Grey Belt Assessment and Development Screening Platform

- Large Green Belt areas must be subdivided consistently enough to reveal local variation without manipulating assessment units. - Assessors need to combine previous development, settlement relationships, historic-town setting, transport and policy constraints without reducing the decision to one score. - Land promoters can spend significant sums on sites that fail an early policy or constraint test. - Authorities must defend methodology and individual judgements when land values and local opposition make conclusions contentious.

Local authorities and planning consultancies are primary buyers for formal assessments. Land promoters and housebuilders are a second market for screening and comparable-methodology evidence, but the product must distinguish screening from an authoritative grey-belt determination.

The assessment workload and commercial stakes are real. The opportunity is not to 'automatically find developable Green Belt' but to make assessment units, evidence, judgements and methodology more consistent and auditable.

Take one published Green Belt assessment and reproduce a sample of 50 assessment areas using the tool. Independent planners should compare evidence completeness and judgement consistency without seeing the original conclusion. Test a separate promoter workflow on sites already through professional review.

Defensibility would come from a transparent criteria/evidence workflow, comparable authority methodologies, parcel history and human assessor sign-off. A proprietary library of how assessment areas have been treated across adopted/emerging plans could be valuable.

Reduce screening and assessment time while improving consistency, transparency and the evidence available for professional judgement.

Proxy based — medium confidence.

- Paid test offer: Paid authority or developer pilot: £10,000–£25,000 £500–£2,500 per site screening; professional licence £6,000–£20,000/year; authority study workspace £20,000–£60,000. Formal authority workspaces could support £20,000-£60,000 per study/year; promoter screening could be £500-£2,000 per site or bundled into a professional licence. High-value bespoke studies should remain consultant-led.

Evidence basis: Agile AI Planning Validator (£15,000–£60,000 per licence) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.

Ask one planning authority, developer or planning consultancy with a live case pipeline to fund a paid test of Grey Belt Assessment and Development Screening Platform lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £10,000–£25,000 and covering 20 live applications, sites, conditions or evidence packs from one planning workflow. Paid scope: A parcel screening tool that scores each Green Belt purpose, shows evidence layers and generates an assessor-ready evidence pack with uncertainty flags. Charge by authority, professional team, development site or assessed case and compare the fee with planning-officer and consultant time, avoidable invalid submissions and repeated evidence assembly. Measure validation time, missing-document rate, rework, officer overrides, applicant resubmissions and decision lead time. Continue only if handling or rework falls by at least 25%, at least 90% of required evidence is correctly identified and no material planning issue is suppressed. Stop or reprice if experienced officers find material false assurance, the workflow does not beat current practice or the buyer will not renew.

Raise above 90 if a consultancy adopts it as its standard assessment workflow and promoter clients pay for screening. Reduce below 70 if every authority requires sufficiently bespoke methodology that little software can be reused.