Data currently unavailable — residual breach risk should be checked against reservoir flood extents where a raised impounding structure lies upstream.

Flood risk vulnerability of proposed uses

Use / vulnerability class	Zone 1	Zone 2	Zone 3a	Zone 3b
Housing (more vulnerable)	Appropriate	Appropriate — exception test not required	Exception test required	Not appropriate
Retail, offices, drive-thru, most commercial (less vulnerable)	Appropriate	Appropriate	Appropriate	Not appropriate
Care homes, schools, emergency services (highly vulnerable)	Appropriate	Exception test required	Not appropriate	Not appropriate
Open space, parking, sports pitches (water compatible)	Appropriate	Appropriate	Appropriate	Appropriate

Mitigation strategy

Sustainable drainage (SuDS) train: Adopt a treatment and attenuation train — permeable surfaces, swales, filter strips, then basins or wetland — restricting discharge to the greenfield runoff rate for the site, with the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event stored on site and exceedance routes designed to safe overland paths.
Betterment where a brownfield or piped baseline exists: Where existing hardstanding or an existing connection discharges at a higher rate, offer a measurable reduction in runoff rate and volume. Betterment is persuasive with both the lead local flood authority and members.
Multifunctional blue-green infrastructure: Design attenuation as usable public open space with biodiversity value so that it contributes to the biodiversity net gain baseline and the green space requirement rather than sterilising developable land.
Maintenance and long-term management: Secure adoption or a management company with a costed maintenance schedule for the lifetime of the development, as the absence of a credible maintenance plan is a routine drainage objection.

Flood and drainage work required

Item	Stage	Why
Topographic survey to Ordnance Datum	Before design	Flood levels, floor levels and drainage falls cannot be established from mapped data.
Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment with climate-change allowances	Required	Required in Zones 2 and 3, over one hectare in Zone 1, or where other sources of flooding are present.
Environment Agency detailed model or product 4 data request	If a watercourse adjoins the site	Mapped zone boundaries are indicative; modelled levels are needed to fix the developable area.
Drainage strategy, infiltration testing to BRE 365 and outfall confirmation	Pre-application	Determines whether infiltration is viable and secures an acceptable discharge point and rate.
Sewerage undertaker pre-development enquiry	Pre-application	Confirms foul and surface water capacity and any reinforcement cost or phasing constraint.
Review of the authority's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and surface water management plan	Pre-application	Sets out how the authority will apply the sequential test and any local critical drainage area requirements.

Consultees and residual risk

Environment Agency: Statutory consultee for main river and tidal flood risk, Zone 3 development and floodplain compensation.
Lead local flood authority: Statutory consultee for surface water drainage on major development and consenting authority for works to ordinary watercourses.
Sewerage undertaker: Confirms foul and surface water capacity, discharge rates and points of connection.
Local planning authority drainage or flood officer: Applies the sequential test through plan-making and site allocation.
Internal drainage board (where the site lies within a board district): Byelaw consent for works affecting board watercourses and its own discharge rate limits.

Residual risk cannot be quantified until flood data is available for the boundary.

This flood risk analysis is desk-based and derived from national open data. It is not a Flood Risk Assessment, does not model flood levels and must not be relied on for design, insurance or investment decisions. Only a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy prepared by a suitably qualified engineer, using Environment Agency modelled data and site survey, can establish suitability.

Why this score?

Policy support

58/100

weight 20%

Green Belt location weighs against the principle, but the parcel reads as contained and may meet the Grey Belt tests introduced by the NPPF.

4 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Housing need

78/100

weight 15%

A Housing Delivery Test result of 86% shows under-delivery against requirement, adding weight to deliverable housing sites.

3 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Housing land supply

82/100

weight 15%

Five-year housing land supply of 4.1 years is a shortfall, so the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development applies.

3 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Site status

66/100

weight 15%

Unallocated but adjoining the settlement boundary, in single freehold ownership with no ransom strips identified.

3 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Constraints

73/100

weight 15%

Flood Zone 1 with a level site and no statutory ecological or heritage designations; hedgerow retention and 10% biodiversity net gain to be designed in.

5 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Infrastructure and accessibility

70/100

weight 10%

Keyworth is a main village with a secondary school, health centre, shops and frequent buses; the Nicker Hill frontage offers a credible access subject to visibility splays.

