Skip to content

Methodology

How we score planning potential

Two separate numbers: a Planning Potential Score from 0 to 100, and a confidence rating reflecting how complete the underlying public datasets are. Below is every evidence area we assess, the statutory and NPPF basis for each test, the datasets we query live, and how the finding moves the score.

Evidence area 01

Designations & constraints

The designations sitting over a site set the policy test the decision-maker must apply before anything else is weighed.

We intersect your boundary — or a point, if you have not drawn one — with the national designation datasets and report each hit separately rather than rolling them into a single traffic light. That matters because designations are not interchangeable: a conservation area imposes a duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing character, while a Site of Special Scientific Interest engages a near-prohibition on harm, and ancient woodland is treated as irreplaceable habitat where loss should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.

National Landscapes (formerly AONBs) and National Parks attract great weight for conserving landscape and scenic beauty, and major development within them is only permitted in exceptional circumstances following an assessment of need, alternatives and detriment. Listed buildings and scheduled monuments bring the setting question with them: harm can arise from development on land that is not itself designated, which is why we report designations within and adjoining the boundary.

Nothing here is a refusal in itself. Designation constrains scale, layout and location on the site far more often than it rules development out, and much of our work with promoters is about where within a holding a scheme can go.

Effect on the appraisal

  • NegativeGreen Belt, SSSI, ancient woodland and scheduled monuments carry the heaviest negative adjustments.
  • CautionConservation areas, listed buildings and TPO zones shape design and layout rather than blocking development.
  • PositiveA clean designation search is reported as a positive factor, with the datasets checked listed in full.

Policy & statutory basis

Green Belt
NPPF §142–156 — five purposes, inappropriate development, very special circumstances.
Heritage
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ss.66 & 72; NPPF §205–214 — great weight to conservation, harm requires clear and convincing justification.
Landscape
NPPF §189–190 — great weight to National Parks and National Landscapes; major development only in exceptional circumstances.
Ecology
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (SSSI); NPPF §193 — irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland and veteran trees.
Biodiversity net gain
Environment Act 2021 inserting Schedule 7A into the TCPA 1990 — mandatory 10% BNG for most major development from 12 February 2024 and small sites from 2 April 2024.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk — green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building, scheduled-monument
  • planning.data.gov.uk — site-of-special-scientific-interest, ancient-woodland, national-park, tree-preservation-zone

Evidence area 02

Potential Grey Belt review

Grey Belt is the single biggest change to Green Belt policy in a generation, and it is a test of contribution to purposes, not of appearance.

The December 2024 NPPF introduced Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a) checking unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, (b) preventing neighbouring towns merging, or (d) preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. Purposes (c) safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and (e) assisting urban regeneration are deliberately excluded from the test, which is why sites that feel rural can still qualify.

Where Grey Belt is established, development is not inappropriate provided there is demonstrable unmet need for the relevant development, the site is in a sustainable location, and the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. Residential schemes must then meet the golden rules: 50% affordable housing subject to viability, necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and provision of accessible new green space.

Our review is indicative and site-level. A defensible Grey Belt case is built from the authority's own Green Belt review and a purpose-by-purpose assessment on the ground; we tell you whether that work is worth commissioning, and we never present our output as a conclusion.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositivePreviously developed land within Green Belt scores materially better than open Green Belt.
  • CautionA Grey Belt indication triggers a recommendation for a purpose-by-purpose assessment before any promotion spend.

Policy & statutory basis

Definition
NPPF (December 2024) Annex 2 glossary — Grey Belt.
Acceptability
NPPF §155 — unmet need, sustainable location, and no fundamental undermining of remaining Green Belt purposes.
Golden rules
NPPF §156–157 — 50% affordable housing subject to viability, infrastructure improvements, accessible green space.
Sequential approach
NPPF §154 — brownfield first, then Grey Belt, before other Green Belt land.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk — green-belt, brownfield-land, brownfield-site
  • Authority Green Belt reviews and purpose assessments, where published

Evidence area 03

Change of use & commercial

Use class questions decide whether you need planning permission at all, and then which policy tests you face.

