How UK Architecture Practices Can Evaluate Atlasly and PlanningBot

Select a representative site and record its boundary, authority, jurisdiction, proposal stage and the decision the evidence should inform. Use the same supplied information in both services and keep a copy of the questions.

Name the deliverable and the person who will use it: for example, a source-linked feasibility note for the project architect or a report for an internal planning review. Set the required contents, file format and review date in advance. A trial without these criteria can reward presentation while missing a necessary source or output.

PlanningBot's reviewed product page advertises UK planning research, with England-specific examples and sources. This does not establish complete coverage in each nation. If the practice works in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, obtain explicit coverage confirmation for each relevant source and operation from both suppliers. A UK address or a general planning description is not enough to establish national policy coverage.

Keep one row per required check. Record the observed output and supporting source before assigning a status. Use “meets brief”, “needs follow-up” or “not assessed”; do not convert an untested feature into an unsupported negative claim.

Run the same agreed checks for both services. Record unavailable data, incomplete responses and failed operations alongside successful outputs. This proposed sheet is not a measured scorecard for either product.

For a site in England, compare any NPPF reference with the current official framework, published on 17 August 2026, and inspect the relevant local plan. The NPPF applies to England; it is not the national framework for all four UK jurisdictions.

Keep the cited extract, publication date and source URL with the review. An older policy can be relevant to an historical decision without being the current policy for a new proposal. Ask for clarification where the result does not disclose its source edition. A recent answer date does not establish that the underlying source has been updated.

For Atlasly's documented coverage boundaries, use the site analysis methodology and limits. Apply equivalent questions to PlanningBot's documentation and returned results.

A product description is not a substitute for opening the deliverable. PlanningBot publishes DOCX/PDF report support; assess a sample against your required sections and source references. Where CAD or another specialist format matters, request the exact format and inspect a sample from each supplier. This review has not established PlanningBot's complete CAD offering, so it does not mark that capability absent.

Atlasly publishes a connection guide and developer documentation; PlanningBot also advertises connections to assistants. Check the operation, authentication requirements, account allowance and preservation of evidence in the workflow you intend to use. No general claim of exclusive integration or universal interoperability follows from those published connections.

Include a review by the person receiving the report or export. Record any manual reconstruction, missing attribution or reformatting required so that those costs remain visible in the decision.

Use the current Atlasly plans and PlanningBot plans to price the same expected users, sites, reports and other required operations. Record the date of the quote, billing term, tax treatment, usage limits and optional charges. Do not compare unlike entry plans as if they included the same work.

A sole practitioner may prioritise the deliverable and occasional workload; a larger practice may also need sharing permissions, repeatable review procedures and contractual assurances. These are criteria to investigate, not reasons to assign either product to an audience without evidence.

At the end of the trial, document which requirements were met, which remain unverified and whether a further sample or supplier answer would change the decision. There is no universal winner established by this article.