# Atlasly — Full Content Corpus > Authored Markdown editions of selected Atlasly pages and registered blog articles. > Generated: 2026-10-09T18:58:20.833Z > Pages: 97 (79 blog, 18 static) > Canonical index: https://atlasly.app/llms.txt --- --- title: "Atlasly for QGIS: the AI GIS analyst that checks its own work" description: "Ask the question. Get the analysis, the map and the method. Meet Atlasly: an AI assistant inside QGIS that takes geospatial work from first layer to finished deliverable." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-for-qgis-ai-agent published: 2026-09-27 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "AI for QGIS" target_query: "QGIS AI plugin for GIS analysis and maps" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly for QGIS: the AI GIS analyst that checks its own work > Ask the question. Get the analysis, the map and the method. Meet Atlasly: an AI assistant inside QGIS that takes geospatial work from first layer to finished deliverable. ## Quick Answer Atlasly for QGIS is an AI GIS assistant that loads, cleans, analyses, styles and exports geospatial data from natural-language requests. It works inside QGIS, combines 114 purpose-built tools with your installed Processing algorithms, and checks results against their source data. You get editable layers, finished maps and a record of how the work was done. The plugin is experimental; confirm compatibility and available workflows when invited to early access. ## Introduction The question is straightforward: which sites meet the brief? What drains into this river? Who can reach the new facility? The work behind the answer can mean finding data, fixing a coordinate system, joining tables, running analysis and building a layout before you can share anything useful. **Atlasly brings that work into one conversation, inside QGIS.** Describe the outcome you need. It works through the data, runs the analysis, checks the result and helps turn it into a map or report you can use. Your project stays in QGIS. Your outputs stay editable. Your next question picks up where the last one left off. **114 GIS tools · 52 curated data sources · 13 interface languages · Open-source plugin** [Join the QGIS early-access waitlist](#qgis-waitlist) ## What can Atlasly do in QGIS? Atlasly handles the connected workflow: bring data in, understand it, prepare it, analyse it and present the result. It uses QGIS’s own tools, including installed Processing providers such as native QGIS, GDAL and GRASS. Start with the job you need done: | Your request | The work Atlasly carries out | Your deliverable | | --- | --- | --- | | “Clean this dataset and join the site schedule” | Profile fields, check geometry, remove duplicates and report matched and unmatched records | A cleaned layer with a join report | | “Screen these site boundaries against planning constraints” | Load relevant sources and check overlap with each full boundary | Styled constraint layers and an evidence record | | “Find the catchment draining to this point” | Prepare the elevation data, calculate flow and delineate the catchment | A catchment layer with checked area measurements | | “Compare vegetation across these two dates” | Prepare imagery, calculate indices and analyse change | A change map ready to inspect | | “Make an atlas with one page per site” | Build the layout, add map furniture and required attribution, and export the pages | A PDF atlas | For an experienced GIS analyst, that means less repetitive setup between the question and the result. For someone still learning QGIS, it means a way to work through a real task while seeing the steps along the way. ## A GIS assistant that shows how it reached the answer Good GIS work needs more than a convincing reply. It needs the right coordinate system, the right operation and a result you can trace back to the data. Atlasly checks operations with rules written in code. A clipped result is checked against its boundary. A join reports its match rate and unmatched keys. A reprojection is checked by transforming back and measuring the difference. Raster checks examine resolution and NoData handling. For supported measurements, it also uses independent cross-checks: areas measured on the ellipsoid and in a projected grid, catchments checked by cells and polygons, and routes compared with QGIS’s shortest-path calculation. **The answer carries its evidence.** Numbers in the reply are checked against analysis results; values that cannot be traced are flagged. Source citations lead to records of the inputs, method, parameters and checks. When the data cannot establish an answer, Atlasly tells you what is missing. The docked panel makes the work visible as it happens. Review each step, use **Show on map** to find the result, or compare before and after. You can follow the reasoning without losing your place in the project. ## Get from messy data to a useful starting point Atlasly works with GeoPackage, Shapefile, GeoJSON, CSV, GeoTIFF and other QGIS-supported data, alongside map and feature services including WMS, WMTS, WFS, WCS, ArcGIS REST and OGC API services. Its curated catalogue brings together **52 open-data sources**, with licence and attribution details. These include Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic England, ONS, OS, BGS and Coal Authority sources in the UK, alongside Copernicus DEM, ESA WorldCover, Overture and selected European and US sources. Before analysis, ask it to profile your layers. You can check fields, types, missing values, ranges, duplicates, geometry validity and coordinate systems in one workflow. Then fix geometry, split multipart features, check topology or join a spreadsheet with a clear account of which records matched. Coordinate handling is part of the work. Atlasly checks distance units, distinguishes map projection from ground measurement and supports the OSTN15 transformation grid for Great Britain. The aim is simple: start the analysis with data you understand. Try **“Check these layers, explain anything that needs attention, then prepare them for an area comparison.”** ## Screen sites and explain what the map means For planners, architects and development teams, the useful output is a clear account of what affects a site. Atlasly can screen site boundaries against planning designations, calculate overlaps and organise the results into layers and reports. It checks the **whole site polygon**, so an issue crossing one edge is not lost because the centre of the site falls elsewhere. Classification labels come from defined rules rather than improvised wording. An evidence record keeps the source, retrieval date, coordinate reference system and method alongside the finding. Generate a plain-English method statement to explain how the screening was carried out, then build a map with the relevant attribution. Try **“Check these sites against the available planning designations, show the overlaps and prepare a constraints map with a method statement.”** These workflows support site appraisal and professional judgement. For the wider review around a map, read our [pre-construction site analysis guide](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide). ## Explore terrain, catchments and environmental change Environmental work often moves between elevation, imagery and boundaries. Atlasly brings those tasks together in the same QGIS conversation. **Terrain and hydrology.** Create slope, aspect, hillshade and contours; calculate zonal statistics; examine visibility; or estimate cut-and-fill volumes. For drainage work, follow a sequence from sink filling to flow direction, flow accumulation, streams and catchment delineation. Catchment areas are cross-checked, and gaps in elevation data are treated as missing information rather than assumed outlets. Try **“Delineate the catchment upstream of this point and show the area, streams and method.”** **Imagery and remote sensing.** Search and load Sentinel-2 imagery, mask clouds, calculate NDVI and other indices, classify land cover and map change. Classification workflows can include accuracy measures and a confusion matrix, so the output comes with information you can use to assess it. Try **“Compare vegetation across these two dates, mask clouds and map the change.”** The result remains part of your QGIS project, ready for closer inspection, further analysis or presentation. ## Answer questions about access, routes and service coverage Where should the next facility go? Which neighbourhoods can reach it? Which existing service is closest? Atlasly supports service areas, routes, travel-time matrices, closest-facility analysis and choosing locations for services. It can check network health and account for one-way streets and door-to-door distances, with the assumptions and checks recorded. Try **“Create walking service areas around these facilities and identify the neighbourhoods outside them.”** Or ask **“Compare these candidate locations using the road network and show the method.”** For transport, infrastructure and public-sector teams, that turns a chain of network operations into a question you can explore and refine. You retain the network, the outputs and the basis of the comparison. ## Finish with a map you want to put in front of people Analysis becomes more useful when people can read it. Atlasly can style layers, set categories and graduated colours, add labels and use colour-blind-safe palettes. It renders maps and checks for label collisions and colours that are difficult to distinguish. ![Three conceptual GIS map sheets showing terrain and drainage, land cover, and service accessibility](/blog/qgis/gis-map-deliverables.webp) *Editorial illustration of GIS deliverables; not a QGIS screenshot or measured site analysis.* Ask for a print layout with a legend, scale bar, north arrow and source attribution. Build an atlas with one page per feature. Add layout tables. Export PDF, PNG or georeferenced GeoPDF, or prepare an HTML or PDF report. **Required attribution is part of the layout check.** The output is checked for missing credits and placeholder text before it is treated as ready. Try **“Create an A3 landscape map with a legend, scale bar, north arrow and source credits, then prepare it for PDF export.”** For a portfolio of sites: **“Use this layout to create one page for each site, with its name and summary table.”** ## Turn a good GIS conversation into a repeatable workflow The second time you need the same analysis should build on the first. Atlasly can turn a conversation into a **QGIS Processing model and a Python script**, then rerun the workflow to check that it reproduces the result. You own the reusable files. Batch-run a saved workflow across multiple inputs, with a trial on a sample before a larger job. That is useful for recurring site screening, monthly data updates, repeated map production and consistent analysis across a portfolio. Try **“Save this workflow so I can run it on next month’s dataset.”** Preferences such as units, naming and house style can carry across conversations. New results are grouped by request and saved to GeoPackage files, so the useful work stays with the project. ## Stay in control of changes and sensitive data Atlasly gives you review, balanced and autopilot approval modes. Changes to your own source files require permission, and request checkpoints let you return to an earlier project state. Feature edits use QGIS’s undo stack. For sensitive geospatial work, **Restricted mode keeps geometry, extents, attribute samples and images on your machine**. A **What was sent** log shows the information shared with the AI service. You can use your own Anthropic key or a private endpoint; Restricted mode controls data sharing rather than making a cloud service run offline. Credentials use QGIS’s encrypted storage, and shared packages remove credentials. This gives teams practical controls around both the analysis and the information used to perform it. The interface is available in **13 languages**, including English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Polish, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Arabic. ## Built around QGIS, with open and portable outputs The experimental plugin targets **QGIS 3.34 and later**, with a compatibility layer for QGIS 4. The available runtime checks cover headless QGIS 3.34 with Qt 5.15. QGIS 4, Windows and macOS compatibility remain unverified in those checks; confirm support for your setup when invited. The plugin is distributed as a single ZIP and licensed **GPL-2.0-or-later**. AI service usage is separate from the open-source software licence. Work can continue beyond the desktop: prepare QField-ready packages, export self-contained web maps with attribution, or use the same tools from compatible AI applications through a local connection. Internal automated checks inspect layers, geometry, attributes, layouts and exported files. The recorded GIS benchmark uses scripted task instructions in a headless environment; it is not a live assistant run. These checks do not establish end-to-end performance with your chosen service, project or installed Processing providers. If your design work also happens in Rhino, explore [Atlasly for Rhino](/blog/atlasly-for-rhino-ai-agent). Both products bring natural-language requests into the applications where you already work. ## How to choose an AI assistant for QGIS Choose around the work you need to deliver. Look for an assistant that can use your installed tools, explain the method, preserve your source data and leave you with outputs you can edit and repeat. Atlasly brings those priorities together: - **A connected workflow:** data preparation, analysis, cartography and export in the same project. - **Checks you can inspect:** measured results, source citations and method statements. - **Control over your data:** approval modes, checkpoints and restricted sharing. - **Work you keep:** GeoPackage outputs, Processing models, scripts and portable maps. That is the promise behind Atlasly for QGIS: spend more of your attention on the question, with an assistant that carries out the steps and shows you the work. ## Illustrative example A planning team has a spreadsheet of candidate sites and a set of boundaries. They ask Atlasly to check the layers, join the schedule, screen the sites against available designations and create one map page per site. The deliverable brings together editable results, cited sources and a reusable workflow for the next batch of sites. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is there an AI assistant for QGIS?** Yes. Atlasly is an AI assistant built into QGIS. It uses natural-language requests to load and clean data, run GIS analysis, style layers and prepare maps and reports, with checks and evidence records alongside the results. **How do I use AI in QGIS with Atlasly?** Open Atlasly in QGIS and describe a task in its panel. Review the proposed work and any approval requests, inspect the resulting layers, then continue the analysis or export a deliverable. Register for early-access availability and setup details on this page. **How does Atlasly check GIS analysis?** Atlasly applies checks to operations such as clipping, joins, reprojection and raster processing. Supported measurements receive independent cross-checks, and numbers in replies are traced to analysis results. Unverifiable values are flagged rather than silently treated as established facts. **Can Atlasly create maps and atlases automatically?** Yes. It can style layers, add labels, build print layouts and generate an atlas with one page per feature. Layouts can include a legend, scale bar, north arrow, tables and required source attribution, with PDF, PNG and georeferenced GeoPDF export. **Can Atlasly delineate catchments and calculate NDVI?** Yes. Hydrology tools cover terrain preparation, flow direction, accumulation, streams and catchments. Imagery workflows cover Sentinel-2 search and loading, cloud masking, NDVI and other indices, classification and change detection. **Can I reuse a workflow created with Atlasly?** Yes. A conversation can become a QGIS Processing model and a Python script. Atlasly can rerun the saved workflow to check reproducibility and batch-run it over multiple inputs. **Does sensitive GIS data leave my computer?** In Restricted mode, geometry, extents, attribute samples and images stay on your machine. The What was sent log shows information shared with the configured AI service. The service may run in the cloud or at a private endpoint; Restricted mode is not a claim of fully offline AI. **Is Atlasly for QGIS open source?** The plugin is licensed GPL-2.0-or-later. AI provider usage is separate and may incur charges. You retain editable project outputs, saved Processing models and generated scripts. **Which QGIS versions is Atlasly built for?** The experimental plugin targets QGIS 3.34 and later and includes a QGIS 4 compatibility layer. Available runtime checks cover headless QGIS 3.34 with Qt 5.15; QGIS 4, Windows and macOS remain unverified in those checks. Confirm support for your setup and installed Processing providers when invited. **Can I undo changes made by Atlasly?** Atlasly takes checkpoints before requests and uses QGIS’s undo stack for feature edits. Changes to your own source files require permission, so you can review consequential work before it is applied. ## Conclusion Your next GIS workflow can start with a sentence. Bring the question to Atlasly, follow the checks, and take away the layers, maps and method you need to move the work forward. Join the QGIS early-access waitlist below. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-for-rhino-ai-agent - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture ## Sources - [QGIS project and documentation](https://www.qgis.org/) · QGIS --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-for-qgis-ai-agent Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly for Rhino: site context, massing and planning drawings" description: "Tell Rhino what you want. Build site context, compare massing options, check sunlight and prepare planning drawings—with measured geometry and one Undo per request." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-for-rhino-ai-agent published: 2026-09-26 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "AI for Rhino" target_query: "AI agent for Rhino architecture" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly for Rhino: site context, massing and planning drawings > Tell Rhino what you want. Build site context, compare massing options, check sunlight and prepare planning drawings—with measured geometry and one Undo per request. ## Quick Answer Atlasly for Rhino is an AI assistant that works directly on your Rhino geometry. Describe a task to import site context, build and compare massing options, run indicative daylight checks or create scaled drawings. It uses Rhino to measure results and groups each request into one Undo. Early access is by invitation; confirm support for your Rhino version and operating system before installing. ## Introduction A site model to build. Eight options to compare. A section to cut before the meeting. Most of the work between an architectural idea and a useful drawing is still a sequence of small, careful operations. Atlasly for Rhino lets you describe the outcome instead. Select your buildings and say, “make these 21 m tall except these two.” Ask for the surroundings of an address. Request a location plan at 1:1250 with the red line. Atlasly works on the geometry in Rhino, checks the result and tells you what happened. **Rhino 8.21+ · Early access · Architectural workflows** [Join the Rhino early-access waitlist](#rhino-waitlist) This guide describes early-access workflows reviewed on **2 October 2026**. Confirm the supported setup and available capabilities when invited; response times and results depend on the project and the setup used. ## What can Atlasly do inside Rhino? Atlasly supports early design work across RIBA Stages 0–3: site context, feasibility, massing, option comparisons, early environmental checks and drawings for planning readiness. | Start with | Ask for | Review in Rhino | | --- | --- | --- | | An address | “Import the site around NOMA, Manchester, 250 m around it” | Buildings, roads, water, parks and terrain | | A drawn plot | “Give me 8 massing options for 12,000 m² of residential, max 40 m” | Labelled options scored against the brief | | Selected blocks | “GIA per floor and total, assume 300 mm external walls” | Measured areas with the assumptions stated | | A proposal | “Show shadows at 9, 12 and 3 on 21 March” | Shadow shapes for an indicative early check | | A working model | “Location plan at 1:1250 with red line” | A scaled sheet to review before export | The result is editable geometry and drawings in your working file. You can continue designing with Rhino’s usual tools. ## From an address to site context in seconds Start with a place, rather than an empty viewport. Atlasly imports surrounding buildings as solids, roads by type, rail, water, parks and terrain, positioned for sun studies. The internal NOMA, Manchester benchmark imported a 500 m square in about **3.5 seconds**. Every building records where its height came from: a tagged height, a storey count or an estimate. That distinction matters when deciding which neighbours need better survey information. Already have OS or CAD data? Atlasly can resolve metre/millimetre mismatches, move far-away British National Grid coordinates to the origin while recording the offset, extrude footprints using OS Building Height Attribute values, place buildings on terrain and separate CADMapper’s merged building mesh. Try: **“Extrude the buildings using the BHA heights”**, then **“Put the buildings on the ground.”** Open map context is a starting point for design; review estimated heights and source coverage before relying on them. ## Compare massing options against the brief Draw or select the plot and give Atlasly a floor-area target, use, height limit and setbacks. It generates options and scores floor-area fit, height, sunlight on open space, plan depth and open space. Labels and side-by-side placement make the trade-offs easier to review. ![Six conceptual massing typologies: courtyard, U-shaped block, parallel bars, tower on podium, stepped courtyard and twin towers](/blog/rhino/massing-options.webp) *Concept illustration created for this article. These are not screenshots or measured project results.* Ten available typologies include courtyard, U, L, parallel bars, tower on podium, twin towers, point blocks, stepped courtyard, linear slab and full block. Keep developing an option with **“Slice the blocks into floors at 3.15 m floor-to-floor”** or **“Set back the top two floors 1.5 m from the street side.”** Ask for 6, 8 and 10-storey scenarios, or an indicative home count with the efficiency assumption stated. For an envelope check, ask **“Does it fit under a 30 m height limit and a 5 m boundary setback?”** Atlasly identifies the blocks and sides that fail those inputs. A geometric pass does not establish planning permission or resolve other policy constraints. ## Understand the plot before committing to an option For a drawn plot, Atlasly can report area, dimensions, road frontage by street name, the tallest neighbours with distance and direction, and ground slope. Direct-sun studies can compare 21 March, 21 June and 21 December. That gives architects and urban designers a common basis for discussing a site: which edge addresses the street, where taller neighbours sit and how the open space behaves as the proposal changes. Try **“Analyse this plot”**, then use the findings to refine your next option. For the wider due-diligence context, see our [guide to 3D site context for architecture](/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture). ## Check daylight and sunlight early, with the limits stated Atlasly draws shadow shapes at chosen dates and times. It can also compare a proposal with the existing situation using Vertical Sky Component (VSC) at neighbouring windows and garden sunlight on 21 March. The early VSC checks flag values below 27% and below 0.8 times the existing value; garden checks examine the two-hour sunlight criterion. These are screening indicators to help identify where specialist review is needed, rather than a complete assessment of every applicable criterion. Ask **“Rough VSC for the ground-floor windows opposite”** or **“Does the garden behind no. 14 get two hours of sun on 21 March, before and after?”** **These are indicative early-stage checks using BRE 209 methods, not BRE-compliant reports.** Geometry quality, window locations and the surrounding context affect the result. A daylight and sunlight consultant should assess the scheme for formal use. [BRE’s daylight and sunlight guide](https://bregroup.com/store/bookshop/site-layout-planning-for-daylight-and-sunlight-a-guide-to-good-practice-br-209-2022-edition) provides the underlying practice guidance. ## Turn the working model into drawings and sheets Request a plan cut at a stated height, a section through a stair or along a line, or elevations of every facade. Cut lines remain separate and source layers are retained. Atlasly creates A0–A4 layouts at scales including **1:1250, 1:500, 1:100 and 1:50**, with a scale bar and north arrow. It can choose a scale when you have not specified one. Figure-ground plans, height labels and hatches support clearer design reviews. Try **“Ground-floor plan”**, **“Section through the stair”**, **“Four elevations”** or **“Make a figure-ground at 1:2500.”** Review the sheet, its boundary and the relevant submission requirements before issuing it. Exports include PDF, DWG, DXF, FBX, OBJ, SAT, STL and 3DM. Each export asks for confirmation and goes only to a folder you choose. ## Clean up the file and prepare the next hand-off A consultant DWG often needs attention before design work can begin. Ask **“This DWG is a mess—what’s wrong with it?”** Atlasly diagnoses wrong units, duplicates, tiny gaps, empty layers and geometry far from the origin without changing the file. Ask it to fix the issues when you are ready; it preserves the source and your tolerance setting. For Revit or IFC preparation, it checks open polysurfaces, meshes, invalid geometry and inconsistent layer names, then fixes what it can. **“Is this ready for Revit?”** gives you a review of geometry readiness, rather than a promise that a complete BIM hand-off needs no further work. Visualisers can set eye-level and aerial named views, assign materials by layer and fix flipped surfaces. Model makers can slice terrain into sheet-thickness layers, unroll and number facades, and check thin features at a chosen scale. Computational designers can build, explain and repair Grasshopper definitions, set sliders and bake results. Everyday operations cover moving, arrays, alignment, extrusion, booleans, fillets, offsets, blocks, layers and selection by property—including individual faces and edges. ## Built to keep you in control of the model **Selection gives the request its subject.