The 2020 reform of the Use Classes Order created the broad commercial, business and service Class E, within which movement between shops, financial services, restaurants and cafés, offices, light industry, clinics, nurseries, gyms and indoor sport is not development at all. Class F.1 learning and non-residential institutions and Class F.2 local community uses sit outside it, and a long list of uses — pubs and drinking establishments, hot food takeaways, cinemas, live music venues, petrol filling stations and betting shops among them — remain sui generis, meaning any change to or from them needs an application.

Roadside and drive-thru schemes are where this bites hardest. A restaurant or café is Class E(b) while a hot food takeaway is sui generis, and a drive-thru layout brings its own highway, queuing, servicing, noise and litter case regardless of the class. Retail proposals outside a defined centre engage the sequential and, above defined thresholds, the impact test on town centre vitality.

For employment and logistics we look at whether the site sits within an allocated employment area or a protected industrial designation, because loss of employment land is one of the most common reasons a commercial-to-residential proposal is resisted at plan level even where the physical constraints are benign.

We set out which route is available — no development, prior approval, or full application — and what evidence each route demands, so the appraisal reflects the real consenting risk rather than a generic score.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositiveA change already within Class E needs no permission — the appraisal reports that plainly instead of scoring it.
  • CautionSui generis and out-of-centre proposals attract sequential, impact and highway evidence requirements.

Policy & statutory basis

Use classes
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended by the 2020 Regulations — Classes E, F.1, F.2 and sui generis uses.
Material change of use
TCPA 1990 s.55 — development includes material change in the use of buildings or land; s.55(2)(f) excludes changes within the same class.
Town centres
NPPF §90–95 — sequential test for main town centre uses, impact assessment above the local threshold or 2,500 sqm default.
Determination
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s.38(6) — decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Evidence we query

  • Adopted development plan policies for retail, employment and roadside uses
  • planning.data.gov.uk — article-4-direction, article-4-direction-area, local-plan documents

Evidence area 04

Permitted development (PDR)

Permitted development can deliver a scheme in eight weeks — until an Article 4 direction or a designation removes the right.

The General Permitted Development Order grants planning permission for defined classes of development subject to conditions and limitations, and several of those classes are transformative for landowners: Class MA allows commercial, business and service floorspace to become dwellinghouses subject to prior approval, Class Q covers agricultural buildings converted to dwellings, and Part 6 covers agricultural development on units above and below five hectares.

Every class carries qualifying conditions that are routinely missed. Class MA requires the building to have been in Class E use for two years, vacant for three months, and — with limited exceptions — not to sit in a listed building or scheduled monument, with prior approval covering matters including transport, contamination, flooding, noise and natural light. Class Q is limited by floorspace and dwelling caps and by whether the building is structurally capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding.

Article 4 directions are the decisive local overlay. Authorities use them to withdraw rights — most commonly Class MA in town centres and Class L houses in multiple occupation in university cities — and a direction converts a prior approval into a full application with all the policy tests that brings. Article 2(3) land, conservation areas, National Parks and National Landscapes also restrict or remove classes outright.

We report PDR as commentary rather than certainty. Whether a specific building qualifies is a matter for a lawful development certificate or a prior approval application, and we say so.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositiveA viable PDR route is flagged as a fast, low-risk consenting option alongside the main appraisal.
  • NegativeAn Article 4 direction covering the boundary removes the route and is reported explicitly, with the direction record linked.

Policy & statutory basis

Order
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended.
Commercial to residential
Schedule 2 Part 3 Class MA — prior approval, two-year Class E use, three-month vacancy, prescribed prior approval matters.
Agricultural
Schedule 2 Part 3 Class Q (barn conversions) and Part 6 (agricultural development on units of 5ha or more, and under 5ha).
Withdrawal of rights
GPDO Article 4 directions; Article 2(3) land — conservation areas, National Parks, National Landscapes, World Heritage Sites, the Broads.
Certainty
TCPA 1990 ss.191–192 — certificates of lawfulness of existing or proposed use or development.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk — article-4-direction, article-4-direction-area
  • planning.data.gov.uk — conservation-area, national-park, listed-building, scheduled-monument

Evidence area 05

Local Plan position

Where the authority sits in its plan cycle usually matters more to a promotion strategy than any single site constraint.