4 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Comparable decisions

61/100

weight 5%

Approval rate on nearby decided cases as set out in the comparables schedule for residential schemes within 1km; refusals turn on Green Belt harm and highway capacity.

4 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Emerging policy

76/100

weight 5%

The Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan is progressing towards Regulation 19 and a Call for Sites window is open.

2 verified evidence sources · most recent data 45 days old

Local authority position

Local planning authority: Rushcliffe Borough Council
Housing requirement (per annum): 774 dwellings
Latest five-year housing land supply: 4.1 years (as at 01/04/2026)
Housing Delivery Test: 86% (as at 01/12/2025)

Housing evidence figures (5YHLS / AMR / HDT)

Automatically extracted from the authority's own published evidence — base date 31/03/2026.

Annual housing requirement: 754 dwellings pa
Plan period requirement: 13150 dwellings
Completions in the latest monitoring year: 612 dwellings
Five-year supply position: 4.1 years
Five-year requirement (incl. buffer): 3959 dwellings
Deliverable supply identified: 3245 dwellings
Housing Delivery Test: 86%
Affordable housing need: 228 dwellings pa
Affordability ratio: 9.4

Extracted automatically from Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement (sample), page 12 · published 01/04/2026 · extraction confidence: high. Figures should be verified against the published document before they are relied upon.

Local Plan and emerging plan

Current Local Plan: Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies
Adoption date: 10/10/2019
Emerging Local Plan: Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan
Emerging plan stage: Pre-submission (Regulation 19 expected)
Local Plan review status: Under review
Next plan milestone: Regulation 19 publication and representations — 02/11/2026

Site policy and designation position

Settlement boundary relationship: Within or adjoining the built-up area
Green Belt status: Within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt
Grey Belt opportunity: Possible Grey Belt — limited contribution to Green Belt purposes (indicative)
Brownfield status: Not previously developed land
HELAA / SHLAA status: KEY/032 — Suitable and available — 160 dwellings assessed
Previous Call for Sites status: open
Allocated for development: Not allocated in the adopted plan

HELAA / SHLAA assessment of this site

Matched on location (0m from the site centroid). Confirm the reference against the published schedule before relying on it.

Site reference: KEY/032
Site name in schedule: Land off Nicker Hill, Keyworth
Assessed area: 6.4 ha
Assessed capacity: 160 dwellings
Assessment outcome: Suitable and available
Suitable: Yes
Available: Yes
Achievable: Yes
Developable: Yes
Indicative delivery period: Years 6-10

Extracted automatically from Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (sample), page 148 · published 01/11/2025 · extraction confidence: medium. Figures should be verified against the published document before they are relied upon.

Environmental, heritage, flood and access constraints

Green Belt

Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries

Medium/HighSample data — illustrative only

Flood risk

Flood Zone 1 (low probability of river and sea flooding); surface water ponding on the eastern boundary

LowSample data — illustrative only

Heritage

No listed buildings or conservation area within 250m

LowSample data — illustrative only

Ecology

No statutory designations; hedgerows and mature boundary trees require survey and BNG accounting

MediumSample data — illustrative only

Agricultural land quality

Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed)

MediumSample data — illustrative only

Access and highways: no national dataset establishes access credibility. A site-specific highways assessment is required before promotion.

Planning considerations — deep dive

Each material consideration is set out with the policy framework that governs it, the position on this site as evidenced by the data in this report, and the technical work or mitigation that follows. Where a topic is not covered by the national datasets used here it is shown as not yet assessable rather than treated as unconstrained.

Principle of development and plan position

Low risk

Policy framework: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Under the NPPF (August 2026), policy S3 applies a presumption in favour of sustainable development: within settlements policy S4, and outside settlements policy S5, direct that proposals be approved unless the benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies.
Position on this site: The adopted plan is Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (adopted 10/10/2019). The plan is approximately 7 years old, so its housing policies are open to challenge on age grounds. The authority reports 4.1 years of housing land supply, below the five-year requirement, which engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development for housing proposals. The most recent Housing Delivery Test result is 86%, which requires an action plan and a buffer. Allocation status is recorded as Not allocated in the adopted plan.
What follows: Confirm the site's status in the current plan and in any HELAA/SHLAA, and align promotion with the next plan-making or Call for Sites window rather than relying on a speculative application alone.