** “These” means the selected objects. With nothing selected, “them” refers to what the previous request made. **Rhino performs and measures the geometry.** Atlasly interprets the request, uses Rhino operations and re-measures after changes. It reports failures plainly and states the basis of area figures, including GIA or GEA, wall thickness and floor-to-floor assumptions. **One request, one Undo.** A request that creates hundreds of objects is grouped so you can take the whole change back together. **Consequential changes ask first.** Large edits, deletion, unlocking locked objects, scripts that change objects and every export require a preview or confirmation. Ambiguous requests trigger a question: “trim the roads at the boundary” needs inside or outside clarified; “move these 2 m up” does not. Map downloads, sun calculations and drawing generation run in the background so Rhino stays responsive. ## What has actually been tested? Internal alpha checks cover geometry measurements, Undo, exports, indicative environmental calculations and requests that should ask for clarification. They use prepared files and inspect the resulting geometry rather than treating a convincing reply as a successful result. These are internal checks, not independent certification or a guarantee for every project. Results depend on the tested build, settings, task and source geometry. Changes to the available setup need their own validation; an earlier test result does not establish current performance. The available runtime checks were carried out in Rhino 8.35 on macOS. Windows, Rhino 8.21 itself and Rhino 9 runtime compatibility remain unverified in the available checks. Confirm support for your setup when invited. Request complexity, project size, network conditions and service availability can change response times. ## Rhino versions, access and running costs The package targets **Rhino 8.21 or later**, with builds prepared for macOS and Windows. Prepared builds are not evidence of runtime compatibility: the available runtime checks cover Rhino 8.35 on macOS. A separate Rhino 9 build is prepared but has not been checked in Rhino 9. Distribution uses Rhino’s [Package Manager](https://www.rhino3d.com/features/package-manager/); confirm availability and compatibility with your build when invited. Early access uses your own API key for a supported service. Setup details explain the available options and credential storage for your operating system. Usage is billed separately by the selected service; joining the waitlist does not include usage credits or promise a final product price. Site import uses public map data, including OpenStreetMap and Copernicus terrain. It also works with OS data your practice already holds. [Join the early-access waitlist](#rhino-waitlist) to receive availability and setup details. ## Illustrative example A small practice starts with an address, imports the surrounding context, draws a plot and compares eight residential massing options. After reviewing heights and area assumptions, the team develops one option, checks neighbouring sunlight and prepares a scaled location plan. This is an illustrative sequence of supported tasks, not a timed customer case study. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is Atlasly for Rhino?** Atlasly for Rhino is an AI assistant for architectural work inside Rhino. It turns natural-language requests into editable geometry, site context, massing options, indicative environmental checks and scaled drawings, with results measured by Rhino. **Does Atlasly for Rhino work on Mac and Windows?** Builds are prepared for macOS and Windows, but the available runtime checks cover Rhino 8.35 on macOS. Windows, Rhino 8.21 itself and Rhino 9 runtime compatibility remain unverified in those checks. Confirm support for your specific setup when early access is offered. **Can I undo changes made by Atlasly?** Yes. Each request is grouped into one Rhino Undo, including requests that create many objects. Large or consequential changes are previewed or confirmed first, and exports always require confirmation. **Are its daylight checks BRE-compliant reports?** No. They are indicative early-stage checks using BRE 209 methods, intended to identify potential issues during design. Formal daylight and sunlight assessment requires appropriate specialist review. **Where do the site context and building heights come from?** Site import uses public map sources including OpenStreetMap and Copernicus terrain. Buildings identify whether their height came from a tagged height, storeys or an estimate. Atlasly can also work with OS data already held by a practice. **How do I get early access to Atlasly for Rhino?** Use the Rhino early-access form on this page to register your name and email. The team will contact registered applicants when access is available. Joining does not guarantee an invitation date. ## Conclusion Tell Rhino what you want. Atlasly builds it, checks it, and one Undo takes it back. Join the early-access waitlist below to try the workflow on your own architectural projects when access becomes available. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/daylight-sunlight-analysis-bre-209-architects-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly ## Sources - [Rhino Package Manager](https://www.rhino3d.com/features/package-manager/) · McNeel - [Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (BR 209)](https://bregroup.com/store/bookshop/site-layout-planning-for-daylight-and-sunlight-a-guide-to-good-practice-br-209-2022-edition) · BRE (2022) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-for-rhino-ai-agent Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Pre-Construction Site Analysis: The Complete Guide for Architects and Engineers" description: "A comprehensive guide to zoning, flood risk, solar, topography, transport, demographics, reports, and CAD-ready outputs in pre-construction workflows." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "pre-construction site analysis" target_query: "pre-construction site analysis for architects and engineers" intent: informational --- # Pre-Construction Site Analysis: The Complete Guide for Architects and Engineers > A comprehensive guide to zoning, flood risk, solar, topography, transport, demographics, reports, and CAD-ready outputs in pre-construction workflows. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Pre-construction site analysis brings together planning, environmental, physical and access evidence to test a project brief. A useful review identifies supported assumptions, material uncertainties and the investigations needed next. It does not by itself establish what can legally be built or replace measured surveys and specialist assessment. ## Introduction Most project teams still begin a site the hard way. One person checks the planning portal. Someone else pulls flood mapping. Another person looks at topography, transport, or rights of way. Then the architect tries to turn all of that into a brief that the client can trust and the design team can actually use. That is why the "site analysis" stage takes so long in practice. The problem is not that the data is unavailable. The problem is that the evidence is fragmented, interpreted in different formats, and often lost again at the point where the team needs to move into design. For architects and engineers, a strong pre-construction workflow should answer four blunt questions before the first concept is taken seriously: - What does policy and planning context allow? - What physical or environmental conditions reshape the layout? - What evidence is strong enough to brief the team today, and what still needs specialist sign-off? - Can the output move into AutoCAD, Revit, or SketchUp cleanly? ## What should a complete pre-construction site analysis include? At minimum, a usable site analysis should cover six evidence groups. **1. Planning and policy context.** In England, review the adopted development plan, relevant neighbourhood plan and current national policy, including local plan allocations, conservation areas, Article 4 directions, listed-building setting, green belt, flood policy triggers, and relevant NPPF paragraphs. For US sites, verify the local and applicable state framework, including where relevant the zoning district, overlays, use controls, FAR, setbacks, parking ratios, and any design-review triggers. **2. Environmental and statutory constraints.** Flood Zone 2 or 3, surface-water mapping, SSSI or local wildlife designations, heritage setting, protected views, air-quality management areas, and tree constraints all belong in the first pass because they change either the planning route or the viable buildable area. **3. Physical site conditions.** Slope, level change, retaining implications, existing access geometry, orientation, and neighbouring height are all design-shaping facts. A site with a 1:12 slope behaves very differently from one that falls only 1 metre across the whole parcel. **4. Transport and movement.** A site can be policy-friendly and still be weak because the walk to the station is 14 minutes across two hostile junctions. Good transport analysis looks at catchment, route quality, stop frequency, and not just distance "as the crow flies". **5. Delivery outputs.** Agree the report and drawing needs with the team. Check the available export formats, coordinates, units and source limitations before reuse. A PDF can still be useful evidence; geometry may need its own verified source. **6. Decision framing.** The best site analysis does not end with data. It ends with a judgement: proceed, proceed with caution, reshape the brief, or walk away. Other UK nations have separate policy frameworks. This list is not a complete legal or technical search: identify additional site-specific issues and appoint the appropriate specialists. ## Why does manual site research slow projects down so badly? A practice can investigate three sources of effort in its existing workflow. **Fragmentation.** Planning context, Environment Agency flood mapping, Ordnance Survey terrain, local authority planning history, and transport data are rarely reviewed in one environment. That forces the architect to become the integration layer. **Format friction.** Teams collect screenshots, PDFs, web-map references, and consultant notes. Very little of that arrives in a format the next person can use directly. Measure the actual time and rework rather than assuming a fixed saving. **Late discovery.** The expensive problems are usually the ones found after the first concept has already taken hold. A slope that adds retaining cost, a heritage setting issue that limits height, or a flood-access problem that changes the site layout all become redesign costs rather than early decisions. A better workflow is not simply "faster research". It is research that survives the handoff into design and coordination. ## How do zoning, flood, solar, topography, and transport work together in practice? They should be read as one stack, not five separate topics. Take a residential site in outer London. The planning context may support intensification. But if Flood Zone 2 clips the southern edge, that part of the parcel may be better used for landscape and attenuation. If the western boundary drops 3.5 metres to the street, the apparent footprint becomes more expensive than it looked in plan. If the best solar orientation sits on the quiet edge of the site but the strongest pedestrian arrival is elsewhere, the team has a real layout decision to make. This is why good pre-construction work rules options in and out before concept design begins. It is not a neutral "research" stage. It is where the early design logic starts. ## What outputs should architects and engineers expect before concept design starts? A strong site-analysis package should produce four outputs. **A decision summary.** One or two pages that state the key opportunities, risks, and next actions in plain language. **Mapped and visual evidence.** Planning layers, flood overlays, transport catchments, topography, and context views should be readable by non-specialists. **Technical intelligence.** The team should know the main slope ranges, likely solar constraints, movement conditions, and policy triggers before briefing consultants. **Checked context exports.** Where available, inspect the file in the intended CAD workflow. Confirm coordinate system, units, layers, geometry and source accuracy. An early context export does not replace a measured survey or guarantee compatibility with every application. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews levels, access and available constraint records before confirming a client brief. It keeps the proposed capacity provisional until the unresolved evidence has been reviewed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is included in a pre-construction site analysis?** Planning context, environmental and flood risk, topography, solar access, transport connectivity, site context, and outputs that can be shared or exported into design workflows. **Why do architects need site analysis before concept design?** Because missing a constraint early usually means redesign later. Site analysis is what makes the first brief credible. **How long does manual site analysis usually take?** The time depends on the scope, source availability, site complexity and verification required. Measure comparable completed work; this guide does not establish a universal days-or-weeks benchmark. **What makes a site-analysis output actually useful?** It needs to be clear enough for clients, detailed enough for designers, and exportable enough for downstream CAD or BIM work. **Does early site analysis replace surveys and specialist consultants?** No. It accelerates the first decision and identifies what specialist work is needed next. It does not replace formal sign-off. ## Conclusion Pre-construction site analysis is valuable only when it sharpens the brief, changes the right decisions early, and moves cleanly into downstream design work. That means combining planning, environmental, physical, and movement intelligence into one package rather than treating them as separate research chores. If you want the site story assembled before the team starts designing against assumptions, Atlasly is built for that exact moment. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [FRA applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK - [NYC handbook](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/about-us/publications/nyc-zoning-handbook-2025.pdf) · New York City Department of City Planning --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Read a Zoning Map: Districts, Overlays and Development Controls" description: "Understand base districts, overlays and controlling policy text, and distinguish US zoning from UK planning designations before testing a scheme." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "how to read a zoning map" target_query: "what do zoning districts and overlays mean for architects" intent: informational --- # How to Read a Zoning Map: Districts, Overlays and Development Controls > Understand base districts, overlays and controlling policy text, and distinguish US zoning from UK planning designations before testing a scheme. ## Quick Answer Read a zoning map in this order: identify the base district, check every overlay, open the controlling policy text, and translate each mapped designation into real controls on use, height, density, setbacks, parking, and review triggers. The map is only the index. The real answer is what those mapped labels mean for the scheme you are about to test. ## Introduction Architects do not usually misread zoning because they cannot understand a coloured map. They misread it because they stop one step too early. They find the district label. They assume that is the answer. Then the overlay, local design code, Article 4 direction, conservation status, flood trigger, or special-review requirement turns up later and rewrites the brief. The practical job is not "reading the map". The practical job is translating the map into development controls that matter to the actual site. ## What should you pull from the map in the first ten minutes? Start with the four things that change feasibility fastest: - the base zoning district or planning designation - every overlay or special policy area - adjacent land designations that may affect interfaces - the governing documents named in the legend or policy index In a US workflow that might mean R-4, MU-2, TOD overlay, a parking reduction district, and a design-review overlay. In an England workflow it may mean settlement boundary, conservation area, local plan allocation, flood zone, and Article 4 coverage rather than a single "zoning" district in the American sense. The first pass should produce a simple note: what is the designation, what documents give it force, and which controls need checking immediately. ## Which controls matter most once you know the district? Do not try to read everything at once. Pull the controls that affect buildability first. **Use.** Is the intended programme allowed outright, conditionally, or only through discretionary approval? **Height and quantum.** In US systems this may be height, FAR, lot coverage, and rear-yard rules. In England it may be allocation expectations, character-area guidance, protected views, and heritage setting implications rather than one numeric cap. **Setbacks and buildable envelope.** A "supportive" district can still produce a poor footprint once setbacks, access widths, easements, or buffers are drawn properly. **Parking and access.** Many schemes fail not on use, but on what the district or local policy expects for servicing, loading, or mobility. **Review triggers.** Check the applicable consent and assessment routes. In England, relevant demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area requires planning permission rather than the former conservation-area-consent process; listed building consent is a separate question. Other UK jurisdictions differ. ## How does the workflow differ in UK and US contexts? The logic is consistent, but the regulatory structure is not. In many US jurisdictions, the map identifies a district governed by a zoning code. Read the current text and any special provisions rather than assume the district name alone establishes a development envelope. New York’s Zoning Handbook is an example of how the map and defined controls relate; use the current rules for a live application. As an illustrative England example, a site may have a town-centre allocation, conservation-area designation and flood-risk questions alongside local design guidance and heritage-setting issues. Proximity alone is not a universal heritage assessment threshold. The answer is not sitting in one zoning code. It has to be assembled from policy, constraints, and case-specific judgement. That is why UK architects often think they have "read the map" when in reality they have only identified the first trigger for a much larger planning conversation. ## What should go straight into the design brief after the map review? A good zoning review ends with translation, not labels. The design brief should state: - what uses appear realistic - what height or density assumptions are defensible - what overlays or nearby constraints complicate the site - what evidence or consultant input the planning route is likely to require - what part of the parcel is likely to stay buildable after controls are applied That translation step is what turns map reading into useful pre-construction intelligence. The zoning answer should connect to the broader checks on [planning constraints](/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk), [site feasibility](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist), and the full [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide) workflow. ## Check currency and applicability Record the map version, authority, adopted policy or code, source link and retrieval date. Confirm boundary uncertainty with the authority where it matters. A desktop layer may omit a current designation, and an emerging policy has a different status from an adopted one. Treat an early control summary as a review record, not confirmation of permission. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reads the base district, overlays and current code together for the same parcel. It keeps a possible height or area allowance provisional until applicability, conditions and the relevant authority records are checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **How do architects read a zoning map correctly?** Start with the district, identify every overlay, read the controlling text, and translate the mapped controls into design consequences for use, height, setbacks, access, and review triggers. **Is the zoning map enough on its own?** No. It is the first layer. You still need the code, local plan, overlay controls, and site-specific constraints that sit behind the mapped label. **What should I look for first on a zoning map?** The district, overlays, adjacent designations, and the documents that define what those mapped areas actually mean. **How is zoning-map reading different in the UK?** The UK has distinct planning systems. This guide’s policy-led example concerns England; check the relevant national and local framework for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. **What should the output of a zoning review be?** A short note explaining what the controls allow, what they complicate, and what they mean for the first massing or briefing assumptions. ## Conclusion A zoning map is not useful because it names the site. It is useful because it tells the team what assumptions they are allowed to keep and which ones they need to throw out before design starts. If you want that interpretation step to happen faster and in context with the rest of the site intelligence, Atlasly is built to connect the map to the real workflow that follows it. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [When is permission required?](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required) · MHCLG - [Zoning Handbook](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/about/publications/zonehand.pdf) · New York City Department of City Planning --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Flood Risk Assessment in Site Analysis: What Architects and Engineers Need to Know" description: "How to interpret flood zones, water-related constraints, and design implications during early-stage site analysis for architecture and engineering teams." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "flood risk assessment site analysis" target_query: "flood risk assessment in site analysis for architects" intent: informational --- # Flood Risk Assessment in Site Analysis: What Architects and Engineers Need to Know > How to interpret flood zones, water-related constraints, and design implications during early-stage site analysis for architecture and engineering teams. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Before concept design, review official flood mapping, future risk, local evidence, levels and access for the actual proposal. A desktop check identifies questions; it does not establish flood safety or replace a required flood risk assessment. ## Introduction Flood risk is rarely just a red overlay on a plan. It is a layout problem, a ground-floor problem, an access problem, and sometimes a viability problem. That is why it belongs in the first site review rather than in a consultant appendix weeks later. By the time a team discovers that the access road performs badly in flood conditions, or that the southern edge of the site should really be attenuation landscape rather than building footprint, the concept design has already drifted onto the wrong track. ## Which flood sources should architects check first? For England, open the [Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/), inspect the actual boundary and relevant present/future river, sea and surface-water layers, then read the local strategic flood risk assessment. Check groundwater, reservoirs, sewer and local drainage evidence where relevant. The [current applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) includes FRA triggers beyond Zone 2 or 3 and the one-hectare Zone 1 threshold. A small Zone 1 site is not automatically exempt. Source dates, proposed vulnerability, safe access and climate change matter. Use current NPPF F5–F7 and Annex F for the policy tests, checking any outdated guidance cross-references. For a US site, start with FEMA’s [Flood Map Service Center](https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home) and relevant local records; do not transfer English flood-zone or assessment rules to it. Other UK nations also have separate authorities and policies. ## How do different flood types change the design response? River and coastal risk often change the planning route first because they trigger more formal scrutiny. Surface-water risk often changes the layout first because it reveals where the site naturally wants to hold or move water. Groundwater and local drainage issues can be less visible at first pass, but still expensive once substructure and drainage design are costed. Architects should not compress these into one generic "flood issue". - **River and coastal risk** often affect vulnerability classification, sequential reasoning, and resilience measures. - **Surface-water risk** often affects open-space strategy, lower-ground assumptions, and overland flow routes. - **Groundwater or drainage constraints** often affect basement ambition, foundation approach, and attenuation requirements. Treating every flood issue as the same is how teams get surprised twice. ## When does flood risk affect access, not just the footprint? Access must be assessed alongside the development footprint. A site can appear buildable on the parcel itself and still be weak if the route in and out performs badly in flood conditions. That matters for residents, servicing, and emergency access. It also matters to planning officers who are reading the proposal as a whole rather than as a neat footprint diagram. This is why flood data should be checked alongside [topography](/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis), movement routes, and the broader [site feasibility checklist](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist). The map answer alone is not enough. ## What should the early-stage flood note say before an FRA is commissioned? It should be short and brutally practical. - where the flood issue is - what type of flood issue it is - whether access is affected - whether the issue changes the likely layout, use, or viability - what specialist input is likely to be needed next For example: "Southern third of site intersects Flood Zone 2 and high surface-water risk. No mapped risk was identified on the western access route in the reviewed layers; its safety remains unverified. Likely response is to keep built footprint north, reserve south for landscape and attenuation, and confirm detailed implications with formal FRA before fixing ground-floor uses." That is useful. "Flood risk present" is not. