Planning Readiness Checks: Reviewing Site Evidence Against Current Policy

Start with the adopted development plan, relevant neighbourhood plan and current national policy. Establish which documents apply to the proposal and distinguish adopted policy, emerging policy, supplementary guidance and legislation. The current NPPF publication is dated 17 August 2026; older paragraph numbers must be checked before reuse.

For London, include the London Plan and borough policy. Its D2/D3 approach addresses infrastructure and design-led site capacity; an old density matrix should not be presented as a current automatic allowance.

A reviewed dataset can show that a site boundary intersects a recorded designation. The next question is what the source represents: a legal boundary, indicative mapping, a point record or a search radius. Those are different kinds of evidence.

A heritage search radius is not the legal extent of setting. A flood-map result is not a conclusion about safe access. Missing local tree or Article 4 records are not a finding that no restrictions exist. Retain the record reference, layer date, source URL and any spatial uncertainty.

For each material issue, record the observed evidence, applicable provision, project interpretation, outstanding check and responsible person. Examples include confirming a conservation-area boundary, obtaining a local flood assessment, checking an operative Article 4 direction or commissioning a habitat survey.

Keep findings separate from assumptions. “Mapped designation intersects the boundary” is a source-based observation; “the proposal is acceptable” requires an assessment of the actual design and relevant considerations. Where the input is missing, use an unknown status rather than a pass.

Record when each policy and dataset was checked and revisit material sources before decisions and submission. Where a monitoring feature is used, establish the sources and events it actually covers, frequency and any failed checks. A lack of alert does not prove that no relevant policy or local record changed.

A count of database tables or internal rules does not establish completeness or legal accuracy. The former claims of comprehensive 26-table policy representation and automatic exact compliance geometry have been removed because this review did not establish them.

Explain which constraints shape the options, what can be investigated or mitigated and which decisions depend on specialist input. Do not translate a traffic-light summary into a probability of permission without a supported method.

Read Atlasly’s methodology and limits and retain the underlying evidence with the project. The planning authority determines the application; the design team remains responsible for the proposal and the advice it issues.