How the score works
Every field gets a score from 0 to 100 for how likely it is to be built on for housing. It is worked out by fixed rules from published records, the same way for every field, and no one adjusts a score by hand. AI is used in one place, the deep report's web check, and what it finds counts only when it clearly matches the field and cites a page we actually found.
Each thing we find raises or lowers the score: a Local Plan allocation raises it most, Green Belt lowers it. Where several findings describe the same thing at different strengths, only the strongest counts. Some protections cap the score however much else points to building.
What the bands mean
| Band | Score |
|---|---|
| Low | 0 to 19 |
| Moderate | 20 to 44 |
| High | 45 to 69 |
| Very High | 70 to 100 |
Signs someone means to build
The strongest signals: the council or a landowner has said, on the record, that the land should be built on.
Allocated for housing in an adopted Local Plan
An adopted Local Plan allocation is the council saying, in its own rulebook, that this land should become housing. It is the strongest single sign a field will be built on.
Strongly raises the score
Allocated in a draft/emerging Local Plan
A draft allocation shows the council intends to allocate the site. Many survive examination; some are dropped, which is why it counts for a little less than an adopted one.
Strongly raises the score
Live or pending residential application on the parcel
Someone has paid to apply for housing here, with drawings and reports. Most residential applications are eventually approved, in one form or another.
Strongly raises the score
Steps towards a planning application for housing on the parcel
Screening and scoping requests are the paperwork a developer files before a large application. They only happen when a scheme is being seriously prepared.
Raises the score
Submitted in Call for Sites / HELAA and assessed suitable or developable
The landowner offered the site for development and the council's own assessment found it suitable. That is usually the first step towards an allocation.
Strongly raises the score
Submitted in Call for Sites but assessed unsuitable
The site was put forward but the council assessed it as unsuitable. The owner wants to build; the council does not, for now.
Raises the score
Submitted in Call for Sites, not yet assessed
The site has been put forward for development but the council has not yet said what it thinks. The owner's intent is clear even if the outcome is not.
Raises the score
Owned or under option by a land promoter or housebuilder
Land promoters and housebuilders buy or option land to get it through planning and sell it on. They do not take an interest in fields they expect to stay fields.
Strongly raises the score
Previous residential refusal on the parcel
A refused application shows someone has tried to build here. Refusals are often followed by a revised scheme or an appeal, and the reasons for refusal can change as policy does.
Raises the score
Appeal allowed on an adjacent parcel in the last 5 years
When an inspector allows housing on the land next door, the arguments that won there usually apply here too.
Raises the score
Planning policy
What national and local policy says about building here: protections that make it harder, and pressures that make it easier.
LPA below 5-year housing land supply or failing the Housing Delivery Test
When a council cannot show five years of housing land, or built less than 75% of the homes it needed, national policy treats it as having an unmet need for housing. Homes that meet that need on land well related to a town or village should then be approved unless the harm substantially outweighs the benefits.
Raises the score
Local Plan adopted over 5 years ago, or emerging plan withdrawn
Age alone does not weaken a plan. But five years after it is adopted, homes needed beyond the plan's own figure can count as unmet need, and a withdrawn plan leaves the council further from new allocations. Both make sites the plan did not choose easier to argue for.
Slightly raises the score
Adjacent to a settlement boundary
Councils prefer to grow towns and villages at their edges, where roads, schools and services already exist. Land touching a settlement boundary is where most new housing goes.
Raises the score
Detached from any settlement (more than 500 m)
Isolated fields are a poor fit for national policy, which steers housing to existing settlements. New homes far from any village are refused as unsustainable.
Lowers the score
Green Belt (not a grey belt candidate)
Green Belt is meant to stay open. Building needs 'very special circumstances', and councils and inspectors apply that test strictly.
Lowers the score
Green Belt with grey belt characteristics
Grey belt is Green Belt land that does little to serve its purpose, such as scrub or land next to existing development. Since 2024 the test for building on it is much easier to pass.
