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’s 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. What it finds counts only when it clearly matches the field and cites a page we actually found. The live version of this page, built from the scoring model in force, is at checkthatfield.com/methodology.

The bands

What moves the score

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. We describe how much each finding moves the score in words, not points. The weights are our starting judgement, and we tune them against what actually gets built.

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.

Planning policy

What national and local policy says about building here: protections that make it harder, and pressures that make it easier.

Whether it can be built

Practical questions a developer asks: access, services nearby and capacity.

Caps

Some protections are close to absolute. When one applies, the score can go no higher than its cap, whatever else is true.

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.

What a score can’t tell you

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. See Coverage.