Green Belt and Grey Belt

Medium risk

Policy framework: The NPPF (August 2026) retains the five Green Belt purposes in policy GB2 and defines grey belt in the Annex B glossary as Green Belt land — previously developed or otherwise — which does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d). Policy GB6 makes inappropriate development harmful unless very special circumstances exist; GB7(1)(g) treats grey belt development as not inappropriate where there is evidenced unmet need, a sustainable location under policy TR3, and, for major housing, compliance with the Golden Rules in policy GB8.
Position on this site: Green Belt: Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries. Grey Belt position: Possible Grey Belt — limited contribution to Green Belt purposes (indicative)
What follows: No Green Belt work is indicated by the mapped data; confirm against the adopted policies map, which is the definitive source for the boundary.

Flood risk, drainage and water

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: NPPF (August 2026) policies F4 to F7 and Annex F require the sequential test and, where necessary, the exception test to be applied, and a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment for sites in Flood Zones 2 and 3, sites over 1 hectare in Zone 1, and sites at risk from other sources of flooding.
Position on this site: Mapped fluvial and tidal flood risk: Data currently unavailable. Surface water, groundwater, sewer and reservoir risk are not covered by the national dataset used here and are recorded as data currently unavailable. As the site exceeds 1 hectare, a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment will be required irrespective of the mapped zone.
What follows: Commission a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy, including a sustainable drainage (SuDS) hierarchy assessment, infiltration testing and confirmation of an acceptable outfall and discharge rate with the lead local flood authority and sewerage undertaker.

Heritage and archaeology

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: Sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act, and NPPF (August 2026) policies HE5 and HE6, require an assessment of significance and give substantial weight to conserving designated heritage assets, with any harm a matter of considerable importance and weight to be weighed against public benefits.
Position on this site: Conservation area: Data currently unavailable. Listed buildings: Data currently unavailable. Scheduled monuments: Data currently unavailable. Non-designated assets and buried archaeology are not mapped nationally and are recorded as data currently unavailable.
What follows: Obtain a Heritage Impact Assessment where designated assets or their settings are engaged, and an archaeological desk-based assessment with geophysical survey where the authority's historic environment record indicates potential.

Ecology, biodiversity net gain and trees

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: Mandatory biodiversity net gain of at least 10% applies to most planning permissions under the Environment Act 2021, secured for 30 years. Protected species and habitats are addressed under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and NPPF (August 2026) policies N2, N3 and N6.
Position on this site: SSSI: Data currently unavailable. Ancient woodland: Data currently unavailable. Tree preservation: Data currently unavailable. Protected species, priority habitats, hedgerows and nutrient or recreational impact zones require survey and are recorded as data currently unavailable.
What follows: Commission a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, a statutory biodiversity metric baseline in the appropriate survey season, an arboricultural survey to BS 5837, and confirm whether nutrient neutrality or recreational mitigation applies in this catchment.

Landscape, visual amenity and design

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: NPPF (August 2026) policies DP1 to DP3 require development to be sympathetic to local character, and policy N4 places substantial weight on conserving and enhancing Protected Landscapes, with major development refused other than in exceptional circumstances and where in the public interest.
Position on this site: National Landscape / AONB: Data currently unavailable. Local landscape character designations, important views and the authority's design code are not held nationally and are recorded as data currently unavailable.
What follows: Prepare a landscape and visual appraisal with a defensible new boundary, and reflect the local design code or the National Design Guide in any illustrative masterplan.

Highways, access and accessibility

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: NPPF (August 2026) policy TR6(4) requires refusal where development would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network or an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and policy TR4 requires safe and suitable access for all users.
Position on this site: No national dataset establishes access credibility, visibility splays, frontage ownership or network capacity, so highways is recorded as data currently unavailable in the scoring. Access is the most common practical reason otherwise promotable sites fail.
What follows: Commission a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment with an access feasibility drawing, confirm visibility splays and adoptable geometry, and evidence walking, cycling and public transport accessibility to local services.

Infrastructure, utilities and viability

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: Policy requires development to be supported by adequate infrastructure, with contributions secured through CIL and section 106. Viability is a plan-level matter but site-specific circumstances can be material.
Position on this site: Education, health, utility and wastewater treatment headroom are authority and undertaker specific and are recorded as data currently unavailable in this report. Where a Green Belt release is pursued, the golden rules add affordable housing and green space requirements which materially affect viability.
What follows: Obtain utility and wastewater capacity enquiries, confirm the authority's CIL rate and section 106 expectations, and prepare a high-level appraisal before committing to a promotion route.