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews mapped flood information alongside site levels and the proposed access. It records which sources and routes still need checking and obtains the appropriate specialist assessment before relying on a layout. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should architects check before commissioning a formal flood assessment?** Official flood-zone mapping, surface-water risk, topography, affected buildable area, and whether access or egress is compromised. **Can a site in a flood zone still be developed?** Sometimes, yes. The answer depends on flood type, extent, intended use, access conditions, policy context, and whether a viable layout and resilience strategy exist. **Why is flood screening more than reading a flood map?** Because the map does not tell you whether the affected area is the strategic part of the site, whether the access route fails, or how much the layout must change. **Does early flood screening replace an FRA?** No. It shortens the first decision and shows whether the site should move into formal assessment, redesign, or rejection. **What should the output of early flood screening look like?** A short decision note that explains the location of the risk, the likely design consequence, and the next specialist step required. ## Conclusion Flood risk should not arrive after the concept. It should shape the concept, or stop it, before design time is wasted. The value of early screening is not that it answers every technical question. It is that it tells the team whether the site still supports the brief they think they have. If you want flood risk read in context with topography, access, and planning from the start, that is exactly where Atlasly fits. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [FRA applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK - [Current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Solar Access Analysis for Architects: How to Assess a Site Before Design Begins" description: "How architects can screen sun path, overshadowing, orientation, and passive-design implications before concept massing starts." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "solar access analysis for architects" target_query: "solar access analysis for architects" intent: informational --- # Solar Access Analysis for Architects: How to Assess a Site Before Design Begins > How architects can screen sun path, overshadowing, orientation, and passive-design implications before concept massing starts. ## Quick Answer Early solar access analysis tests how orientation, surrounding massing, terrain, and seasonal sun angles affect daylight, overshadowing, passive gain, and façade performance before concept design is fixed. Architects should check representative dates such as 21 March, 21 June, and 21 December, then translate the results into layout, massing, and façade decisions rather than treating the study as a later-stage image. ## Introduction Solar analysis is most valuable before anyone has fallen in love with the massing. Once the scheme is emotionally fixed, daylight and overshadowing become justification exercises. Used early, solar work does something far more useful: it tells the team where the site is generous, where it is constrained, and which side of the parcel is likely to support better living conditions, public realm, or passive performance. ## What should architects test first in an early solar study? Begin with four basics: - true north and site orientation - surrounding building heights and gaps - terrain or horizon conditions - representative seasonal dates and times A serious first pass should not rely on one sunny screenshot. At minimum, test equinox, midsummer, and midwinter conditions. Use representative dates near the equinoxes and solstices for the relevant year, with morning, midday and afternoon checkpoints. Record the date, location, time zone and daylight-saving setting; astronomical dates and solar noon do not always match a fixed calendar date or clock time. Even that simple matrix tells the team more than a polished but isolated image. ## Why do seasonal checks matter more than one attractive shadow image? Because solar design is not a single moment. A courtyard that looks generous at noon in June may be weak in winter when the sun sits much lower. At London’s latitude the sun is much lower in winter than summer. Check the actual location and date rather than reuse a fixed shadow view. Whether specialist daylight and sunlight assessment is needed early depends on the site, neighbours and planning question. Direct-sun screening can identify issues to investigate, but it does not establish daylight provision or compliance. ## How should solar findings change massing and façade decisions? Solar analysis should produce direct design consequences. If the southern edge receives the most reliable winter light but is exposed to summer gain, the likely response may be to put habitable rooms there and plan shading early. If the northern edge is dominated by a taller neighbour, it may be better used for circulation, cores, or buffer spaces. If west sun is intense and the local context already struggles with overheating, the glazing strategy and room layout should reflect that from the first concept. This is where solar needs to connect to [topography](/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis), [transport](/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners), and the wider [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide) stack. The best massing option is rarely the one that wins on solar alone. ## What should the output of an early-stage solar review look like? It should not end as a set of screenshots. It should end as provisional design questions to test, for example: - south-west corner supports the strongest habitable orientation but needs summer shading - northern edge likely underperforms for primary apartments because of adjacent height - sloping terrain opens longer views and better winter solar reach on the upper plateau - test neighbouring receptors along the southern boundary for the actual proposed height and separation That kind of output helps an architect brief the concept, not just illustrate it. ## Keep different environmental questions separate A sun path describes solar position; shadows also depend on geometry. Daylight includes diffuse sky light, and overheating depends on fabric, glazing, shading, ventilation, occupation and weather. An attractive sun view cannot establish all three. Verify north, neighbouring heights and terrain, and record missing geometry. NOAA’s calculation notes explain relevant astronomical and atmospheric assumptions but now state that its calculator is no longer maintained; do not treat it as a maintained compliance tool. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares shadow views using the same date, time, orientation and height assumptions. It records uncertain neighbouring heights and asks the appropriate specialist whether further assessment is needed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What dates should architects test in an early solar study?** Use representative seasonal dates and relevant times for the location and year, recording the time zone and geometry assumptions. **Do I need a full daylight report before concept design?** It depends on the project’s risk and decision. Early solar screening does not replace a specialist daylight or sunlight assessment where one is needed. **Can surrounding buildings matter more than the site's orientation?** Yes. On dense urban sites, neighbouring height and proximity often dominate the daylight story. **What should an early solar study help me decide?** Building placement, façade orientation, likely weak edges, passive opportunities, and where overshadowing risk may trigger redesign later. **Why should solar analysis happen before the massing is fixed?** Because once the massing is fixed, the study becomes a defence of a choice already made instead of a tool for making the right choice in the first place. ## Conclusion Solar access is not a decorative study. It is one of the earliest ways a site tells the architect where the project will work well and where it will struggle. Teams that read that signal early design with more confidence and spend less time defending avoidable mistakes later. If you want solar intelligence folded into the first site review instead of bolted on after concept design, Atlasly is built for that stage. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Solar calculation details](https://www.gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/calcdetails.html) · NOAA --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Topographic Survey vs Site Analysis: What is the Difference and When Do You Need Each" description: "Understand the difference between a measured topographic survey and a wider site-analysis workflow, and how both should inform early design." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "topographic survey vs site analysis" target_query: "topographic survey vs site analysis" intent: informational --- # Topographic Survey vs Site Analysis: What is the Difference and When Do You Need Each > Understand the difference between a measured topographic survey and a wider site-analysis workflow, and how both should inform early design. ## Quick Answer A topographic survey is a measured record of levels, features, and physical geometry captured to an agreed survey specification. Site analysis is broader: it combines terrain with planning, flood, solar, transport, and context intelligence to support early design decisions. Most projects need both. Site analysis shapes the first brief; the topographic survey confirms the physical ground the design must then coordinate with. ## Introduction Architects often use "topography" and "site analysis" in the same conversation, which is exactly why the distinction gets blurred. One tells you what is physically there. The other tells you what that physical condition means once planning, access, environmental risk, and design intent are layered on top. The confusion matters because the two outputs belong to different stages of certainty and different decisions. ## What does a topographic survey give you that site analysis does not? A topographic survey gives you measured evidence. That usually includes: - spot levels and contours - boundary features - walls, kerbs, steps, trees, and visible utility markers - road levels and thresholds - fixed geometry used for coordinated design Agree accuracy, coverage, control, datum, feature detail and deliverable format with the surveyor. A contour interval is a presentation choice and does not by itself state measurement accuracy. Site analysis does not replace that. It helps the architect understand slope behaviour and terrain consequences before the survey is commissioned or before the full design team is assembled. ## What does site analysis add on top of a topographic survey? Site analysis adds interpretation. It asks: - what does the slope mean for access and servicing? - does the low point coincide with surface-water or flood risk? - does the level change make retaining likely? - does terrain improve or reduce solar opportunity? - how does the site sit in relation to neighbouring building heights and street levels? This is why topography should sit inside a wider [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide), not outside it. The measured terrain is one layer. The design consequences are the actual decision. ## When do you need each one in the workflow? Site analysis can support the question "is this site worth investigating further?" You need a topographic survey when the question becomes "what exactly are we coordinating against?" In practice: - **Pre-brief and feasibility stage:** use available evidence for screening and identify where a measured survey is already needed. - **Concept development and consultant coordination:** obtain measured information sufficient for the decisions being made. - **Detailed design and setting-out:** use appropriately specified measured geometry and confirm the submission requirements for the actual project. The mistake is waiting for the formal survey before learning anything about terrain, or worse, assuming the desktop terrain picture is accurate enough for detailed design. ## What should the handoff between the two look like? The work can be iterative, depending on which uncertainties matter to the next decision. Desktop or automated site analysis identifies likely slope challenges, level relationships, access issues, and areas that may need retaining or drainage attention. The formal survey then confirms those assumptions, corrects any inaccuracies, and becomes the geometry source for design coordination. This handoff matters because it stops the architect from using a measured-survey document as if it were a feasibility tool, and stops the feasibility tool from being treated like detailed design geometry. ## Record what the survey does not establish A surveyed fence or wall does not determine legal ownership or the precise legal boundary. Visible utility features do not prove underground routes, condition or capacity. Agree whether utilities detection, tree information or other specialist surveys are included, and keep their limitations with the coordinated drawing. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team uses desktop terrain to identify a possible access question, then commissions a measured survey to establish the geometry needed for design. The early indication remains separate from the measured record. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is a topographic survey the same as site analysis?** No. A topographic survey records measured site geometry. Site analysis interprets that geometry alongside planning, environmental, movement, and contextual factors. **Can architects begin feasibility work before a topo survey is commissioned?** Often, for broad screening, provided uncertainty is recorded. If a decision depends on a precise level or boundary relationship, obtain appropriate measured information first. **When does the topo survey become essential?** When the decision requires measured geometry at an agreed accuracy. Timing and scope depend on the project rather than a universal stage rule. **Can desktop terrain data replace a topographic survey?** No. It can guide early decisions, but not detailed design, technical coordination, or precise setting-out. **What should architects do when the survey and early terrain analysis differ?** Update the design assumptions immediately. The point of early analysis is to speed the first decision, not to override measured evidence later. ## Conclusion Topographic survey and site analysis do different jobs and should be scoped to the project. One confirms the ground. The other helps the team understand what that ground means before too much design effort is invested. If you want the terrain story earlier, and in context with planning, flood, solar, and access, Atlasly is most valuable at exactly that first decision stage. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Measured Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utilities](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/measured-surveys-of-land-buildings-and-utilities) · RICS --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Transport Access Analysis for Urban Planners: How to Evaluate Site Connectivity" description: "A practical guide to evaluating walkability, public transport access, connectivity, and 15-minute city conditions during site analysis." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "transport access analysis" target_query: "transport access analysis for urban planners" intent: informational --- # Transport Access Analysis for Urban Planners: How to Evaluate Site Connectivity > A practical guide to evaluating walkability, public transport access, connectivity, and 15-minute city conditions during site analysis. ## Quick Answer Transport access analysis tests how well a site connects to daily movement networks by walking, cycling, public transport, and the street system. A useful review looks at real catchments, route quality, stop frequency, interchange convenience, and likely planning consequences, not just the straight-line distance to the nearest station or bus stop. ## Introduction "Close to transport" is one of the most overused and least tested phrases in early planning work. A site can be 600 metres from a station and still perform badly if the route is indirect, hostile, steep, or crosses poor junctions. It can sit beside a bus stop and still be weak if service frequency collapses outside peak hours. For urban planners, the job is not proving that transport exists somewhere nearby. The job is understanding how the network actually serves the site. ## Which transport metrics should planners check first? Start with the measures that change planning assumptions fastest: - walking time to the nearest high-quality public transport node - stop or station frequency - interchange quality - cycle-network continuity - street-network permeability - access to daily services within a reasonable catchment In London, PTAL is still one of the quickest ways to understand relative public-transport accessibility. In other contexts, equivalent local metrics may not exist, so planners need to rely more on journey-time, stop-frequency, and route-quality evidence. ## Why is route quality as important as route distance? Because people do not experience a site as a radius. They experience: - crossings - gradients - lighting - footway width - severance from major roads or rail corridors - whether the route feels safe and obvious A station 8 minutes away on paper can behave like a weak transport node if the route requires two uncontrolled crossings and a steep climb. That matters to planning, and it matters even more when the scheme depends on low parking provision or an active-travel narrative. ## How should transport access influence density, parking, and land use? Transport access should change the brief, not just the report. Transport evidence can inform density, use mix, parking and improvements, but does not determine them on its own. Check applicable policy, service capacity, inclusive access and deliverable interventions. Weak access is not an automatic justification for more parking, and station proximity is not automatic support for increased density. This is why transport should be reviewed alongside [15-minute city analysis](/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool), [pedestrian flow](/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design), and the broader [site feasibility checklist](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist). Transport is a movement question, not just an infrastructure question. ## What should go into a practical transport access note? A useful note should say: - how the site performs today - where the weak links are - how that affects planning arguments, parking, and masterplanning - what interventions would materially improve the access story Illustrative wording: "The estimated station route is nine minutes under the stated walking assumptions. Two crossings and the missing east-west connection need review. Confirm route quality, service capacity and applicable parking policy before drawing a development conclusion." That is actionable. "Good transport access" is not. ## Record the transport method and date TfL’s WebCAT provides PTAL and other connectivity information for London. Record the chosen scenario and location; a mapped grid value may need more precise site review. A PTAL value is not a complete measure of service capacity, step-free access or route quality. For any estimated walk, record the entrance, network or radius method, speed assumption and known barriers, then check material routes on site. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team walks a potential station route and checks crossings, access and barriers before relying on a connectivity claim. A nearby station alone does not establish a suitable route or transport strategy. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is transport access analysis in planning?** It is the review of how well a site connects to walking, cycling, public transport, and street networks, and what that means for planning, density, parking, and daily usability. **Is distance to the station enough?** No. Route quality, service frequency, interchange convenience, and severance all affect the real performance of the site. **What metric should planners use in London?** Use the appropriate TfL WebCAT information and record the assessment year and location. PTAL should be supplemented by route-quality, capacity and inclusive-access evidence. **How does poor transport access affect development potential?** It can weaken the case for higher density, lower parking, or transit-led uses, and may require design or infrastructure changes to support the intended scheme. **What should a transport access output include?** A clear statement of current performance, key barriers, planning implications, and the most useful improvement moves. ## Conclusion Transport access analysis should tell planners whether the site is genuinely connected, not just map-adjacent to transport infrastructure. That answer shapes density, parking, route design, and the credibility of the planning argument from the start. If you want that access story read alongside walkability, movement, and the rest of the site intelligence stack, Atlasly is built for that workflow. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Planning with WebCAT](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat?intcmp=25861) · Transport for London - [Isochrone API](https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/) · Mapbox --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Site Feasibility Study Checklist: 12 Things to Assess Before Your Design Brief" description: "A practical 12-point checklist covering planning, physical, environmental, access, and viability factors that should be tested before briefing design work." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "site feasibility study checklist" target_query: "site feasibility study checklist for architects" intent: informational --- # Site Feasibility Study Checklist: 12 Things to Assess Before Your Design Brief > A practical 12-point checklist covering planning, physical, environmental, access, and viability factors that should be tested before briefing design work. ## Quick Answer Before writing the design brief, test 12 basics: planning context, overlays, flood risk, heritage and ecology, topography, access, solar orientation, neighbouring conditions, utilities assumptions, buildable area, transport performance, and exportable evidence. A feasibility study is useful only when it tells the team whether the proposed brief is realistic, weak, or needs to change before concept design starts. ## Introduction The best feasibility studies are not verbose. They are decisive. They tell the architect whether the brief still makes sense after the site is read properly. That matters because clients often arrive with a programme, a unit count, or an ambition level that sounds plausible until the site conditions are tested against it. ## Download a feasibility evidence register Use the [blank 12-check CSV register](/resources/feasibility-evidence-register.csv). Open it in your preferred spreadsheet and record the finding, source, evidence date, outcome, reviewer and next action for each check. Leave unknown evidence blank and mark the outcome unverified; do not treat it as a pass. Illustrative entries: | Check | Finding | Outcome | Next action | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Access | Servicing route not yet measured | Unverified | Obtain dimensions and review the intended vehicle route | | Topography | Level change could affect the footprint | Manageable with change | Confirm levels and compare an adjusted option | | Planning context | Policy applicability not yet confirmed | Unverified | Record the current policy source and reviewer | Keep one register per boundary and brief revision. Start with a [planning constraint check](/tools/planning-constraint-checker), then use the [site comparison example](/blog/multi-criteria-site-scoring-comparison) only once critical evidence is sufficient. ## Which checks can invalidate the brief fastest? These are the first four: 1. **Planning status and allocation** 2. **Flood and environmental risk** 3. **Heritage and ecology triggers** 4. **Access and servicing reality** If any of those four are materially worse than expected, the rest of the brief usually needs rethinking anyway. ## Which 12 checks provide a starting point for early feasibility? Use this as the base checklist: 1. planning designation and policy context 2. overlays and special review triggers 3. flood and drainage risk 4. heritage, ecology, and biodiversity constraints 5. topography and likely retaining implications 6. site access and servicing geometry 7. solar orientation and overshadowing risk 8. neighbouring buildings and interface sensitivity 9. transport and walkability performance 10. utilities or infrastructure assumptions 11. likely buildable area after constraints 12. whether the output is strong enough to brief the design team That last item matters more than teams think. A feasibility study that cannot be shared and reused becomes another dead document. ## How should architects turn the checklist into a go or no-go tool? Each item should record the source and one of four provisional outcomes: - supportive on the available evidence - manageable with a defined change - material risk - unverified or insufficient evidence That forces the architect to stop describing the site and start judging it. A conservation setting issue may be manageable with massing change. A flood-access failure may be a material risk. An unresolved station route needs further evidence; it should not be marked supportive merely because a particular parking assumption has been dropped. ## What should the feasibility output look like? A good output is short: - one-page summary of opportunities and risks - mapped constraints and movement layers - note of what needs specialist verification next - available outputs, with format and accuracy checks needed before reuse Review these findings alongside [pre-construction due diligence](/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects), [planning constraints](/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk), [export to AutoCAD and Revit](/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit), and the full [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide) workflow. ## Define the decision and wider scope The twelve checks are a starting structure, not complete legal or commercial due diligence. Add title and rights, contamination, cost, market, funding and programme questions where material. Agree who can accept each residual risk. An unresolved input should stay visible even if a preliminary option appears attractive. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A client requests more floor area. The team records access, height and area assumptions separately, tests alternative options and retains unresolved constraints before agreeing a revised brief. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is the purpose of a site feasibility study?** To test whether the proposed brief still makes sense once the planning, physical, environmental, and movement realities of the site are known. **What should be checked before writing the design brief?** Planning context, constraints, flood, access, topography, solar, neighbouring conditions, transport, utilities assumptions, and likely buildable area. **How detailed should feasibility be before concept design?** Detailed enough to expose the main risks and opportunities, but not so detailed that the team mistakes early intelligence for final consultant sign-off. **What is the biggest mistake in feasibility studies?** Describing the site without judging what the findings mean for the actual brief. **What makes a feasibility study useful to the wider team?** A concise summary, traceable evidence, explicit gaps and outputs whose suitability for the next stage has been checked. ## Conclusion A site feasibility study should not just confirm that the team has looked at the site. It should reveal whether the current brief still deserves to survive. That is the point of the exercise. Use Atlasly to organise the available site evidence, and obtain missing searches, surveys or specialist assessments separately. This checklist does not establish that all twelve topics are automatically covered. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Measured Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utilities](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/measured-surveys-of-land-buildings-and-utilities) · RICS - [An Introductory Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis](https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/) · Government Analysis Function --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Export Site Analysis Data to AutoCAD and Revit" description: "A guide to choosing and verifying site-analysis exchange files, including units, coordinate references, geometry, source coverage and receiving-application checks." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "export site analysis data to AutoCAD and Revit" target_query: "how to export site analysis data to AutoCAD and Revit" intent: informational --- # How to Export Site Analysis Data to AutoCAD and Revit > A guide to choosing and verifying site-analysis exchange files, including units, coordinate references, geometry, source coverage and receiving-application checks. ## Quick Answer To reuse site-analysis data in AutoCAD or Revit, agree a supported exchange format, verify the files returned, then check units, coordinates, geometry and source coverage in the receiving application. A usable context drawing can reduce rework, but it does not automatically become a measured survey or a coordinated project model. ## Introduction Site evidence is more useful when the next person can understand and test the handover. This guide separates three tasks: choosing an exchange format, coordinating placement, and deciding which geometry is reliable enough for the next design decision. ## Choose an exchange format for a specific purpose List what the receiving team needs: two-dimensional context, contours, a terrain surface, building massing or tabular evidence. Confirm the formats currently available and test a representative file. DXF is an exchange drawing, not proof of native DWG delivery. Likewise, an importable geometry file is not a native Revit or SketchUp project. Preserve a file manifest and note missing layers. ## Agree units and reference systems State whether geometry uses local project coordinates or a geographic/projected reference system. Degrees and metres are not interchangeable. Atlasly has more than one export path. The 3D context exporter defaults to local metres and also exposes WGS84 and UTM settings. The site drawing exporter supports local metres and British National Grid drawing frames. Read the actual file’s coordinate note and selected export setting; neither a filename nor a British National Grid label establishes surveyed control or an agreed Revit project origin. In UK work, use the appropriate Ordnance Survey transformation where required and record any vertical datum separately. ## Coordinate import or link placement Autodesk documents distinct positioning and scale choices for CAD imports and links. Select the appropriate units and placement for the project, then measure a known distance and compare known points. Shared coordinates need an agreed relationship between files; they are not created merely by naming a layer or choosing a CAD format. Keep an untouched copy of the received file for comparison. ## Inspect geometry and layer meaning Check that boundaries close where intended, contours use the expected elevations and intervals, and building outlines and terrain occupy plausible positions. Look for duplicates, isolated distant objects and missing elevations. A layer name is not evidence of legal status or completeness: confirm the underlying source, date and coverage. Record conversion and cleanup work rather than promising none. ## Issue a concise handover record Include the source site boundary, file names, version/date, units, origin, horizontal reference, vertical datum if known, verified check points and unresolved issues. Identify which elements are desktop context and which come from a measured survey. Coordinate critical geometry against the project survey before detailed design; do not overwrite trusted survey data with approximate context. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reopens an exported context file in its intended design application and checks units, two known distances, location and layer contents. Missing or altered elements are recorded before the file is used as a design reference. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can site exports reduce redraw work?** They can where the delivered geometry is suitable and passes checks. Measure the review and cleanup effort as well as export time before claiming a saving. **Does export guarantee correct shared coordinates?** No. Agree and test the coordinate relationship in the receiving application. **Can exported context replace a measured survey?** It should not be treated as a substitute for the measured information needed for precise design and setting-out. **What if a requested layer is absent?** Record the omission and obtain the needed evidence separately. An empty or missing layer does not prove that no constraint exists. ## Conclusion A successful export is one the receiving team has checked and can trace to its sources. Keep the [site-feasibility review](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist) alongside the drawing so geometry and unresolved evidence travel together. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Positioning for imports and links](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2024/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C922A152-0A30-4E27-BED2-BCE9FF2E5E30.htm) · Autodesk - [Scaling for imported CAD files](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2023/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-AB37F1CB-CF6B-4C15-B26A-D0F0F3EF1F2B.htm) · Autodesk - [Coordinate transformations](https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/geodesy-positioning/coordinate-transformations) · Ordnance Survey --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Pre-Construction Due Diligence for Architects: Scope, Evidence and Responsibilities" description: "What early due diligence covers, which site evidence architects should review, and when specialist investigations are needed before concept design." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "pre-construction due diligence for architects" target_query: "what does pre-construction due diligence cover for architects" intent: informational --- # Pre-Construction Due Diligence for Architects: Scope, Evidence and Responsibilities > What early due diligence covers, which site evidence architects should review, and when specialist investigations are needed before concept design. ## Quick Answer Pre-construction due diligence means checking whether the site, the brief, and the evidence are strong enough to justify concept design. Architects should verify planning context, flood and environmental risk, access, topography, neighbouring sensitivity, likely buildable area, and the data needed for downstream design work before agreeing a concept direction. ## Introduction Due diligence is where architects either protect the project or quietly inherit its bad assumptions. It is not glamorous work, but it is the stage that decides whether the design team starts from evidence or optimism. A weak due-diligence pass usually produces the same pattern later: redraws, awkward client conversations, and a design brief that keeps shrinking under pressure from facts that should have surfaced earlier. ## What should be verified before the architect accepts the brief as real? Start with the checks that can invalidate the brief fastest: - planning designation and known overlays - flood and drainage risk - access and servicing logic - topography and likely abnormal works - heritage, ecology, or neighbour sensitivity If any of those are materially worse than assumed, the architect should treat the brief as provisional rather than settled. ## Which evidence sources should architects check in early due diligence? A practical early stack usually includes: - planning portal or local authority policy material - flood and surface-water mapping - topographic or desktop terrain data - transport and movement analysis - neighbouring context and street conditions - title, boundary, or parcel logic where relevant The point is not to become every consultant at once. The point is to know whether the project needs those consultants next and why. ## How should due diligence account for design risk as well as regulatory risk? A site can be "possible" and still be a poor project. That happens when: - the footprint is too constrained for the intended programme - solar orientation is weak for the proposed unit mix - the slope introduces retaining or access cost that changes viability - transport access weakens the intended density or parking position - the available outputs are too messy to move straight into design workflows This is exactly where due diligence should connect to [site feasibility](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist), [planning constraints](/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk), and [export to AutoCAD and Revit](/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit). The best early review is the one that sees the downstream pain before it becomes expensive. ## When is the project ready to move into concept design? When the team can answer four questions clearly: 1. What does the site most likely support? 2. What are the main risks and who owns them? 3. Which assumptions still need specialist confirmation? 4. What evidence can already move directly into the next design stage? Where answers remain uncertain, agree which exploratory design can proceed and which commitments must wait. Name the decision owner, evidence required and acceptable limits of the next stage. ## Extend the scope for the actual project This is an initial architectural checklist, not complete legal, technical or commercial due diligence. Agree responsibility for title and rights, restrictive covenants, access rights, utilities capacity and connections, ground conditions and contamination, ecology, cost, programme and other material matters. A mapped boundary is not proof of ownership; a nearby service is not confirmed capacity. Keep each source, finding, gap and next action in a review register. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews levels, access and available constraint records before confirming a client brief. It keeps the proposed capacity provisional until the unresolved evidence has been reviewed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is pre-construction due diligence for architects?** It is the early-stage verification that the site conditions, planning context, and available evidence are strong enough to support the brief before concept design begins. **What is the difference between due diligence and feasibility?** They overlap, but due diligence is broader. Feasibility tests what might work; due diligence tests whether the site and evidence support moving forward responsibly. **What are the biggest risks to catch early?** Planning constraints, flood and access issues, topographic complications, neighbour sensitivity, and any gap between the brief and the actual buildable area. **Should due diligence include design workflow questions?** Yes. If the information cannot move into the next design stage cleanly, the project still carries hidden delay. **What should the output of due diligence be?** A short summary of opportunities, risks, unresolved assumptions, and the next specialist or design actions required. ## Conclusion Good due diligence makes the scope and uncertainty of the next decision visible. If you want to turn scattered early checks into one clearer and more reusable workflow, Atlasly is built for that exact stage. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Measured Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utilities](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/measured-surveys-of-land-buildings-and-utilities) · RICS - [LCRM: Stage 1 risk assessment](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-contamination-risk-management-lcrm/lcrm-stage-1-risk-assessment) · Environment Agency --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "AI-Powered Site Analysis vs Manual Research: A Comparison for Architecture Firms" description: "A practical comparison of AI-assisted site analysis and traditional manual desk research for architecture and planning teams." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "AI-powered site analysis vs manual research" target_query: "when to use AI site analysis versus manual desk research" intent: commercial --- # AI-Powered Site Analysis vs Manual Research: A Comparison for Architecture Firms > A practical comparison of AI-assisted site analysis and traditional manual desk research for architecture and planning teams. ## Quick Answer AI-assisted site analysis can help assemble repeatable early-stage evidence, but its value depends on source coverage, accuracy and the review effort it creates. Compare preparation, processing, correction and handover on representative sites before claiming a saving. Professional interpretation and specialist assessment remain separate responsibilities. ## Introduction The real comparison is not "AI or expertise". It is whether your most experienced people should spend their time assembling the same first-pass site evidence over and over again, or using that evidence to make better design and planning decisions. That is the part many AI comparison articles miss. They stay philosophical. Architecture firms need an operational answer. ## What does manual site research still do better? Manual work still wins where the task depends on local judgement, nuanced interpretation, or formal accountability. That includes: - negotiating a planning strategy with a case officer - interpreting edge-case heritage or townscape issues - validating measured survey information - signing off on specialist consultant advice Accountable professionals need to review project-specific interpretation; experience alone does not guarantee that every issue will be found. ## Where does AI create the biggest advantage for architecture firms? A useful candidate for evaluation is repetitive evidence assembly. Evaluate whether the workflow can: - gather the same baseline evidence consistently for every site - compare multiple sites using the same criteria - produce summaries and exports the next person can use - keep the research stack from fragmenting across browser tabs, PDFs, and screenshots The size of any improvement needs measurement on comparable tasks. Include missing-source investigation, correction and downstream cleanup, and record whether the reviewed output supports the intended decision. ## What are the failure modes of a manual workflow that firms rarely price properly? Manual research fails in ways firms often treat as normal: - one person misses a source because they are under time pressure - every project is researched in a slightly different way - the output is difficult to compare across sites - the design team still has to rebuild geometry after the research is done That last point is where the workflow argument becomes commercial. If the research is "complete" but the architect still has to reconstruct the site in CAD, the firm has not saved time. It has only moved the labour downstream. That is why this comparison should connect directly to [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide), [site feasibility](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist), and [AutoCAD/Revit export](/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit). ## What does a realistic hybrid workflow look like? The best version is simple. Use automated or AI-supported workflows for: - site screening - first-pass comparison - summarising evidence - producing shareable outputs - routing the right data into downstream tools Use human judgement for: - policy strategy - design direction - formal sign-off - consultant coordination - edge cases where local knowledge really matters That is a better model than pretending AI can replace expertise, and a better model than pretending experts should keep doing all the repetitive groundwork themselves. ## Review automated failure modes too A service can return incomplete source coverage, infer a missing value or summarise a policy incorrectly. Review material conclusions against their sources and show unresolved gaps. A consistent template is useful, but it does not make different locations equally well evidenced. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team screens several sites using the same questions, records missing evidence separately and compares the review effort for each. Any time-saving claim would require measured preparation, generation and correction time. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does AI-powered site analysis replace architects?** No. It can help with research and formatting, while architects retain responsibility for appropriate review, design and planning judgement. **What is the biggest advantage over manual workflows?** A consistent review structure can help comparison. The actual evidence may differ by location and availability, so gaps must remain visible. **What should still be done manually?** Formal planning strategy, specialist sign-off, measured verification, and project-specific interpretation. **Why does export quality matter in this comparison?** Because conversion, review and cleanup effort affect the total benefit. Test representative files in the receiving application. **How should firms decide where AI belongs?** Map the workflow and assign automation to the repetitive evidence-gathering stage, not to the parts that rely on accountable professional judgement. ## Conclusion Use a small comparison to decide which tasks benefit from automation and which still need additional evidence or professional work. Report measured effort and output quality together rather than treating generation time as the whole result. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Measured Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utilities](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/measured-surveys-of-land-buildings-and-utilities) · RICS --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Understanding Planning Constraints Before You Design: A Guide for UK Architects" description: "A UK-focused guide to reading planning constraints early, from conservation and flood overlays to Article 4, heritage, and policy triggers." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "planning constraints UK architects" target_query: "understanding planning constraints before you design UK architects" intent: informational --- # Understanding Planning Constraints Before You Design: A Guide for UK Architects > A UK-focused guide to reading planning constraints early, from conservation and flood overlays to Article 4, heritage, and policy triggers. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer For an early English site review, check the applicable development plan, heritage, flood risk, permitted-development restrictions and other relevant local evidence. Identify which findings affect form, the planning route or viability, and what remains unverified. Other UK nations require their own policy and source framework. ## Introduction UK planning constraints are expensive mainly when they stay vague. A site team knows there is "some heritage sensitivity" or "a flood issue somewhere nearby", but nobody has yet turned that into a design consequence. That is when a constraint sits in the room like background noise until the project is already leaning too hard on the wrong massing or programme assumptions. ## Confirm the nation and evidence scope The examples below focus on England. The [NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) applies to England; use the separate national framework and local plan system elsewhere in the UK. Read the adopted development plan, relevant neighbourhood plan, national policy and material guidance in their proper roles. This is a first-review checklist, not an exhaustive constraints search. Verify national records against the responsible authority’s current local sources. Record unavailable tree, heritage, planning-history or Article 4 information as unknown. ## Which UK constraints should architects check first? Start with the constraints that most often change the planning route: - conservation areas - listed buildings and heritage setting - Flood Zone 2 or 3 and surface-water risk - green belt or National Landscape context - Article 4 directions - local design guidance and tall-buildings policy - local plan allocations and site-specific policy wording At this stage, the question is not whether every issue is fatal. The question is which ones alter the first concept enough that they must be read before design begins. ## Why is mapped planning data not enough in the UK? Because UK planning is not one document and not one layer. An architect may see a conservation-area boundary on a map. That boundary is only the start. The real answer may sit in the local plan, a conservation-area appraisal, a design code, a heritage SPD, and the NPPF heritage paragraphs that shape decision-making weight. The same is true for flood, tall buildings, or design quality. That is why a mapped designation should be treated as a trigger for deeper reading, not as the whole answer. ## How should architects translate UK constraints into design action? A useful method is to sort every finding into one of three categories: - **changes the form** - **changes the planning route** - **changes the viability** For example: - heritage setting may change height, materiality, or frontage response - flood may change evidence requirements and lower-ground assumptions - an operative Article 4 direction may withdraw specified permitted-development rights within its defined scope - tall-buildings policy may trigger visual impact, townscape, or design-review requirements That framing makes the constraint useful to the design team because it stops being a coloured layer and starts becoming a project instruction. ## What should the output of a UK constraints review look like? A good output should be short and disciplined: - the constraint - the policy source that gives it weight - the likely design or planning consequence - the next evidence step required This should connect directly to [how to read a zoning or planning map](/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map), [pre-construction due diligence](/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects), and [automated UK planning compliance checking](/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects). The constraint review should not live in isolation. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks nearby heritage records and current local guidance before fixing its massing assumptions. A mapped designation or policy summary identifies further questions; it does not determine the planning outcome. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What planning constraints should UK architects check before design?** Conservation areas, listed-building setting, flood risk, green belt or protected landscape, Article 4 directions, local plan allocations, and local design guidance are the main first-pass checks. **Why is a constraints map not enough?** Because the planning consequence usually sits in the policy text and guidance behind the mapped boundary, not in the map label alone. **How should a constraint be translated into design action?** By deciding whether it changes the form, the planning route, or the viability of the intended scheme. **Which UK policies matter most at early stage?** In England, start with the adopted development plan and current NPPF, plus relevant neighbourhood, design and heritage material. Use the separate national framework elsewhere in the UK. **What should happen after the first constraints review?