Slightly lowers the score
Green Belt at the last national count, since allocated for housing
This land was Green Belt but the council has since allocated it for housing. The Green Belt no longer protects it, so it neither helps nor hinders.
Noted, no effect
National Landscape (AONB)
National Landscapes (the former AONBs) have strong protection. Major housing is refused unless the council can show there is no alternative.
Lowers the score
Neighbourhood Plan designates it Local Green Space
A Neighbourhood Plan has designated this land as Local Green Space, which gives it protection close to Green Belt and reflects strong local feeling against building.
Lowers the score
Grade 1-2 agricultural land
The best farmland is meant to be kept for farming. It does not stop development, but it is a reason councils weigh against it.
Slightly lowers the score
Partly in Flood Zone 2/3
Flood Zones 2 and 3 are where homes should not go without passing the flood-risk tests. The more of the field that is affected, the harder the case becomes.
Lowers the score
Whether it can be built
Practical questions a developer asks: access, services nearby and capacity.
Frontage on an adopted road
A field that fronts an adopted road can be reached without buying access from anyone else. Access is one of the first questions a developer asks.
Slightly raises the score
Within 800 m of a primary school and 2 km of a station or frequent bus
Schools and public transport within walking distance are what councils mean by a sustainable location, and they make a scheme easier to approve.
Slightly raises the score
Schools/GPs over capacity, or wastewater constraint
Full schools, stretched surgeries or a sewage works at capacity give the council reasons to resist more homes until the infrastructure catches up.
Slightly lowers the score
Public right of way crossing (usually diverted)
A public footpath or bridleway across the field does not stop development. Developers routinely divert them, and the council agrees as part of the permission. It is noted so the report is complete.
Noted, no effect
Caps
Some protections are close to absolute. When one applies, the score can go no higher than its cap, whatever else is true.
Mostly within SSSI, SAC/SPA, ancient woodland or registered battlefield
National and international wildlife protections are close to absolute. Councils refuse housing on them and inspectors uphold the refusals, so the score cannot go high whatever else is true.
No higher than Low
Mostly indicative functional floodplain (EA 3.3% defended extent)
Functional floodplain is where rivers are meant to flood. National policy rules out homes on it almost entirely, so the score is capped low.
No higher than Low
Within a National Park
National Parks have the strongest landscape protection in planning law. Major housing is refused in all but exceptional cases.
No higher than Moderate
Landlocked with no road frontage or known access
A field nobody can reach from a public road cannot be built on until access is secured, which often needs a neighbour's land and years of negotiation.
No higher than Moderate
The 5 and 15-year outlooks
Each report also gives an outlook over the next 5 and 15 years. They weigh the same findings differently: in the near term, signs that someone means to build count for most; over 15 years, planning policy matters more, as plans are rewritten.
Where the data comes from
- Field boundaries: HM Land Registry INSPIRE index polygons.
- Green Belt, National Parks, National Landscapes, wildlife sites and ancient woodland: Natural England, Historic England and the government's planning data platform.
- Flood zones: the Environment Agency.
- Farmland quality: Natural England's agricultural land classification.
- Roads, towns and villages: Ordnance Survey open data.
- Planning applications: each council's own online planning register, read every day. See which councils we read.
- Local Plan allocations and sites put forward: the councils' published plans and maps.
- Housing land supply and the Housing Delivery Test: council statements and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
- With the deep report, a web check for land promoters, land deals and local news. A finding counts towards the score only when it clearly matches the field and cites a page we actually found.
What a score can't tell you
A score is an estimate from published data, not a prediction. Where we don't yet hold a council's Local Plan sites or its planning applications, the report says so and marks the score low confidence, because those are where the strongest signs come from.
The weights are our starting judgement of how much each finding matters, and we tune them against what actually gets built. A score is never planning or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a conveyancer's local searches.
Scoring model version 0.4.0.