Agricultural land, minerals and contamination

Risk not yet assessable

Policy framework: NPPF (August 2026) policy N2 requires the quality of agricultural land — including best and most versatile land in grades 1, 2 and 3a — to be taken into account, with poorer quality land used where possible. Mineral safeguarding areas restrict sterilisation of resources under chapter 11, and contaminated land must be made safe for its proposed use.
Position on this site: Agricultural land classification, mineral safeguarding and contamination history are not returned by the datasets used in this assessment and are recorded as data currently unavailable.
What follows: Commission an agricultural land classification survey where greenfield land is proposed, check the minerals and waste plan safeguarding maps, and obtain a Phase 1 desk study for ground conditions and contamination.

Policy evidence citations

No indexed policy documents are yet held for this authority, so the policy statements in this report rely on the national datasets cited alongside them. Data unavailable for authority-level policy citations.

Planning applications nearby and comparable decisions

approved: 8refused: 4withdrawn: 1appeal allowed: 1appeal dismissed: 2

SAMPLE/2025/0412

approved

Land off Debdale Lane, Keyworth

Outline application for up to 90 dwellings with associated open space and access

Decided 18/11/2025 · 640m away · 90 units

SAMPLE/2025/0188

refused

Land north of Nicker Hill, Keyworth

Residential development of 46 dwellings

Decided 04/07/2025 · 310m away · 46 units

Green Belt harmHighways and access

SAMPLE/2024/0921

appeal allowed

Land at Bunny Lane, Keyworth

Change of use of agricultural land to a roadside services and drive-thru unit

Decided 27/02/2025 · 1180m away

Principle of development

SAMPLE/2024/0655

refused

Land south of Wolds Drive, Keyworth

Erection of 24 dwellings and formation of new vehicular access

Decided 09/10/2024 · 890m away · 24 units

Green Belt harmLandscape and visual

SAMPLE/2024/0301

approved

Land at Selby Lane, Keyworth

Reserved matters for 38 dwellings

Decided 14/06/2024 · 1420m away · 38 units

Committee evidence

How this local planning authority's committee has actually decided comparable schemes.

Search all records

Loading committee evidence…

Committee Intelligence is a structured summary of publicly published council committee documents. It is not the original report and is not planning, legal or investment advice. Always read the council's own report and decision notice. A committee decision on another site does not create a legal precedent.

Committee evidence informs the wider assessment. It does not set or override the Planning Potential Score, which remains rule-derived from the evidence held.

Appeals and legal intelligence

Comparable appeal, ministerial, court and tribunal decisions for this land — with the reason each one succeeded or failed. Evidence for judgement, never a prediction, and it does not change the Planning Potential Score.

Searching the decision register…

National context: 32% of section 78 appeals were allowed in the 12 months to march 2026 (Planning Inspectorate statistics, April 2026). Appeal, court and tribunal decisions are advisory planning intelligence, not legal advice. National success rates are not a probability for any individual site, and every conclusion should be confirmed against the original decision and professional advice.

Refusals and reasons

Green Belt harm3

Highways and access2

Landscape and visual1

Principle of development1

Reason categories are derived by keyword classification of published decision text and should be verified against the decision notice.

Planning appeals

Appeal decisions in the sample: 3
Appeals allowed: 1

Full judgments and inspector reasoning are available in the case law section.

Calls for Sites

Status: open
Call: Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan — Call for Sites (sample)
Opens: 15/06/2026
Closes: 30/09/2026

Open the Calls for Sites dashboard

Recommended next step

What should I do next?

Suggested next step

Commission a detailed site appraisal

Why this is suggested: The site scores 68/100 with Medium confidence in the underlying data. A detailed appraisal would test capacity, access, viability and the strongest planning route.
What to check first: Access and highways
Ownership, title and any restrictive covenants
Evidence used: Sample data — illustrative only — Green Belt designation · 01/07/2026
Sample data — illustrative only — Five-year housing land supply · 01/04/2026
Sample data — illustrative only — Housing Delivery Test · 01/12/2025
Sample data — illustrative only — Flood risk · 10/05/2026
Sample data — illustrative only — Relationship to the built-up area · 20/06/2026