** The team should adjust the brief, identify the evidence path, and decide which issues need specialist input before concept design advances. ## Conclusion UK planning constraints are manageable when they are read early and translated into actual project consequences. They become expensive when they stay as vague map notes until the concept is already doing too much work. If your team wants that translation to happen faster and with better structure, Atlasly is built to support that stage of the workflow. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [When permission is required](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "From Massing to Render: Using Site Context to Improve Early Design Visualisations" description: "How architects can use site intelligence and contextual inputs to produce more credible early concept visuals before design development." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "architectural concept renders from site context" target_query: "how to create architectural concept renders from site analysis" intent: informational --- # From Massing to Render: Using Site Context to Improve Early Design Visualisations > How architects can use site intelligence and contextual inputs to produce more credible early concept visuals before design development. ## Quick Answer To create useful architectural concept renders from site analysis, start with real inputs: orientation, slope, neighbouring height, street approach, planning sensitivities, and likely material context. Then test the image against those same conditions before sharing it. A strong early render helps the team think more clearly about the site. A generic one usually hides the very issues the design still needs to solve. ## Introduction Architects do not need more beautiful but detached early images. They need visualisations that stay close enough to the site to support judgement. That is the real difference between site-grounded rendering and generic AI imagery. One sharpens the design conversation. The other often replaces it with atmosphere. ## Which site inputs should shape the image before visual preparation starts? At minimum, an early concept image should respond to: - true north and dominant light direction - topography and horizon line - neighbouring building height and grain - the main approach sequence to the site - planning sensitivities such as heritage, townscape, or visual prominence - the character of likely material and landscape response If those inputs are missing, the image may still look persuasive, but it is no longer telling the truth about the site. ## How do you stop AI renders drifting away from planning reality? Treat the image as a checked output, not a magic one-shot result. Before sharing an early render, ask: - does the massing still match the current concept? - does the light direction fit the actual orientation? - are neighbouring buildings roughly credible in height and proximity? - does the image imply a planning argument the project cannot yet support? This is where the image should reconnect to [3D site context models](/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture) and the wider [pre-construction site analysis](/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide). The render should be an extension of site intelligence, not an escape from it. ## When is a context-grounded render genuinely useful? When it helps with one of three tasks: - testing whether the concept sits plausibly in its surroundings - helping the internal team discuss massing, materiality, and arrival sequence - supporting an early planning or client conversation without overstating certainty If the image is only good at generating excitement, it is probably doing half the job and causing half the risk. ## What should a practical site-to-visual workflow look like? The workflow should be simple: 1. assemble site intelligence 2. define the massing and viewpoint logic 3. generate the image with those constraints in mind 4. review it against planning and physical reality 5. keep or reject it based on whether it improves understanding That fourth step is where most teams are still too lenient. An early render should survive contact with the actual site story. [Atlasly Vision](/vision) follows this loop: inside a project it starts from the site context already assembled in the workspace, and the first render of the day is free with no account. ## Label concept images and retain the review record An illustrative concept image is not a verified photomontage, daylight assessment or accurate shadow study. Keep the source massing, viewpoint, image version and a note of material changes. Check whether the tool has altered boundaries, heights, vegetation or access. Where a planning decision requires formal visual evidence, agree an appropriate representation method; Landscape Institute guidance addresses that different purpose. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A reviewer compares a concept image with the source terrain and photographs. If a slope or tree line has been softened, the team corrects or labels the image before discussing the proposal. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should an early architectural render be based on?** Real orientation, slope, neighbouring scale, access sequence, planning sensitivities, and the actual massing under review. **Why are generic AI renders risky at pre-construction stage?** Because they can make the project look resolved or contextually comfortable before the real site conditions support that conclusion. **How can architects check whether a concept render is credible?** Compare it against the current massing, light direction, site model, neighbour heights, and planning narrative before sharing it. **When should an early render be used?** For internal design testing, early client communication, and planning discussions where the image supports a real site-based argument. **What makes a site-grounded render different?** It uses identifiable site references and is reviewed against them. The label does not establish geometric accuracy or suitability as formal planning evidence. ## Conclusion Use concept visuals to discuss a developing option, with source context and uncertainties visible. When the decision needs verified visual evidence, commission the appropriate method and keep it distinct from illustrative imagery. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects ## Sources - [Visual Representation of Development Proposals](https://landscapeinstitute.org/news/new-visual-representation-guidance-2019/li_tgn-06-19_visual_representation/) · Landscape Institute --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "15-Minute City Analysis: Reviewing Walking Catchments and Site Access" description: "How to compare walking catchments, amenity proximity and route barriers while recording data coverage, travel assumptions and evidence needed for site decisions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "15-minute city analysis tool" target_query: "how to measure 15-minute city walkability for a development site" intent: commercial --- # 15-Minute City Analysis: Reviewing Walking Catchments and Site Access > How to compare walking catchments, amenity proximity and route barriers while recording data coverage, travel assumptions and evidence needed for site decisions. ## Quick Answer A 15-minute city review examines access to daily services from a chosen entrance. Separate estimated travel catchments, amenity counts and route quality: they answer different questions. Check whether the result uses network routing or an approximate radius before making a walking-access claim. ## Introduction Walkability evidence is useful when a team can explain its origin, travel assumptions and missing information. A score does not certify a neighbourhood or establish that every resident can make the same journey. Use the analysis to identify questions for a route audit and design review. ## Define the daily needs and users Group destinations such as food shops, education, healthcare, parks and public transport. Record why those categories matter to the brief. Category weights are choices, not a universal planning standard. A family, commuter or older resident may have different priorities; persona labels do not establish a particular person’s speed or accessibility needs. ## Distinguish counts from reachable destinations A radius counts proximity; a network catchment estimates travel over mapped routes. Mapbox supports walking and cycling profiles, but available profiles and network completeness still limit a result. Atlasly includes multiple walking-analysis implementations. One shared implementation can return a radius when network data is unavailable and filters its amenity counts by radius even when a network polygon is present. Check the individual route before describing every counted amenity as reachable. ## Read the map before relying on the score Use an actual public entrance as the origin, not an assumed parcel centre. Record travel mode, time allowance and source date. A park near the site may have its only open gate on the far side. Check crossings, gradients, steps, restricted paths, opening hours and missing destinations through appropriate local evidence or a walkover. ## Translate gaps into design options Compare an existing entrance with a proposed connection using the same assumptions. Record which destinations become easier to reach and which barriers remain unresolved. A new crossing may require land rights, highway approval and funding; drawing it does not make it available. Retain the access note alongside the [transport review](/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners). ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks whether the walking route to a school uses an accessible crossing. It records an unresolved barrier before comparing route options. A score alone does not establish a safe route or justify a parking strategy. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is 15 minutes a universal planning requirement?** No. It is an accessibility framing. Check the policies and evidence requirements that apply to the site. **Can an amenity count prove walkability?** No. A nearby amenity can be inaccessible, closed or unsuitable for a user. Review the route and destination. **What should accompany the score?** Origin, time and mode assumptions, category weights, source dates, the catchment method and unresolved barriers. ## Conclusion Use a walkability result to structure a conversation about access. Keep assumptions with the map and distinguish a proposed improvement from a route that residents can use today. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Isochrone API](https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/) · Mapbox - [Planning with WebCAT](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat?intcmp=25861) · Transport for London --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Planning Readiness Checks: Reviewing Site Evidence Against Current Policy" description: "How to organise England planning evidence, verify current policies and distinguish a desktop finding from a compliance conclusion or planning decision." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "planning compliance checker UK" target_query: "how to check planning compliance automatically for UK development sites" intent: commercial --- # Planning Readiness Checks: Reviewing Site Evidence Against Current Policy > How to organise England planning evidence, verify current policies and distinguish a desktop finding from a compliance conclusion or planning decision. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer A planning readiness check should identify relevant evidence, policy questions and missing information for a defined proposal. Atlasly can help organise available site context, but a mapped intersection or automated flag does not establish complete policy coverage, compliance or the likelihood of permission. Verify current primary records and the applicable planning judgement. ## Introduction A useful first review tells the team what must be investigated before it commits to an option. It connects the proposed use and boundary to the relevant plan, evidence and decision, not just a list of policy titles. This guide focuses on England. The NPPF is England’s national policy framework; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have separate systems. Sources were reviewed on 12 September 2026. ## Build the right policy record 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](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) 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](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design) addresses infrastructure and design-led site capacity; an old density matrix should not be presented as a current automatic allowance. ## What a mapped finding can establish 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. ## Use a finding-to-action table 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. ## Review change without promising complete monitoring 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 long list of checks does not establish complete coverage or legal accuracy. Verify the applicable policy and material findings for the proposal. ## Use the evidence in a planning strategy 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](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-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. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks nearby heritage records and current local guidance before fixing its massing assumptions. A mapped designation or policy summary identifies further questions; it does not determine the planning outcome. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can a checker confirm planning compliance?** It can organise evidence and potential issues within its scope. It cannot establish complete coverage or replace the assessment of the actual proposal. **Is a heritage buffer a legal setting boundary?** No. A search radius is a research aid; setting depends on the relationship to significance and the circumstances. **Is the NPPF UK-wide?** No. It applies to England. Other UK nations have separate frameworks. **Does no alert mean the policy position is unchanged?** No. Review the monitoring scope and check material primary sources before relying on that conclusion. ## Conclusion Use planning checks to produce a clear evidence and action record. Verify the current sources, keep unknowns visible and connect each finding to the actual design decision. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [London Plan design policies](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design) · Greater London Authority --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "3D Site Context for Architects: Data, Exports and Review Checklist" description: "Build useful 3D site context from terrain and surrounding buildings. Check height assumptions, units, coordinates and export quality before design handover." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "3D site context for architects" target_query: "3D site context for architects" intent: commercial --- # 3D Site Context for Architects: Data, Exports and Review Checklist > Build useful 3D site context from terrain and surrounding buildings. Check height assumptions, units, coordinates and export quality before design handover. ## Quick Answer A 3D site context study combines terrain, surrounding buildings and a proposed option to explain scale and spatial relationships. Its reliability depends on the input data: verify heights, levels, dates and coordinates before using it for design decisions or presenting it as measured evidence. ## Introduction A convincing view can still contain uncertain geometry. The useful question is whether the context is accurate enough for the decision being made: comparing broad massing options needs different evidence from assessing a neighbour's daylight or setting out construction. This guide explains what to assemble, what to verify and what to hand over. Atlasly can help assemble early site context; its [methods and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) explain where source review and measured surveys remain necessary. ## What should a 3D site context study include? Start with the site boundary, surrounding building footprints, terrain, roads and the features that could affect the design. Record where each layer came from, when it was captured, its resolution and whether heights are measured, estimated or missing. Keep existing context separate from proposed geometry. Label an assumed roof height as an assumption, not a surveyed dimension. A blank area in a dataset does not establish that the site is empty. Compare important features with current mapping, photographs and a site visit before relying on them. The [difference between a topographic survey and site analysis](/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis) helps define the next appointment. ## How do you choose an export format? Choose the format for the receiving task, then test a small export in the intended application. - **GLB:** useful for exchanging and viewing 3D geometry. Khronos defines glTF as an asset-delivery format; a successful export does not prove geospatial accuracy or preserve every lighting effect. - **OBJ or FBX:** possible exchange choices for visualisation work. Confirm materials, axes, scale and geometry in the receiving application's supported version. - **IFC:** an open exchange standard maintained by buildingSMART. Check the actual IFC entities and properties; exported reference geometry is not automatically editable native walls or a coordinated BIM deliverable. - **DXF:** useful for a drawing handover where supported. Confirm drawing units, layer names and known distances after opening it. Atlasly's export implementation includes these formats, but availability depends on the workflow and account. The SketchUp-oriented export produces a COLLADA .dae file; it is not a native .skp guarantee. Follow the [site-context DXF handover guide](/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly) and inspect the file you actually receive. ## Worked example: test an export before a design review This is an illustrative quality check with invented dimensions, not a customer project or an Atlasly performance benchmark. Assume the brief supplies a rectangular site 40 m by 60 m and a separately verified 20 m reference distance. The rectangle's area is 2,400 m². These are test inputs, not a claim about a real parcel. 1. Record the source, units, coordinate reference system, north direction and elevation datum alongside the original file. 2. Import the context into the receiving design application. Measure the 20 m reference. If it reads 20,000 while the file is interpreted as metres, stop and correct the unit interpretation before design work continues. 3. Check another known distance in a different direction and a known point location. Matching one distance alone does not prove the rotation or position is correct. 4. Keep an assumed 12 m neighbouring height visibly separate from surveyed heights. Compare the option with a 15 m sensitivity case to see whether that uncertainty changes the design discussion. Neither height is a site fact. 5. Show existing and proposed geometry separately. Mark missing terrain or roof detail in the view rather than filling gaps without explanation. 6. Reopen the final exported file and repeat the checks. Record the application/version and any lost elements. A successful result is a documented, repeatable handover with unresolved items visible. It is not a certificate of survey accuracy. ## Can you use the view for shadow or planning evidence? A shadow view can help explain a design question if the date, time, location, orientation and height assumptions are recorded. An attractive rendering is not a validated daylight, sunlight or rights-of-light assessment. Agree the appropriate scope and method with the relevant specialist before using it for a formal conclusion. For a design review, include the view location, existing/proposed legend, sources and outstanding checks. Avoid presenting estimated neighbouring geometry as measured evidence or promising that a view will secure planning support. ## Copyable handover checklist For each revision, record: - Site name and boundary revision; existing/proposed status. - Source publisher, capture date, download date and any licence conditions. - Coordinate reference system, units, origin, north direction and elevation datum. - Measured, estimated and missing heights or features. - Export format, application/version and the scope of exported elements. - Two checked distances, one checked location and the result of the reopen check. - Known limitations, reviewer, review date and next required survey or assessment. Keep this record with the drawing or [site analysis report](/product/automated-reports), so a later recipient can understand what the geometry supports. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: an architect finds that an exported reference length is off by a factor of 1,000. Correcting the unit interpretation and rechecking a second distance prevents the team from using that file until the handover is verified. No customer outcome or time saving is claimed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **How do architects create reliable 3D site context?** Assemble terrain and surrounding geometry, record their provenance, distinguish estimated from measured values, then verify coordinates, scale and key features. Match the evidence quality to the intended design decision. **Does an IFC export become a fully editable BIM project?** Not automatically. IFC supports structured exchange, but the exported entities and receiving application determine what can be used or edited. Inspect a representative file before committing to a workflow. **Does a desktop context study replace a topographic survey?** No. Desktop context supports early understanding; a measured survey establishes the physical geometry to the required survey specification. **Can I test Atlasly before a full handover?** Start with a small representative site, check the formats available in your account and reopen an export in your intended application. Verify important dimensions and source limits before extending the workflow. ## Conclusion Use 3D context to make assumptions and spatial relationships easier to examine. Start with the [site analysis workflow](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline), then keep the handover checklist beside each exported revision. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit - https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context ## Sources - [glTF: runtime 3D asset delivery](https://www.khronos.org/gltf/) · Khronos Group - [Industry Foundation Classes](https://www.buildingsmart.org/standards/bsi-standards/industry-foundation-classes/) · buildingSMART International --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Multi-Criteria Site Scoring: Comparing Evidence and Trade-offs" description: "How to compare development sites using declared criteria, weights, missing-data checks and sensitivity tests without treating a score as an objective planning decision." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/multi-criteria-site-scoring-comparison published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "multi-criteria site analysis" target_query: "how to compare and score development sites objectively" intent: commercial --- # Multi-Criteria Site Scoring: Comparing Evidence and Trade-offs > How to compare development sites using declared criteria, weights, missing-data checks and sensitivity tests without treating a score as an objective planning decision. ## Quick Answer Multi-criteria site comparison organises evidence against an agreed set of criteria and weights. It can make trade-offs easier to discuss, but the weights express priorities rather than an objective truth. Separate non-negotiable constraints and missing evidence from the weighted score, then test whether the preferred option changes under reasonable alternative assumptions. ## Introduction A single score is easy to communicate and easy to overinterpret. A useful comparison shows the values, definitions, sources and decisions behind it so another reviewer can understand why a site or option appears preferable. ## Worked example: compare three sites For this illustrative brief, planning fit has a weight of 40%, access 35%, and physical site conditions 25%. The weights sum to 100%. **Weighted total = planning score × 0.40 + access score × 0.35 + site conditions score × 0.25.** | Invented site | Planning fit | Access | Site conditions | Weighted total / 5 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Site A | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3.30 | | Site B | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3.70 | | Site C | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2.85 | Site B ranks first under these assumptions. Its access advantage offsets its lower planning score. The total is a prioritisation aid, not a probability of permission or an investment return. ## Sensitivity test: the ranking can change Now change the weights to planning 70%, access 15% and site conditions 15%, keeping the scores unchanged. | Invented site | Original total / 5 | Planning-led total / 5 | | --- | --- | --- | | Site A | 3.30 | 3.70 | | Site B | 3.70 | 3.30 | | Site C | 2.85 | 3.95 | Site C now ranks first. The recommendation depends on which priorities the team accepts. Record that decision rather than presenting either ranking as an objective answer. If Site C’s access evidence becomes unverified, pause its ranking; do not redistribute the access weight across the remaining criteria. ## Download and use the comparison registers Download the [worked comparison CSV](/resources/site-comparison-worked-example.csv) or [blank scoring register](/resources/site-comparison-register.csv). The worked file contains values, not spreadsheet formulas, and labels every row illustrative. The blank register gives each criterion space for a score, weight, source, date, reviewer and status. 1. Agree criterion definitions and weights; check the weights total 100%. 2. Record evidence and resolve critical exclusions. 3. Give every eligible site a score on the same scale. 4. Calculate the weighted sum and independently check the arithmetic. 5. Test at least one plausible alternative weighting. 