> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.checkthatfield.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # How the score works > What raises a field's score, what lowers it, what caps it, and what the bands and outlooks mean. 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](https://docs.checkthatfield.com/app/deep-report.md) 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](https://www.checkthatfield.com/methodology). ## The bands | Band | Score | | - | - | | Low | 0 to 19 | | Moderate | 20 to 44 | | High | 45 to 69 | | Very high | 70 to 100 | ## 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. | Finding | Effect | | - | - | | Allocated for housing in an adopted Local Plan | Strongly raises | | Allocated in a draft or emerging Local Plan | Strongly raises | | A live or pending housing application on the field | Strongly raises | | Put forward in a Call for Sites and assessed suitable or developable | Strongly raises | | Owned or under option by a land promoter or housebuilder | Strongly raises | | Steps towards a planning application for housing, such as a screening or scoping request | Raises | | Put forward in a Call for Sites but assessed unsuitable | Raises | | Put forward in a Call for Sites, not yet assessed | Raises | | A previous housing refusal on the field | Raises | | An appeal allowed on the land next door in the last 5 years | Raises | ### Planning policy What national and local policy says about building here: protections that make it harder, and pressures that make it easier. | Finding | Effect | | - | - | | The council is below a 5-year housing land supply, or failing the Housing Delivery Test | Raises | | Next to a settlement boundary | Raises | | Local Plan adopted over 5 years ago, or emerging plan withdrawn | Slightly raises | | Detached from any settlement (more than 500 m) | Lowers | | Green Belt (not a grey belt candidate) | Lowers | | National Landscape (formerly AONB) | Lowers | | Local Green Space in a Neighbourhood Plan | Lowers | | Partly in Flood Zone 2 or 3 | Lowers | | Green Belt with grey belt characteristics | Slightly lowers | | Grade 1 or 2 farmland | Slightly lowers | | Green Belt at the last national count, since allocated for housing | Noted, no effect | ### Whether it can be built Practical questions a developer asks: access, services nearby and capacity. | Finding | Effect | | - | - | | Frontage on an adopted road | Slightly raises | | Within 800 m of a primary school and 2 km of a station or frequent bus | Slightly raises | | Schools or GPs over capacity, or a wastewater constraint | Slightly lowers | | A public right of way crosses it (usually diverted) | Noted, no effect | ## Caps Some protections are close to absolute. When one applies, the score can go no higher than its cap, whatever else is true. | Protection | Score can go no higher than | | - | - | | Mostly within an SSSI, SAC or SPA, ancient woodland or a registered battlefield | Low | | Mostly in functional floodplain | Low | | Within a National Park | Moderate | | Landlocked, with no road frontage or known access | Moderate | ## 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 > [!WARNING] > > A score is an estimate from published data, not a prediction. It is never planning or legal advice, and it is not a substitute for a conveyancer's local searches. 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](https://docs.checkthatfield.com/concepts/coverage.md). This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.