Open the appraisal checklist

Supporting action

Explore strategic land promotion

Why this is suggested: At 4.6 ha and 68/100, the site may suit a promotion agreement, where a promoter funds the planning work. This is an indicative route that needs a site-specific assessment.
What to check first: Your appetite for a long-term agreement
Every landowner's agreement
Existing options or tenancies over the land
Evidence used: Sample data — illustrative only — Green Belt designation · 01/07/2026
Sample data — illustrative only — Five-year housing land supply · 01/04/2026
Sample data — illustrative only — Housing Delivery Test · 01/12/2025

Open the promotion checklist

Supporting action

Monitor the Local Plan for this area

Why this is suggested: Rushcliffe Borough Council's plan position (Pre-submission (Regulation 19 expected)) — next: Regulation 19 publication and representations, 02/11/2026 will decide when the best opportunity to put land forward arises.
What to check first: Consultation dates on the council's plan timetable
Changes to the five-year housing land supply
Evidence used: Sample data — illustrative only · 01/04/2026

Open the monitoring checklist

Want the full evidence review, outstanding checks and an action plan? The Detailed Report covers them.

Open the Detailed Report

These are indicative routes from published data, not a guarantee of planning permission. Each needs a site-specific professional assessment.

PREPARE FOR CALL FOR SITES

Next planning opportunity: Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan Call for Sites closes 30 September 2026, with Regulation 19 publication expected November 2026.

Technical work schedule

Topographical and boundary survey

Pre-promotion

Fixes developable area, levels and ownership extent.

Access feasibility and Transport Statement

Pre-promotion

Access deliverability is the most common practical failure point.

Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy

Pre-application

Required for sites over 1ha and for any site in Zones 2 or 3.

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and BNG baseline

Pre-application

Mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain must be evidenced and costed.

Arboricultural survey (BS 5837)

Pre-application

Establishes root protection areas and constraints on layout.

Heritage Impact Assessment

Pre-application

Needed where designated assets or their settings are engaged.

Landscape and visual appraisal

Pre-application

Supports a defensible boundary and countryside or Green Belt case.

Phase 1 geo-environmental desk study

Pre-application

Identifies contamination, ground and mining risk affecting cost.

Utilities and wastewater capacity enquiries

Pre-application

Confirms serviceability and abnormal infrastructure cost.

Agricultural land classification survey

Where greenfield

Best and most versatile land carries weight against release.

Indicative schedule of the technical work usually required to move a site from appraisal to promotion. The final scope depends on the authority's validation requirements and the outcome of pre-application discussions.

Assumptions, caveats and limitations

Desk-based assessment only

This report is a desk-based appraisal generated from national open datasets. No site inspection, measured survey, ground investigation, ecological survey or highway survey has been undertaken. Conclusions may change materially once site-specific technical work is available.

Data currency and completeness

Public datasets are published at differing intervals and are not always current or complete. Where a dataset could not be reached or does not cover the site, the report states that data is currently unavailable. That is never to be read as confirmation that a constraint is absent.

The policies map is definitive

Designation boundaries shown in national datasets are indicative. The adopted policies map held by the local planning authority is the definitive source for Green Belt, settlement boundaries, allocations and local designations.

Flood risk

Mapped flood zones address fluvial and tidal risk only. Surface water, groundwater, sewer, reservoir and climate-change allowances are not assessed here and require a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment prepared by a suitably qualified engineer.

Capacity and yield

Indicative capacity figures are arithmetic outputs of area, a net developable ratio and density bands. They are not a scheme design, do not reflect access, drainage, open space or heritage constraints in detail, and must not be relied on for valuation.

Scoring and comparables

The Logical Planning Score is a weighted indicator, not a prediction of the decision. Comparable decisions and refusal reasons are derived by automated classification of published decision text and should be verified against the decision notice before being relied on.

No professional advice or guarantee

Nothing in this report constitutes planning, legal, valuation, environmental or other professional advice, and no assurance is given that planning permission will be granted or that the land will be allocated.

Planning evidence register

88% of 8 registered conclusions rest on confirmed evidence, drawn from 3 verified sources.

Live

Checked within the last 30 days against a source published in the last two years.

Current

Checked recently against a source that remains the latest published position.

Superseded

The underlying source is more than five years old and may have been replaced.

Awaiting verification

The source could not be verified, or carries no publication date. Treat as unconfirmed.