Section 38(6) makes the development plan the starting point, so the age, status and review stage of that plan set the terms of engagement. A plan adopted within the last five years and supported by a five year supply gives the authority the strongest hand; a plan being examined under Regulation 24, or one where a Regulation 18 consultation is imminent, opens a window to promote land through the plan itself.

We map each authority to the statutory stages — evidence gathering, Regulation 18 issues and options, draft plan, Regulation 19 publication, submission under Regulation 22, examination, and adoption — and record the dates that are published. Call for Sites windows are the practical entry point for landowners and are often open for a matter of weeks, which is why we monitor them per authority rather than nationally.

Plan-level housing evidence is reported alongside: the housing requirement, the five year housing land supply position, and the Housing Delivery Test result. Where a plan is more than five years old and the housing requirement is not up to date, the policies most important for determining the application can be out of date, which changes the balance a decision-maker must strike.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositiveAn open Call for Sites, an out-of-date plan, or supply below five years all improve the promotion outlook.
  • CautionA recently adopted plan with a healthy supply position points to a longer, plan-led strategy.

Policy & statutory basis

Primacy of the plan
PCPA 2004 s.38(6); TCPA 1990 s.70(2).
Plan-making stages
Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 — Regulations 18, 19, 22 and 24.
Plan review
NPPF §33 — policies should be reviewed at least every five years and updated as necessary.
Housing supply
NPPF §78 — five year supply with a 5% buffer; §79 and Annex 1 — Housing Delivery Test consequences including the presumption where delivery is below 75%.
Presumption in favour
NPPF §11(d) — tilted balance where the plan is absent, silent or out of date, subject to the footnote 7 protections.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk — local-plan, local-plan-document, local-plan-boundary, local-authority
  • Authority Local Development Schemes, Call for Sites registers and published examination libraries
  • MHCLG Housing Delivery Test measurement and authority five year supply statements

Evidence area 06

Planning precedent

What has actually been approved and dismissed around a site is the most honest available guide to how it will be treated.

We search decided applications within a defined radius of your boundary and report approval and refusal counts, the mix of application types, and the units consented where that figure is published. Consistency matters in decision-making: a nearby approval on materially similar land is a material consideration, and a run of refusals on the same policy ground is a warning that no amount of design work will resolve.

Appeal outcomes carry more weight than first-instance decisions because they contain reasoned findings on the policy tests. Section 78 appeals against refusal, and the statutory challenges under section 288 that follow, are where the tests for Green Belt harm, housing land supply and heritage balance are worked out in practice — which is why we run a separate case law section reading recent judgments in full.

Coverage is uneven and we say so. Application data on the national platform depends on what each authority publishes and how consistently it is maintained, so a low count in a rural area is often a data gap rather than an absence of development.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositiveA high local approval rate on comparable proposals lifts the precedent element of the score.
  • CautionSparse or missing application data is reported as reduced confidence, never as an absence of precedent.

Policy & statutory basis

Material considerations
TCPA 1990 s.70(2) and PCPA 2004 s.38(6) — previous decisions on comparable land are capable of being material.
Appeals
TCPA 1990 s.78 — appeals against refusal or conditions; s.174 — enforcement appeals.
Statutory challenge
TCPA 1990 s.288 — challenge to decisions of the Secretary of State or an inspector; s.289 — enforcement appeals to the High Court.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk planning application records, where published by the authority
  • Find Case Law (The National Archives) — Planning Court, Court of Appeal and Upper Tribunal judgments
  • Planning Inspectorate Appeals Casework Portal for individual decision letters

Evidence area 07

Flood risk & physical factors

Flood zone, site area and settlement proximity decide how much development a site can physically and sustainably carry.

Flood risk is handled through a sequential approach: development should be steered to areas at least risk, and where a site in a higher-risk zone is proposed, the sequential test and, for more vulnerable uses, the exception test must be satisfied. Zone 2 rarely stops housing but adds evidence cost; Zone 3a and 3b change the developable area, the vulnerability classification and the finished floor level strategy, and functional floodplain is effectively undevelopable for most uses.