6. Save the brief, evidence and recommendation together. If you map suitability across a site, use the same scale and legend across options, state the resolution, and distinguish areas without data. A detailed heatmap does not establish detailed evidence. ## Define the decision and comparable alternatives State the use, development stage and alternatives being compared. A study selecting sites for further investigation differs from choosing a detailed design. Use the same boundary rule, evidence date and criteria across alternatives; record when coverage differs. Do not silently treat an unavailable flood or access result as a favourable result. ## Keep required conditions outside the trade-off score Some requirements cannot be offset by a high score elsewhere. Establish applicable safety, access and planning conditions separately with the relevant advisers. A sunny site should not gain permission through arithmetic that compensates for an unresolved constraint. Mark each required condition as satisfied, unresolved or not satisfied for the decision in question. ## Explain scales and weights Define what each score means and whether higher is better. A raw distance, noise estimate and percentage need justified transformations before combination. Avoid double-counting related criteria such as station proximity and a transport score derived from that same distance. Agree weights with the people responsible for the decision and document their reasoning; a total of 100 does not itself validate them. ## Understand the available Atlasly controls The reviewed interface exposes weights for solar, transit, green space, terrain, quietness, walkability, flood risk and view quality. It validates their total before requesting a result. That interface does not establish that every source is available, current or suitable for a statutory assessment. Inspect the returned evidence and identify gaps before interpreting any grid or summary. ## Test sensitivity and write the decision Change uncertain inputs and plausible weights, then check whether rankings reverse. Examine close results in their original units instead of treating a small score difference as meaningful. Grid resolution describes sampling, not positional accuracy. Report the leading option, decisive evidence, assumptions, unresolved issues and what additional information could change the choice. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team scores candidate sites using declared weights and marks missing data separately. It changes the weights to see whether the preferred site remains preferred before explaining the recommendation. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is the highest-scoring site objectively best?** No. It is highest under the selected evidence, scales and weights. Different defensible priorities or new evidence may change the ranking. **Can a weighted score establish planning compliance?** No. Applicable requirements need their own review. **What should happen to missing data?** Show it explicitly and investigate material gaps. Do not substitute an unexplained zero or favourable default. ## Conclusion Use the comparison to make the decision explainable. Keep the underlying evidence and sensitivity tests with the headline score, and connect the result to a named next investigation. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [An Introductory Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis](https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/) · Government Analysis Function --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/multi-criteria-site-scoring-comparison Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Development Feasibility Analysis: FAR, Buildable Area, and Financial Viability for Architects" description: "How architects can use FAR calculations, buildable area analysis, and early-stage financial viability screening to test development feasibility before committing design time." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "development feasibility analysis" target_query: "how to do development feasibility analysis with FAR and buildable area" intent: commercial --- # Development Feasibility Analysis: FAR, Buildable Area, and Financial Viability for Architects > How architects can use FAR calculations, buildable area analysis, and early-stage financial viability screening to test development feasibility before committing design time. ## Quick Answer Feasibility tests area, physical constraints and cost/revenue assumptions together. FAR is a floor-area-to-site-area ratio; it does not by itself establish planning permission or an achievable building envelope. Keep an arithmetic scenario separate from the authority’s applicable controls and a professionally reviewed appraisal. ## Introduction A useful feasibility study makes the assumptions visible before a team commits to a design direction. Atlasly contains FAR, development-feasibility, cost and financial-calculator interfaces. Their existence does not mean every result is a verified local policy entitlement or a current market valuation. ## Calculate FAR without confusing it with permission For an illustrative 1,000 m² site, 2,000 m² of counted floor area gives FAR 2.0. The controlling jurisdiction defines what floor area and lot area count. New York’s Zoning Handbook describes FAR in relation to the zoning lot; do not substitute gross internal area without checking the applicable definition. UK planning decisions do not generally reduce to one universal FAR table. ## Test the envelope independently Draw height, access, servicing, setbacks and other applicable restrictions. Some constraints overlap or require interpretation; deducting their areas independently can double-count exclusions. A flood designation or heritage setting is not automatically a fixed no-build buffer. Record which boundaries are verified and which remain assumptions. A theoretical floor-area allowance can exceed what the practical envelope accommodates. ## Understand the calculator’s limits The inspected FAR interface has a fallback with default ratio assumptions. The cost interface also has a rough-order estimate fallback using cost factors. Treat such results as scenarios, not evidence of a site’s permitted density or tender cost. Replace defaults with documented local controls and project-specific quantities, dates, specification, currency and cost advice. ## Keep cost and revenue assumptions comparable An appraisal should distinguish land, construction, abnormal works, professional fees, contributions, finance, contingency and receipts. State whether values include tax and whether figures share a valuation date. Leasing receipts cannot simply be added as though they were a sale value. Ask the appropriate cost and valuation advisers to review the assumptions. ## Test uncertainty before revising the brief Compare lower and higher cost, revenue and delivery-duration scenarios. Record which assumption changes the decision. Do not trim required accessibility, amenity or safety provision simply to make the arithmetic close. A positive residual under assumptions is not a guarantee of funding or a viable completed project. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A client requests more floor area. The team records access, height and area assumptions separately, tests alternative options and retains unresolved constraints before agreeing a revised brief. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does FAR 2.0 mean I can build twice the site area?** It describes that ratio only. You must establish the relevant floor-area definition, applicable permission and achievable envelope. **Are calculator defaults local policy?** No. A default or fallback is not evidence of an authority’s limit. **Can the calculator replace cost or valuation advice?** No. It can organise scenarios; current project costs, revenue assumptions and financing require appropriate review. ## Conclusion Keep the calculation, source controls and unresolved issues together. Use feasibility to decide which option deserves more investigation, not to certify a fixed development capacity. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map ## Sources - [Zoning Handbook](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/about/publications/zonehand.pdf) · New York City Department of City Planning - [An Introductory Guide to Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis](https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/an-introductory-guide-to-mcda/) · Government Analysis Function --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Shareable Site Intelligence Reports: Evidence, Gaps and Handover" description: "How to prepare a traceable site report with source dates, coverage limits, unresolved issues, access checks and reviewed outputs for the next project decision." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "site intelligence report" target_query: "how to create and share site analysis reports with clients and team" intent: commercial --- # Shareable Site Intelligence Reports: Evidence, Gaps and Handover > How to prepare a traceable site report with source dates, coverage limits, unresolved issues, access checks and reviewed outputs for the next project decision. ## Quick Answer A useful shareable site report records the site boundary, purpose, source dates, findings, gaps and next decisions in a form the recipient can review. Check which outputs were actually generated and who can access the shared link. A report is not complete merely because it contains many layers or has been exported successfully. ## Introduction The report should help a colleague distinguish evidence from assumptions without reconstructing the whole review. Its usefulness depends on traceability and the decisions it supports, not on an unverified promise that every available constraint has been found. ## Set the report boundary and purpose Identify the site, study boundary, revision, review date and intended decision. Explain whether the report supports initial screening, an option discussion or a more detailed assessment. State the sources consulted and the searches or surveys still needed. Avoid using a desktop summary as a formal specialist report without the required scope and review. ## Make missing evidence visible For each topic, record the available source, its date or retrieval date, coverage and key limitation. Distinguish no identified feature from unavailable or unqueried data. A requested layer may fail or be incomplete; inspect the delivered output rather than count requested topics. Separate source observations, interpretations and proposed responses. ## Structure findings around decisions Lead with the issues most relevant to the next decision. Link each issue to its supporting map, document or observation, then name the action, owner and evidence needed to close it. Keep alternative options and sensitivity assumptions visible. A short traceable explanation is more useful than an unexplained score or a large map collection. ## Review access before sharing The reviewed report-share page uses a token-based link and handles revoked or missing tokens. Treat a link that permits access without sign-in as information that a recipient may forward. Check the current sharing controls, intended audience and content before distribution. Do not assume a fixed expiry period or an access-audit capability unless the interface and policy establish it. ## Check exported files and version changes Open the delivered files and confirm that maps, legends, text and evidence references are usable. CAD or data exports need their own coordinate and geometry checks. Retain the reviewed version and communicate material changes; do not describe the shared page as an immutable audit record unless that property has been verified. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team shares a dated evidence pack before a design review, keeping source links, boundary assumptions and outstanding checks together. The reviewer can trace a finding without assuming that a polished report verifies it. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does a shared report contain every site constraint?** No completeness claim follows from generating a report. Record coverage, omitted topics and unresolved searches. **Does a share link require the recipient to sign in?** The reviewed report page supports token-based access. Check the actual sharing mode before sending sensitive project material. **Will a share link expire after 30 days?** Check the current sharing controls and documented expiry policy for the link you create. **Can the report replace specialist sign-off?** It can organise evidence, but it does not create the scope, investigation or accountability of the required specialist assessment. ## Conclusion Issue a report that makes its evidence and limits easy to inspect. Pair it with the [due-diligence checklist](/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects) and a clear record of the next decisions. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research ## Sources - [Measured Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utilities](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/measured-surveys-of-land-buildings-and-utilities) · RICS --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlas AI for Architects: Planning Questions, Sources and Review" description: "Use Atlas AI to organise architecture and planning questions, inspect supporting sources and keep assumptions and missing evidence visible." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "AI assistant for architects" target_query: "is there a free AI tool for architects that knows planning policy" intent: commercial --- # Atlas AI for Architects: Planning Questions, Sources and Review > Use Atlas AI to organise architecture and planning questions, inspect supporting sources and keep assumptions and missing evidence visible. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Atlas AI is Atlasly’s assistant for exploring site, design and planning questions. Use it to organise the enquiry and available evidence, then verify material statements against current primary sources. Its answers do not certify planning compliance, sustainability credits or complete geographic coverage; account access and available features should be checked in the current product. ## Introduction A useful planning answer identifies the applicable place, proposal and source. A fluent answer without those details can mix an old policy edition with a different jurisdiction. The review standard should be the same for Atlas AI and any other assistant. This guide explains a practical, source-led workflow. It does not claim that every policy, certification manual or international planning system is covered. ## Define the decision before asking Provide the site boundary or clear location, the jurisdiction, intended use and design stage. Explain the decision: whether to commission a survey, compare a massing option, prepare a pre-application question or locate a policy. Separate known facts from assumptions. For example: “Review the available sources for this English site and identify which flood, heritage and access questions must be resolved before choosing an option.” That is a suggested enquiry, not a promise of complete returned data. ## Check current policy and its scope Open the original source for each material statement and check its date, wording and applicability. The [current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) applies to England and was published on 17 August 2026. In London, the [2021 Plan’s D2/D3 policies](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design) use an infrastructure-informed, design-led approach; do not rely on an old PTAL density matrix. A source from an authoritative publisher can still be misinterpreted or applied to the wrong site. Ask which local records are missing and distinguish adopted policy from emerging material and technical guidance. ## Use certification questions to locate evidence For BREEAM, LEED or another certification system, specify the scheme, version, project type and relevant assessment issue. Open the scheme owner’s current documentation and confirm the evidence requirements with the appropriate assessor. Do not treat a generated credit checklist as an award, a verified score or a substitute for the applicable manual. Where the relevant manual or project evidence is unavailable, keep the question unresolved. This guide does not establish complete knowledge of every certification scheme. ## Keep project context and outputs reviewable Provide the relevant revision and check which project information is actually available in the current session or saved project. Do not assume every conversation remembers all earlier decisions or that retention is unlimited. Store the approved brief and evidence in the project’s agreed record. Where an output or diagram is available, inspect it before use. Confirm labels, source attribution, scale or units where relevant and whether the format is supported in the intended workflow. The presence of a diagram does not make its policy interpretation or geometry authoritative. ## Know when to hand the question to a specialist Use the answer to produce an action list with source links, assumptions, unanswered questions and responsible reviewers. Legal interpretation, measured surveys, ecological assessments and specialist engineering may be needed for the decision. Start in [Atlas AI](/atlas-ai), check current access and allowances, and read [Atlasly’s methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits). The earlier claims of universally correct policy knowledge, unlimited free web usage, automatic certification accuracy and permanent project memory are not substantiated by this guide. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A planner asks for source links alongside a site summary, then opens the current policy and designation records. An unverified paragraph reference stays out of the client advice until checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Are Atlas AI answers guaranteed correct?** No. Verify material claims and their application to the proposal against current primary evidence. **Does it cover every jurisdiction equally?** Do not assume that. Check the available sources and coverage for the place and question. **Can it award sustainability certification credits?** No. Certification depends on the applicable scheme and formal evidence and assessment requirements. **Is every feature free with no limits?** Check the current product and account allowances. This article does not promise unlimited use or access to every feature. ## Conclusion Use Atlas AI to frame the review and organise available evidence. Keep the primary sources, approved project facts and unresolved questions with the decision they support. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [London Plan design policies](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design) · Greater London Authority --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Noise Assessment and Environmental Analysis in Pre-Construction: What Architects Need to Know" description: "A practical England planning workflow for noise assessment, receptor evidence and coordinated ventilation, overheating and acoustic design." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/noise-assessment-environmental-analysis-development published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "noise assessment for development" target_query: "how to do noise assessment for planning application" intent: informational --- # Noise Assessment and Environmental Analysis in Pre-Construction: What Architects Need to Know > A practical England planning workflow for noise assessment, receptor evidence and coordinated ventilation, overheating and acoustic design. ## Quick Answer Scope a noise assessment around the proposal, existing sound environment and sensitive receptors. England planning guidance does not set one universal decibel pass/fail rule for all development. Agree the relevant method and evidence, then coordinate layout, façade, ventilation and overheating responses; desktop noise context is not a measured acoustic assessment. ## Introduction Noise can affect where bedrooms, gardens, entrances and plant should go. The first review should identify the sources and the people affected, then establish what evidence the authority and design team need. Being near a road or railway does not by itself define the assessment scope. This guide addresses England’s planning approach, checked on 12 September 2026. Project-specific planning conditions, standards and building-regulation requirements need separate review. ## Define sources, receptors and the decision The [government noise guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise--2) considers the nature and effects of exposure, including context, duration and time of day. It does not reduce every adverse effect to one decibel value. Start by identifying transport, industrial, commercial, leisure and building-services sources, as relevant. Record whether the proposal introduces a noisy activity, a sensitive use near existing activity, or both. Include construction where material. Agree the assessment brief with the acoustic consultant and relevant authority rather than assuming every urban scheme needs the same report. ## Select the appropriate technical method The assessment method depends on the question: internal and external residential conditions, industrial/commercial sound, transport exposure, construction or entertainment noise involve different considerations. Ask the consultant to name the applicable standard, edition, measurement periods and interpretation. Use the full applicable standard and local requirements for the actual receptors. An average value alone can conceal intermittent events, tonal characteristics or night-time disturbance. ## Measure and describe uncertainty Choose monitoring locations and periods that represent the relevant operating conditions. Record weather, unusual events, source activity and any limitations. Establish what the proposed use and operating hours will add to the baseline. Mapped or estimated noise can help scope the work but cannot replace suitable measurements where required. A propagation calculation needs justified source levels, geometry, ground conditions, barriers and assumptions. Do not describe an unverified desktop estimate as a certified ISO assessment. ## Coordinate acoustics with ventilation and overheating Test layout responses first: room orientation, separation, shielding, courtyard arrangement and plant location. Then assess façade and ventilation measures. A bedroom that meets an acoustic target only with a closed window may still require a viable ventilation and overheating strategy. England’s [Approved Document O](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overheating-approved-document-o) addresses overheating in new residential buildings. It is a separate building-regulations consideration, not a blanket planning requirement to run every future-climate scenario. Confirm the relevant assessment route, weather assumptions and interaction with noise for the project. ## Write a usable design and submission record For each receptor, show the source evidence, adopted criterion, predicted condition, mitigation and remaining uncertainty. Carry the required measures into the drawings, specification, maintenance plan and any operational controls. If the building layout or equipment changes, identify whether the acoustic assessment must change. [Atlasly environmental context](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) can help organise initial questions, but it does not establish measured sound levels, guarantee mitigation performance or replace the appointed specialist. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team identifies a potential noise source near a proposed residential layout and asks an acoustic specialist to define the evidence needed. It compares layout responses without treating a desktop indication as a measured noise assessment. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does every site near a road need the same noise report?** No. The proposal, likely effects, available evidence and local requirements determine the scope. **Is there one planning decibel limit?** No. The appropriate criteria and interpretation depend on source, receptor, timing and context. **Can closed windows solve every noise issue?** No. The design must also provide appropriate ventilation and overheating performance. **Can a desktop map certify acoustic compliance?** No. Treat it as context for a proportionate assessment, with suitable measurements and specialist interpretation where needed. ## Conclusion Use noise evidence to make coordinated design decisions. Explain the relevant method and assumptions, and carry mitigation through the drawings and specification rather than treating a single score as approval. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis ## Sources - [England planning noise guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/noise--2) · GOV.UK - [Overheating: Approved Document O](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overheating-approved-document-o) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/noise-assessment-environmental-analysis-development Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Viewshed Analysis for Architects: Visibility Screening and Its Limits" description: "How terrain, observer assumptions and source gaps affect visibility screening, and when a project needs an appropriate landscape or visual impact assessment." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/viewshed-analysis-visual-impact-assessment published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "viewshed analysis architecture" target_query: "how to do viewshed analysis for a development site" intent: informational --- # Viewshed Analysis for Architects: Visibility Screening and Its Limits > How terrain, observer assumptions and source gaps affect visibility screening, and when a project needs an appropriate landscape or visual impact assessment. ## Quick Answer A viewshed estimates line-of-sight visibility from specified terrain, observer and target assumptions. It does not measure whether a development’s visual effect is significant or acceptable. Use early visibility screening to identify questions, then agree the appropriate viewpoints, evidence and assessment method with the relevant authority and landscape professional. ## Introduction Height, terrain and viewpoint choice can substantially change the apparent visibility of a proposal. A useful early study makes those inputs inspectable and keeps the calculated area separate from professional judgement about landscape, townscape and heritage effects. ## Distinguish a viewshed from a visual impact assessment A line-of-sight calculation asks whether terrain or other included objects block a target. A zone of theoretical visibility depends on the chosen method and assumptions. A landscape and visual impact assessment adds baseline character, receptors, sensitivity, magnitude and significance through an agreed assessment method. A coloured visibility map is not that assessment. ## Record the terrain and height assumptions State the elevation source, date, resolution, horizontal reference, height datum, observer height and target heights. A terrain surface and a surface that includes buildings or vegetation answer different questions. Check missing elevation cells and unit consistency. GDAL’s viewshed documentation identifies reference-system and no-data considerations; finer sampling alone does not establish more accurate source data. ## Understand the limitations of early screening The reviewed Atlasly viewshed function samples terrain along sightlines and can return zero elevation when retrieval fails. That is a material limitation: an attractive output is not proof that its elevations are complete or suitable for a formal assessment. Verify the input coverage and use a suitable independently checked method where a decision depends on the result. ## Select viewpoints for the actual decision Identify relevant public routes, spaces, settlements and other receptors, and agree representative and sensitive viewpoints. Check whether a specific protected-view framework applies; London’s View Management Framework is a particular policy context, not a rule for every site. Review seasonal vegetation, existing and proposed cumulative context and relevant night-time effects where the scope requires them. ## Verify views and explain the design response Visit viewpoints where necessary and prepare visual representations to an appropriate documented method. Do not rely on an illustrative generated image as a verified photomontage. Explain which massing, height or layout change addresses which effect, then retest the revised option. Existing vegetation should not be assumed to provide permanent mitigation without evidence of its retention and management. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares viewpoints using declared terrain and screening assumptions, then seeks the appropriate landscape assessment. A desktop visibility result does not demonstrate acceptance by consultees or guarantee consent. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does visibility mean a proposal is unacceptable?** No. Visibility is one input; the nature and significance of an effect require the appropriate assessment and policy context. **Can a desktop viewshed replace a formal LVIA?** No. Its suitability depends on its inputs and purpose, and an LVIA has a wider scope. **What if elevation retrieval is incomplete?** Treat the affected output as unverified and obtain suitable elevation evidence before relying on it. **Are generated concept images verified planning views?** No. Formal visual evidence requires an appropriate viewpoint, photography and representation method. ## Conclusion Use screening to define the next evidence task. Keep the terrain assumptions, viewpoint schedule and unresolved gaps with the result so design decisions remain traceable. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [Raster viewshed](https://gdal.org/en/stable/programs/gdal_raster_viewshed.html) · GDAL - [Visual Representation of Development Proposals](https://landscapeinstitute.org/news/new-visual-representation-guidance-2019/li_tgn-06-19_visual_representation/) · Landscape Institute - [London View Management Framework](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance-and-spgs/london-view-management) · Greater London Authority --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/viewshed-analysis-visual-impact-assessment Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Pedestrian Analysis for Urban Designers: Routes, Catchments and Observed Flow" description: "How to distinguish walking routes and catchments from observed pedestrian flow, and use the evidence to review access, crossings, frontages and layout options." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "pedestrian flow analysis" target_query: "how to analyze pedestrian flow for urban design projects" intent: informational --- # Pedestrian Analysis for Urban Designers: Routes, Catchments and Observed Flow > How to distinguish walking routes and catchments from observed pedestrian flow, and use the evidence to review access, crossings, frontages and layout options. ## Quick Answer Pedestrian analysis should distinguish route connectivity, walking catchments and observed pedestrian flows. A route or isochrone can suggest where movement is possible; it does not establish how many people will use a street, support a shop or feel safe there. Combine mapped routes with site observations and, where needed, a calibrated movement study. ## Introduction Entrances, crossings, gradients and active frontages shape an early layout. Their design implications are useful even before a full transport study, provided the team does not present a proximity map as a forecast of footfall or commercial demand. ## Start with origins, destinations and entrances Identify likely origins and destinations such as homes, stations, schools and services. Use actual entrances rather than parcel centres where possible. Map plausible desire lines, then ask where public access, opening hours, severance or level changes prevent the direct connection. Record existing conditions separately from proposed links. ## Inspect the route method The reviewed pedestrian calculation attempts to use a street network but can fall back to a direct line when road data or a route is unavailable. Check the route type and available source information before calling a result a walking route. A line across a railway, fenced plot or river is not a verified connection. Route time remains an estimate based on assumptions. ## Observe movement before claiming flow For a footfall question, record counts, direction, location, observation periods, weather and unusual events. Consider school times, commuting peaks, weekends and relevant seasonal use. Repeat or commission an appropriate survey where the decision warrants it. A network route result alone has no observed pedestrian volume and should not be presented as a calibrated forecast. ## Review accessibility and public realm Walk the route and record crossings, kerbs, width, resting opportunities, surface condition, lighting and gradients. Check applicable accessibility standards and consult users or specialists where relevant. Do not apply a single gradient threshold to every jurisdiction and route type. Review safety and perceived comfort with evidence rather than infer them from the number of nearby amenities. ## Translate findings into options with testable assumptions Compare entrance locations, crossing improvements, through-routes and frontage uses. Label unapproved links as proposals and check deliverability. Retail viability needs more than potential passing movement: use mix, catchment demand, access and commercial advice also matter. Evaluate the preferred option against the observed problem rather than assume every new path will attract the intended users. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares possible arrivals from a station and a street frontage, then checks actual routes and available observations. Accessibility does not by itself establish footfall volume or commercial demand. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is a walking catchment the same as pedestrian flow?** No. A catchment estimates reach under a method; flow describes movement volume and direction over time. **Can a route result predict retail success?** No. It is one input to a wider movement and commercial assessment. **What does a direct-route fallback mean?** The result may connect points without proving a walkable network path. Review the method and barriers before relying on it. ## Conclusion Keep route evidence, observed movement and design proposals distinct. Connect this review with [transport access](/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners) and [walking catchments](/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool). ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool - https://atlasly.app/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Isochrone API](https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/) · Mapbox - [Planning with WebCAT](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat?intcmp=25861) · Transport for London --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Planning a Site Analysis API Integration: Contract and Evidence Checks" description: "A technical checklist for an agreed site-analysis integration, covering credentials, job completion, safe retries and partial results without assuming a public REST API." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-api-integration-proptech published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "site analysis API" target_query: "site analysis API for architecture and PropTech companies" intent: commercial --- # Planning a Site Analysis API Integration: Contract and Evidence Checks > A technical checklist for an agreed site-analysis integration, covering credentials, job completion, safe retries and partial results without assuming a public REST API. ## Quick Answer Before planning a site-analysis API integration, confirm that a supported public contract exists for the operations you need. The current published OpenAPI reference has no callable REST operations. Use verified connected-tool discovery for supported workflows, or obtain an agreed integration contract before building a batch service. ## Introduction A batch workflow should make evidence easier to compare and missing data easier to spot. The steps below are a design checklist for an agreed integration, not instructions for a currently verified public REST API. Connected-tool availability and REST availability are separate questions; check the current developer documentation and actual tool discovery. ## Define the decision and input contract Begin with the question the batch must support: selecting sites for further investigation, identifying missing evidence or comparing a small set of options. Preserve a stable internal site identifier, submitted boundary, coordinate reference and request date. Validate geometries and required fields against the current [developer documentation](/developers) and [REST publication reference](/openapi.json). Test representative small, complex and invalid inputs before expanding the workload. ## Keep authentication and limits explicit Confirm the supported authentication method, account access and service limits in the agreed contract. For any agreed integration, keep credentials server-side and confirm how access is issued, scoped and revoked. Do not infer quotas, prices or access rights from historical articles or internal function names. ## Handle asynchronous work and retries deliberately Where an endpoint returns a job identifier or an accepted response, persist that identifier and use its documented completion mechanism. Do not assume webhooks exist. Bound concurrency and back off on rate limits. Before retrying a job-creation request after a timeout, check whether the contract provides idempotency or a way to recover the original job; avoid accidental duplicate billable work. ## Validate results before comparison Check status, requested versus returned fields, source metadata and warnings. Distinguish a failed or absent result from a negative finding. Preserve raw responses according to your data policy and build a separate reviewed summary. Test error and partial-result handling using fixtures, including missing geometry, unavailable evidence and interrupted jobs. ## Create a review queue and handover Show reviewers the same fields for each site, together with gaps and the assumptions behind any comparison. A high score must not hide an unresolved mandatory condition. Export only the files actually returned and test their units and placement separately. Record who reviewed each finding and which further source check or specialist investigation is required. ## Measure the whole workflow Evaluate preparation, processing, review, correction and downstream handover time on representative sites. Also track evidence coverage and the decisions changed by review. A quick response is not proof of accurate or complete analysis, and a locally successful integration is not evidence of production reliability under every service condition. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team tests a small batch against a confirmed integration contract, records failed and incomplete requests separately and reviews material findings before comparing sites. A completed request does not establish complete site coverage. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does the API expose every feature in the web application?** No public REST feature parity is established. The current OpenAPI reference publishes no callable operations; verify connected-tool discovery separately and agree a supported contract for any REST integration. **Can this article establish my quota or per-site completion time?** No. Confirm account limits and measure representative requests under actual conditions. **Should an empty result be treated as no constraint?** No. Determine whether it means no feature found, unavailable data, an omitted topic or a failed request. **Can we test error handling without calling live services?** Yes. Use fixtures for validation, authentication failures, rate limits, partial responses and job lifecycle transitions. ## Conclusion Confirm the supported integration route before implementing a batch service. Once a contract is agreed, validate inputs, partial results and review responsibilities on a small batch, then connect the evidence to the site-feasibility decision. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research - https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [REST publication reference](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) · Atlasly (2026) - [Developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) · Atlasly (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-api-integration-proptech Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Heritage, Ecology, and Biodiversity Constraints: What Architects Must Check Before Designing" description: "An England-focused workflow for heritage and ecology evidence: consent triggers, setting, survey scope, protected species and biodiversity gain, with official sources." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/heritage-ecology-constraints-site-analysis published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "heritage and ecology constraints development" target_query: "how to check heritage and ecology constraints for development site" intent: informational --- # Heritage, Ecology, and Biodiversity Constraints: What Architects Must Check Before Designing > An England-focused workflow for heritage and ecology evidence: consent triggers, setting, survey scope, protected species and biodiversity gain, with official sources. ## Quick Answer Check the designation records, site history and habitat evidence before fixing a layout. In England, listed building consent depends on the works and their effect on special interest; heritage setting and ecology require proportionate assessment. Species survey timing depends on the species and survey type. A map or desktop report does not establish complete coverage or consent. ## Introduction Heritage and ecology findings can change a design brief, but they do not all imply automatic refusal. The useful early task is to identify what is known, which legal or policy tests may apply and what investigation is needed while options remain open. This guide covers England, with sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. Combine national designations with local records, site inspection and appropriate specialist advice. Absence from a broad dataset is not evidence that a heritage asset or protected species is absent. ## Heritage: distinguish assets, setting and consents [Listed building consent](https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/lbc) is needed for demolition and alterations or extensions affecting a listed building’s character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It can include internal work. A mapped list point does not settle the extent of listing or curtilage. Review the entry, history and actual building. Setting is relevant to significance and planning assessment, but “any harm means automatic refusal” is not a correct summary. Likewise, conservation-area status does not prohibit all change. Relevant demolition in English conservation areas is generally dealt with through planning permission, rather than a separate conservation-area consent application. ## Other heritage evidence to obtain Check scheduled-monument records and the relevant consent route before proposing works affecting a monument. Do not assume every adjacent scheme must prove no harm or that most consent applications are refused; the statutory and policy assessment depends on the proposal. Registered parks and gardens, local heritage lists and the Historic Environment Record may be relevant even without a listed building on site. Consultation requirements vary with the asset and proposal. The [Historic England consents guidance](https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/) explains the separate routes. Request archaeological evaluation where the evidence and authority’s requirements justify it, rather than prescribing excavation for every site. ## Ecology: scope the survey to likely effects Protected-species evidence depends on habitat suitability, records and the effects of the proposed work. The [government survey guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-and-development-advice-for-local-planning-authorities) distinguishes species and survey purposes: a preliminary bat-roost assessment can take place year-round, while summer-roost, hibernation and activity surveys have different windows. Great crested newt conventional and eDNA survey windows also differ. Ask the ecologist for the survey method, season, weather conditions, number of visits and any licensing needs. It is incorrect to say all bat surveys can only occur May–September, or that every nearby species record automatically requires a mitigation agreement with Natural England. A protected-species licence, when required, is separate from planning permission. ## Designated habitats and ancient trees For SSSIs, distinguish the planning consultation process from the consent or assent procedure applying to the person or public body carrying out an operation. Identify likely effects and the correct route with the relevant adviser; do not promise approval or near-certain refusal from proximity alone. [Ancient woodland standing advice](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions) recommends at least 15 metres of buffer from woodland, with more where assessed impacts extend further. Ancient and veteran trees have a different size-based recommendation. These are not universal legal-distance tests. Survey and assess the habitat and construction effects, including access, lighting, drainage and temporary works. ## BNG is a separate, date-sensitive check England’s statutory BNG regime has exemptions and transition rules. The [current exemption guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) includes changes from 6 August 2026; do not assume every project must deliver the same metric and management package. Exemption does not remove other ecology duties. For an in-scope scheme, obtain the correct baseline and metric assessment, distinguish the information needed with the application from the gain plan normally approved before commencement, and agree how relevant gains will be secured and maintained. See the [BNG guide](/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-bng-explained-architects). ## Turn the findings into coordinated design decisions Prepare an evidence plan showing the source records, areas needing verification and relationships that may affect the scheme. Pair each issue with an action: confirm curtilage, assess a view, commission a survey, change a lighting proposal or preserve a habitat corridor. Keep a programme for seasonal work and consultation, with named owners and dependencies. Atlasly can help organise available context, but it does not guarantee detection of every local record, species or consent trigger. The design team should retain the underlying evidence and commission proportionate investigations before relying on a conclusion. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A site review identifies a nearby environmental designation. The team checks the original record and seeks specialist advice on possible effects before changing the layout; proximity alone does not determine the response. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does any work to a listed building need consent?** The legal trigger concerns demolition and alteration or extension affecting the building’s special-interest character. Some work may not trigger consent; establish the scope with appropriate advice. **Are all bat surveys summer-only?** No. Timing depends on the survey purpose and species. Preliminary roost, summer roost, hibernation and activity surveys have different requirements. **Does a 15-metre buffer settle ancient woodland impacts?** No. It is a minimum standing-advice recommendation, and larger buffers may be needed for assessed impacts. **Does no mapped ecology record mean no constraint?** No. National and local records can be incomplete, and surveys may identify relevant habitats or species. ## Conclusion Use heritage and ecology evidence to shape options while choices remain open. Keep the designation, legal route, assessment and design response distinct, and make missing information visible in the project programme. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Listed building consent](https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/lbc) · Historic England - [Protected species survey guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-and-development-advice-for-local-planning-authorities) · GOV.UK - [Ancient woodland standing advice](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions) · GOV.UK - [BNG exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/heritage-ecology-constraints-site-analysis Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "What Is a Site Intelligence Package? Contents, Sources and Limits" description: "A practical definition of a site intelligence package: evidence, source dates, mapped context, assumptions, exports and the checks still required." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-11 primary_keyword: "site intelligence package" target_query: "what is a site intelligence package" intent: informational --- # What Is a Site Intelligence Package? Contents, Sources and Limits > A practical definition of a site intelligence package: evidence, source dates, mapped context, assumptions, exports and the checks still required. ## Quick Answer A site intelligence package brings a site boundary, sourced findings, mapped context, assumptions and agreed outputs into one reviewable set. Its value depends on traceable evidence and clear limits; assembling a package does not establish planning approval, legal title or survey accuracy. ## Introduction A site review often starts with separate maps, policy documents, site notes and geometry. A useful package connects each finding to its source and explains which decision it informs. The file format alone does not determine quality: a well-controlled folder can work, while an attractive dashboard can still contain unsupported conclusions. This guide defines the contents. For a practical review sequence and a downloadable evidence register, use the [site package handoff checklist](/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs). ## What should the package contain? 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. ## How should a finding link to its evidence? 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. ## How is a package different from a PDF report? 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](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7946), positions use WGS 84 longitude and latitude in decimal degrees; they are not metre-based CAD coordinates. ## Who reviews the package? 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. ## Where does Atlasly fit? 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](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) and [current plans](/pricing). 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. ## Illustrative example Illustrative workflow, not a customer case study: a team receives a terrain layer and an environmental map from different dates. It records the source dates separately, checks whether both cover the agreed site boundary, and leaves drainage implications open for specialist review. The package helps the team see what is known and what still needs checking. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is a site intelligence package?** It is a coordinated set of site context, sourced findings, assumptions, issues and agreed outputs prepared for a stated decision or handoff. **Does a site intelligence package prove a site is developable?** No. It supports an early review and records evidence and unknowns. Planning, legal, commercial and technical conclusions require the relevant checks for the specific proposal. **Does every package need CAD exports?** No. Agree outputs with the recipients. If geometry is required, verify the format, units, coordinates and successful import rather than assuming every file is design-ready. ## Conclusion Judge a site intelligence package by whether another person can trace its findings, understand its limits and carry out the next check. Use the [handoff checklist and blank evidence register](/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs) to make those checks explicit. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs - https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports ## Sources - [RFC 7946: GeoJSON coordinate reference system](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7946) · IETF / RFC Editor (2016) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Export Site Analysis to AutoCAD and Revit with Less Rework" description: "A practical handover method for reusing site-analysis context in AutoCAD and Revit, with checks for file formats, coordinates, units and geometry." