What Is a Site Intelligence Package? Contents, Sources and Limits

Start with the agreed purpose: early screening, option comparison, a planning discussion or a design handoff. Record the site address, boundary, jurisdiction, revision and intended use. Then include the findings relevant to that purpose.

Component	What the reader needs
Planning context	Relevant authority, policy source, edition and questions still requiring interpretation
Environmental evidence	Source maps or reports, geographic coverage, dates and unresolved constraints
Physical context	Terrain and surrounding features, origin of geometry and accuracy limitations
Access and movement	Relevant transport sources and the assumptions behind any accessibility measure
Assumptions and issues	What is inferred, what is missing and who will check it
Agreed outputs	Readable summary, source register and requested spatial files with units and reference information

An absent layer is an unknown until its coverage is checked. It is not evidence that the constraint is absent.

Give each finding an identifier. Record the source URL or document, publisher, access date, publication or effective date when available, geographic scope and relevant page or section. Keep the observed source separate from your interpretation.

For example, a map may show a designated area near the site. That observation does not by itself establish the effect on a particular proposal. Record the question, the responsible reviewer and the next check. Avoid replacing an unknown with an apparently precise score.

A report communicates findings. A package can also hold the source register, mapped evidence, issue list and agreed spatial files. Neither format automatically guarantees completeness, current policy or reliable coordinates.

PDFs may contain geospatial information, and spatial exports may still be unsuitable for the intended drawing. Before reusing geometry, confirm units, coordinate reference system, origin, extent and alignment against a known control. For GeoJSON that follows RFC 7946, positions use WGS 84 longitude and latitude in decimal degrees; they are not metre-based CAD coordinates.

The client or developer reviews the decision summary and outstanding issues. The architect checks the implications for options and the suitability of design context. Planning and other specialist reviewers check the evidence within their scope. Assign ownership instead of assuming every recipient has verified every layer.

Before circulation, agree which findings are checked, which are provisional and which require additional investigation. A package can support commissioning those investigations; it does not replace their professional scope.

Use Atlasly to assemble and review available site information, then check the evidence and outputs needed for your project. Coverage, source dates, account access and export support should be confirmed for the actual site and workflow. See the site analysis method and source limits and current plans.

Ask for a representative export and open it in the receiving application before committing to a delivery requirement. A list of format names is not a compatibility test.