Site geometry is calculated from your drawn boundary in hectares and acres and used for indicative capacity, because a constraint that removes a fifth of a 2 hectare site has a different consequence than on 20 hectares. Distance to the nearest settlement edge is used as a proxy for accessibility to services, which is the practical shape of the sustainability test in most rural refusals.

Where relevant we also flag the environmental gateways that stall otherwise consentable schemes — nutrient and water neutrality catchments, agricultural land quality, and mandatory biodiversity net gain, all of which need land or off-site units and should be priced into a promotion appraisal from the start.

Effect on the appraisal

  • NegativeZone 3 coverage across the developable area is a substantial negative adjustment.
  • CautionZone 2 and neutrality catchments are reported as cost and programme risk rather than refusal risk.

Policy & statutory basis

Flood risk
NPPF §165–175 — sequential approach, sequential and exception tests, site-specific flood risk assessment.
Vulnerability
NPPF Annex 3 and the flood risk and coastal change guidance — flood risk vulnerability classification by zone.
Agricultural land
NPPF §187(b) — the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Habitats
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 — appropriate assessment underpinning nutrient and water neutrality requirements.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk — flood-risk-zone and related Environment Agency derived datasets
  • Boundary geometry computed from your drawn polygon (area, centroid, bounding box)

Evidence area 08

Honest data quality

A missing dataset and a clear site are different findings, and we never let one masquerade as the other.

Every check is reported with its source, the time it was retrieved and a status. If a national dataset responds and returns no intersecting record, we say not present. If the request fails, times out or returns an error, we say unavailable — and the confidence rating drops accordingly. That distinction is the difference between an appraisal you can rely on and one that quietly hides a Green Belt designation behind a failed API call.

The Planning Potential Score and the confidence rating are deliberately separate numbers. The score answers how favourable the evidence is; confidence answers how much of the evidence we actually obtained. A high score on low confidence is a prompt to commission searches, not a green light.

Every row in the report links to the underlying record on the official source so an agent, planner or solicitor can verify it independently. Nothing in the platform is modelled, interpolated or estimated, and nothing is cached long enough to go stale without being re-checked.

Effect on the appraisal

  • PositiveComplete dataset coverage raises the confidence rating and is itemised check by check.
  • NegativeAny failed check is shown as unavailable, with the affected element of the score identified.

Policy & statutory basis

Primary source
planning.data.gov.uk — MHCLG's national planning data platform, queried live per assessment.
Audit trail
Every assessment is stored with its inputs, the normalised response and the full raw payload, so a score can be reconstructed after the fact.
Status of output
Not a planning application, legal advice, or a guarantee of consent — a screening appraisal to inform the next step.

Evidence we query

  • planning.data.gov.uk entity API (point and WKT polygon intersection queries)
  • postcodes.io and OpenStreetMap Nominatim for location resolution

Reading the Planning Potential Score

Every appraisal starts at a base score of 50 and each finding above moves it up or down. The report shows that derivation line by line, so you can see exactly which factor cost or earned each point.

80–100
Strong
Few or no hard designations, supportive plan position, and local precedent for comparable development.
60–79
Promising
Workable, usually with one significant constraint or a plan-stage dependency to design around.
40–59
Conditional
Development is arguable but needs specialist evidence — Green Belt purposes, flood modelling, or heritage assessment.
20–39
Difficult
Multiple negative factors. Promotion is normally a plan-cycle exercise, not an application.
0–19
Very constrained
Overlapping designations of the highest weight. We will tell you when land is not worth promoting.

The confidence rating

Confidence is calculated from how many of the checks returned a definitive answer, whether you drew a boundary or searched a point, and whether authority-level plan and housing evidence was available. It is never blended into the score.

  • Drawn boundary. Polygon intersection is materially more reliable than a point search and raises confidence.
  • Dataset completeness. Each unavailable check reduces confidence and is named in the report.
  • Authority evidence. A published plan stage, housing requirement and supply position all add confidence.

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.