Green Belt designation

Current

Within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt

policy

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: 01/07/2026
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 111 days

Five-year housing land supply

Current

4.1 years

need

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: 01/04/2026
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 202 days

Housing Delivery Test

Current

86%

need

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: 01/12/2025
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 323 days

Flood risk

Current

Flood Zone 1

technical

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: 10/05/2026
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 163 days

Relationship to the built-up area

Current

Adjoins the Keyworth built-up area

sustainability

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: 20/06/2026
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 122 days

Highway access

Awaiting verification

Frontage to Nicker Hill

access

Source:: Sample data — illustrative only
Document date:: Data currently unavailable
Extracted:: 01/08/2026

Housing supply and delivery figures

Current

4.1 years supply · HDT 86% · 754 dpa requirement

Housing evidence base

Source:: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement (sample)
Document date:: 31/03/2026
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 203 days

HELAA / SHLAA assessment of this land

Current

KEY/032 · Suitable and available · 160 homes

Housing evidence base

Source:: Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (sample)
Document date:: 01/11/2025
Extracted:: 01/08/2026
Source age:: 353 days

Evidence and sources

policy

Green Belt designation

Verified

Within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt

Inappropriate development in principle unless the Grey Belt tests or very special circumstances apply.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Source date: 01/07/2026

Checked: 01/08/2026

need

Five-year housing land supply

Verified

4.1 years

A shortfall engages the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Source date: 01/04/2026

Checked: 01/08/2026

Housing Delivery Test

Verified

86%

Delivery below 95% requires an action plan and adds weight to new supply.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Source date: 01/12/2025

Checked: 01/08/2026

technical

Flood risk

Verified

Flood Zone 1

Sequentially preferable location for residential development.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Source date: 10/05/2026

Checked: 01/08/2026

sustainability

Relationship to the built-up area

Verified

Adjoins the Keyworth built-up area

Village services and bus routes are within walking distance.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Source date: 20/06/2026

Checked: 01/08/2026

access

Highway access

Partial

Frontage to Nicker Hill

No national dataset confirms access credibility; a site-specific highways assessment is required.

Source: Sample data — illustrative only

Checked: 01/08/2026

This assessment is an automated planning intelligence report based on available public data. It does not constitute planning, legal, valuation or other professional advice and does not guarantee that planning permission will be granted.

Planningintelligencereport

Example Site — edge of settlement

Site boundary and context

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

Key nearby features

Site at a glance

Executive summary

The position at a glance

Professional evidence report

Example Site — edge of settlement, Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire — 4.62 ha (11.42 acres) in Rushcliffe Borough Council.

Boundary analysis

Principal risk: Highway access — evidence not held

Green Belt — Site lies within the Nottingham–Derby Green Belt; parcel is contained by existing development on two boundaries

Agricultural land quality — Grade 3 (subgrade unconfirmed)

Comparable decisions: 60% of 5 decided cases

Indicative capacity: 87–121 dwellings

Red-line site plan — Example Site — edge of settlement

Land east of Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottinghamshire

Every source relied on in this report

How far this report can be relied on

Evidence gaps and the work needed to close them

Planning Investment Committee decision

Reasons for the decision

Risks

Missing evidence

Recommended expenditure before the next gate

Evidence verification

Comparable decision and appeal analysis

Call for Sites submission

Planning risk matrix

Local decision climate

Policy support

Evidence integrity

Site status

Constraints

Housing need

Housing land supply

Infrastructure and accessibility

Comparable decisions

Emerging policy

Development potential

Opportunity score history

Why this score?

NPPF (August 2026) opportunity assessment

Sustainable development assessment (NPPF August 2026)

Planning opportunity timeline

Planning opportunity timeline

Planning balance

Factors in favour

Factors against

Where the balance sits

Constraint severity

Planning prospects

Confidence assessment

Development capacity

Development viability calculator

Policy-linked appraisal and land value per acre

Scheme and appraisal

Cost lines

Sensitivity — land value per acre

Policy requirements applied

Residual appraisal workspace — site-specific costs

Site-specific cost schedule

Title boundaries and transaction evidence

Indicative registered parcels

Price Paid transaction evidence

Title register, title plan and corporate ownership

Alternative uses

Which uses this site supports

Green Belt and Grey Belt assessment

Mayoral strategic planning powers (prospective)

Site and location description

Location and administrative context

The site: character, use and indicative capacity

Surrounding area and designation context

Nearby planning evidence and comparable decisions

Similar planning decisions

Flood risk analysis, suitability and mitigation

Mapped position and suitability

Policy tests

Planning
intelligence
report