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-to-autocad-and-revit-without-redrawing-the-site published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "export site analysis to AutoCAD and Revit" target_query: "how to export site analysis to AutoCAD and Revit without cleanup" intent: informational --- # Export Site Analysis to AutoCAD and Revit with Less Rework > A practical handover method for reusing site-analysis context in AutoCAD and Revit, with checks for file formats, coordinates, units and geometry. ## Quick Answer To reuse site-analysis data in AutoCAD or Revit, agree a supported exchange format, verify the files returned, then check units, coordinates, geometry and source coverage in the receiving application. A usable context drawing can reduce rework, but it does not automatically become a measured survey or a coordinated project model. ## Introduction This handover sequence is for the architect receiving a site-context package. It focuses on avoiding unnecessary redraw while preserving a trustworthy project reference. Keep the broader export-format checklist available, but assess the delivered drawing in the actual AutoCAD or Revit project before deciding what can be reused. ## 1. Request the minimum useful package Tell the sender which design question the file must support and which geometry is required. Request the source boundary, available context, file manifest, units and coordinate note. Ask which elements are measured and which are approximate. Unnecessary detail can obscure the objects that need checking; missing critical geometry should be identified before coordination starts. ## 2. Quarantine and inspect the received drawing Keep the original package unchanged and work on a copy. Open the drawing, inspect layer visibility and extents, and look for remote stray objects. Measure a known distance and check elevations where they matter. Record absent layers, duplicate objects and boundary closure rather than silently repairing everything and losing the audit trail. ## 3. Establish the project relationship Agree the relationship between the incoming file and the trusted project reference. Atlasly’s 3D context exporter defaults to local metres; its site drawing exporter also supports a British National Grid drawing frame. Confirm which path produced the received file and read its coordinate note. British National Grid output does not establish existing Revit shared coordinates or surveyed control. Check control points and orientation. If a reference-system conversion is needed, use the appropriate transformation and document it. ## 4. Choose the receiving-application workflow In AutoCAD, decide how the context will be referenced and controlled within the project. In Revit, choose import or link, units and placement deliberately; Autodesk documents these as separate decisions. Test with a copy before distributing a coordinated reference. Importing a DXF does not establish native DWG delivery or a complete Revit model. ## 5. Reuse geometry selectively Separate acceptable context from information that needs replacement by the measured survey. Keep approximate neighbouring massing clearly identified. Do not use a desktop contour interval as a statement of survey accuracy, and do not infer legal boundaries from drawn features. Rework critical objects when necessary rather than preserving an incorrect drawing for the sake of a no-redraw promise. ## 6. Issue a handover note and measure rework Record the received version, placement checks, approved reference, corrections and unresolved issues. Tell the next team member which file should be updated when new evidence arrives. If evaluating time saved, include inspection, conversion and cleanup as well as download time. A file that opens successfully has passed only the first check. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reopens an exported context file in its intended design application and checks units, two known distances, location and layer contents. Missing or altered elements are recorded before the file is used as a design reference. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can I avoid all redraw?** That depends on the delivered geometry and intended use. Reuse checked context and replace unsuitable information. **What should I check first?** Units, a known distance, drawing extents and the relationship to a trusted project reference. **Should approximate context overwrite the survey?** No. Keep source status clear and coordinate critical geometry against suitable measured information. **How should a revised export be handled?** Retain the previous version, repeat the relevant checks and communicate changes before updating the shared project reference. ## Conclusion Reuse is worthwhile when the next designer can trust the checked reference and understand its limitations. Keep the [broader export checklist](/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit) with the handover record. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports ## Sources - [Positioning for imports and links](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2024/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C922A152-0A30-4E27-BED2-BCE9FF2E5E30.htm) · Autodesk - [Scaling for imported CAD files](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2023/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-AB37F1CB-CF6B-4C15-B26A-D0F0F3EF1F2B.htm) · Autodesk - [Coordinate transformations](https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/geodesy-positioning/coordinate-transformations) · Ordnance Survey --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-to-autocad-and-revit-without-redrawing-the-site Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Pre-Construction Due Diligence Checklist for Architects: 15 Checks Before You Accept the Brief" description: "A practical pre-construction due diligence checklist for architects covering 15 checks across planning, flood, access, topography, and evidence quality before concept design starts." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-checklist-for-architects-15-checks-before-you-accept-the-brief published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "pre-construction due diligence checklist architects" target_query: "pre-construction due diligence checklist architects" intent: informational --- # Pre-Construction Due Diligence Checklist for Architects: 15 Checks Before You Accept the Brief > A practical pre-construction due diligence checklist for architects covering 15 checks across planning, flood, access, topography, and evidence quality before concept design starts. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Before accepting a project brief as real, architects should check planning status, flood risk, topography, access, neighbouring sensitivity, utilities assumptions, buildable area, transport, and evidence quality. The point of due diligence is not to describe the site. It is to confirm whether the brief still makes sense once the site has been read properly. ## Introduction A project brief often contains assumptions about use, unit count, access and cost. Early due diligence tests those assumptions against the site evidence before the design becomes difficult to change. The 15 checks below are a starting framework, focused on England where national planning examples are used. Atlasly can help organise available context, but missing records, legal interpretation and specialist investigations must remain visible. ## Which checks can kill the brief fastest? The first pass should focus on the findings that can invalidate the client's assumptions immediately. **1. Planning status and allocation.** In England, that means local plan allocations, settlement boundaries, conservation area context, Article 4 directions, and any policy wording that changes what the site is realistically for. In many urban sites, this is the fastest way to discover that the "obvious" use or density is not actually the likely one. **2. Flood and drainage risk.** Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning, Risk of Flooding from Surface Water, and local drainage context should be checked before the first concept is trusted. Flood is not only a planning constraint. It is often a layout, ground-floor, and access problem. **3. Access and servicing geometry.** A brief can fail because the parcel cannot handle servicing, refuse, fire access, or turning logic without losing far more buildable area than expected. **4. Topography and abnormal works.** A site with a 4-metre level change across the buildable zone behaves differently from a flat parcel. Retaining, split levels, and access ramps can quietly remove budget and design freedom. Those four checks are enough to stop a surprising number of weak briefs before they consume concept-design time. ## What should be verified from planning and policy sources? Planning due diligence should be sequential rather than broad and vague. First, identify the mapped designations and overlays. Second, read the controlling policy documents. Third, translate them into design consequences. That means: - what uses are realistic - what height or massing assumptions are plausible - what evidence path is likely at pre-app or application stage - what special review triggers the site creates For an English site, the sources to review include the adopted development plan and relevant neighbourhood plan, national policy and material local guidance: - local plan - Current NPPF for England (check the official edition) - conservation area appraisals where relevant - local design guides or tall-buildings guidance - flood-related policy triggers Other UK nations need their own framework. Atlasly can help organise available references; verify the current edition and application to the proposal. This guide does not establish a measured speed advantage. ## Which physical and environmental checks belong before concept design? A serious due-diligence pass should include at least these physical and environmental checks: **5. Site boundary logic.** Distinguish the study boundary, proposed application boundary and ownership extent. A Land Registry title plan normally shows general boundaries; resolve material uncertainty with legal and survey evidence. **6. Topography and slope.** Use desktop terrain to flag potential level changes, then obtain suitable survey evidence before dimensions or costs depend on it. **7. Flood and surface-water risk.** Not just whether the site "touches" a flood zone, but how much of the buildable area or access route is affected. **8. Heritage and ecology.** Listed-building setting, conservation context, SSSI, local wildlife designations, or biodiversity constraints can all reshape the brief. **9. Solar orientation and overshadowing.** A concept that depends on strong residential daylight or outdoor amenity should not be briefed blindly on a weakly oriented or heavily overshadowed site. **10. Neighbour interface.** Privacy, overlooking, daylight sensitivity, and frontage context matter much earlier than many briefs assume. These are possible evidence sources, not a guarantee that Atlasly retrieves every layer for every site. Environment Agency flood layers, Historic England records, local authority policy portals, Ordnance Survey terrain, and GTFS or public-transport data are all part of the real early-stage evidence stack. ## How should movement, transport, and utilities assumptions be checked? This is where supposedly "minor" assumptions become expensive. **11. Transport access.** The distance to the station is not enough. The route quality, severance, stop frequency, and daily-services catchment all affect the planning and viability story. In London, PTAL remains a useful shorthand, but route quality still matters. **12. Walkability and daily access.** If the project narrative depends on low parking or active-travel logic, the team needs evidence for it. A 15-minute catchment and real street-network logic are much more useful than a generic "well connected" claim. **13. Utilities and infrastructure assumptions.** Check available utility records and obtain network-operator enquiries where capacity or connection timing affects the brief. A mapped asset does not establish its depth, exact position, spare capacity or a right to connect. Commission detection and technical work where the decision needs it. These items often sound less dramatic than flood or heritage, but they are some of the most common reasons an apparently straightforward brief begins to erode once design starts. ## When is the evidence strong enough to move into design? **14. What does the evidence support?** State the provisional use, scale and layout assumptions and the basis for them. Do not describe an early appraisal as planning permission or a complete legal search. **15. What risks and actions remain?** Record missing evidence, specialist input, responsible people and the decisions dependent on each check. The brief can progress conditionally where the team understands those dependencies. Keep reusable drawings and reports with their sources, units, coordinates and limitations. Test exports in the receiving application before treating them as a dependable handoff. These supporting questions complete the 15-check structure; they are not three additional numbered checks. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews levels, access and available constraint records before confirming a client brief. It keeps the proposed capacity provisional until the unresolved evidence has been reviewed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is pre-construction due diligence for architects?** It is the early-stage process of checking whether the site, the brief, and the available evidence are strong enough to justify concept design. **How is due diligence different from feasibility?** Feasibility asks what might work. Due diligence asks whether the site and the evidence are reliable enough to move forward responsibly. **Which checks should happen before the first concept is accepted?** Planning context, flood risk, access, topography, neighbour sensitivity, and likely buildable area should all be checked first. **Does due diligence replace specialist consultants?** No. It identifies whether the project needs them next, and why. It speeds the first decision rather than replacing formal accountability. **Why does export-ready evidence matter at due-diligence stage?** Because the value of early research increases sharply when the same output can be shared with the client and moved directly into design software. ## Conclusion Pre-construction due diligence is where architects stop the wrong project from moving too quickly. That is a much more valuable service than simply confirming that the site exists and the client is enthusiastic. If you want those checks assembled into one faster, more coherent workflow before concept design starts, Atlasly is built for exactly that stage. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [General boundary guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-read-a-title-register-and-title-plan/how-to-read-a-title-plan) · GOV.UK - [FRA applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-checklist-for-architects-15-checks-before-you-accept-the-brief Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "UK Planning Constraints Before Design: The Architect's Sequence for the First Site Review" description: "How to check UK planning constraints before design begins, covering conservation areas, flood zones, Article 4 directions, and how to translate mapped conditions into design decisions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-constraints-before-design-the-architects-sequence-for-the-first-site-review published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "UK planning constraints before design" target_query: "how to check planning constraints before design UK" intent: informational --- # UK Planning Constraints Before Design: The Architect's Sequence for the First Site Review > How to check UK planning constraints before design begins, covering conservation areas, flood zones, Article 4 directions, and how to translate mapped conditions into design decisions. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer For an early English site review, check the applicable development plan, heritage, flood risk, permitted-development restrictions and other relevant local evidence. Identify which findings affect form, the planning route or viability, and what remains unverified. Other UK nations require their own policy and source framework. ## Introduction UK planning constraints become expensive mainly when they remain vague. A team knows there is "some heritage sensitivity" or "a flood issue somewhere nearby", but nobody has yet translated that into a design consequence. So the concept keeps moving forward under assumptions that feel reasonable until the first pre-app meeting or consultant review reveals that the site was never as simple as the brief made it sound. The right first-site review is not a map-reading exercise. It is a sequence for turning constraint data into project decisions. Atlasly's planning layers, policy search, and compliance workflow are built for exactly that moment: the point where a mapped condition stops being an overlay and starts becoming a design instruction. ## Confirm the nation and evidence scope The examples below focus on England. The [NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) applies to England; use the separate national framework and local plan system elsewhere in the UK. Read the adopted development plan, relevant neighbourhood plan, national policy and material guidance in their proper roles. This is a first-review checklist, not an exhaustive constraints search. Verify national records against the responsible authority’s current local sources. Record unavailable tree, heritage, planning-history or Article 4 information as unknown. ## Which constraints should you check in the first hour? Start with the constraints that change the planning route fastest. **Conservation areas and listed-building setting.** These are still among the most common reasons a "normal" urban site turns into a sensitive one. Check heritage significance and setting against the current NPPF and the relevant local plan. They shape how the authority reads massing, materials, roofline, and townscape response. **Flood risk.** Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning and surface-water risk should be in the first stack. Flood is not just an engineering issue. It can change the planning evidence path, lower-ground use, and layout logic immediately. **Article 4 directions.** These matter because they remove fallback assumptions. Open the operative direction, map and schedule: it withdraws specified rights in a defined scope, not necessarily every right on the site. **Green Belt, National Landscape, or protected-view context.** These shift the project from an ordinary planning argument into one that will need stronger justification and visual or landscape sensitivity. **Local plan allocations and design guidance.** A site can look policy-neutral on the map and still carry a very clear local expectation once the local plan wording or area guidance is read properly. The first hour is not for reading everything. It is for identifying which of these constraints is likely to dominate the next conversation. ## Which policy documents actually carry weight on day one? UK projects often go wrong because teams over-focus on the map and under-focus on the document hierarchy behind it. At early stage, the most useful policy stack usually includes: - **Current NPPF for England**. Verify the source edition - the adopted **local plan** - any relevant **site allocation policy** - **conservation area appraisals** or heritage guidance - local **design code**, design guide, or tall-buildings guidance - flood and environmental policies where triggered The practical rule is simple: every mapped condition should have a document behind it. If the team knows the site sits next to a conservation area but cannot point to the appraisal or policy wording that gives that condition weight, the finding is still incomplete. Use Atlasly to help organise available source references, then verify the document and its application to the proposal. This review does not establish superiority over another tool. ## How do you turn constraints into design, evidence, and viability decisions? A constraint becomes useful only when it is translated. The simplest method is to place every finding into one of three buckets: **Changes the form.** Examples: heritage setting may reduce acceptable height, alter frontage rhythm, or make roofline continuity critical. Flood may push vulnerable uses out of the lower-ground edge of the site. Townscape sensitivity may reshape massing rather than kill the scheme outright. **Changes the planning route.** Examples: Article 4 may remove fallback logic. Flood may trigger more detailed sequential reasoning. Protected-view or tall-buildings guidance may introduce visual assessment requirements. **Changes the viability.** Examples: a technically manageable issue can still become commercially painful once redesign, delay, or specialist evidence is priced properly. This translation step is what separates useful planning intelligence from background noise. It is also where the first-site review should start linking to the wider workflow. ## What should be documented before concept design starts? The output of the first-site review should be short enough to use and specific enough to matter. For each key constraint, document: - what the constraint is - which policy or guidance source gives it weight - what design consequence it creates - what specialist or evidential next step it implies For example: "Site sits outside but adjacent to conservation area boundary; borough conservation appraisal and local design guidance make roofline continuity and frontage rhythm material. Initial six-storey assumption should be treated as high-risk pending townscape response." That kind of note is useful because it changes the brief immediately. "Conservation area nearby" is not useful. A good first-site review should also identify which findings can already move into the site package and which still need consultant confirmation. Atlasly's shareable and exportable workflow matters because the review is stronger when the whole team works from one site story instead of fragmented screenshots and separate notes. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks nearby heritage records and current local guidance before fixing its massing assumptions. A mapped designation or policy summary identifies further questions; it does not determine the planning outcome. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Which planning constraints should UK architects check first?** Conservation areas, listed-building setting, flood zones, Article 4 directions, green belt or protected landscape designations, local plan allocations, and local design guidance are the first-pass essentials. **Why is a constraints map not enough in the UK?** Because the planning consequence usually sits in the policy text, guidance, and local appraisal behind the mapped boundary, not in the map label alone. **Which policy documents matter most at early stage?** The current NPPF for England, the adopted local plan, any site allocation wording, and relevant local design or heritage guidance usually matter most. **How should architects translate a planning constraint into action?** By deciding whether it changes the form, the planning route, or the viability of the intended scheme. **What should the output of the first site review look like?** A concise note explaining each key constraint, the document behind it, the design consequence it creates, and the next evidential step required. ## Conclusion UK planning constraints are manageable when they are read early and translated into practical project consequences. They become expensive when they remain vague until the concept has already started doing too much work. If your team wants that translation to happen faster and in a more structured workflow, Atlasly is designed to support exactly that first site review. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [When permission is required](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-constraints-before-design-the-architects-sequence-for-the-first-site-review Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Flood Risk for Architects Before Planning: What to Check Before You Draw" description: "What architects should check for flood risk before planning, covering EA flood maps, surface water, access routes, and how early screening prevents costly design rework." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-for-architects-before-planning-what-to-check-before-you-draw published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "flood risk assessment for architects" target_query: "flood risk assessment for architects before planning" intent: informational --- # Flood Risk for Architects Before Planning: What to Check Before You Draw > What architects should check for flood risk before planning, covering EA flood maps, surface water, access routes, and how early screening prevents costly design rework. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Before concept design, review official flood mapping, future risk, local evidence, levels and access for the actual proposal. A desktop check identifies questions; it does not establish flood safety or replace a required flood risk assessment. ## Introduction Flood risk becomes expensive when it arrives late. At early stage, many teams still treat it as a yes-or-no planning layer. A site "touches flood mapping" or it does not. But that is not how the design problem behaves. Flood is usually a question of where the site is weak, what part of the brief remains credible, and whether access, ground-floor strategy, or attenuation requirements quietly change the whole project before the first concept has stabilised. That is why architects should check flood before planning strategy is fixed and before concept design gets emotionally expensive. Atlasly is most useful in this phase because flood is read alongside topography, access, and planning context rather than as a separate consultant issue. ## Which flood sources should architects check first? For England, open the [Environment Agency Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/), inspect the actual boundary and relevant present/future river, sea and surface-water layers, then read the local strategic flood risk assessment. Check groundwater, reservoirs, sewer and local drainage evidence where relevant. The [current applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) includes FRA triggers beyond Zone 2 or 3 and the one-hectare Zone 1 threshold. A small Zone 1 site is not automatically exempt. Source dates, proposed vulnerability, safe access and climate change matter. Use current NPPF F5–F7 and Annex F for the policy tests, checking any outdated guidance cross-references. For a US site, start with FEMA’s [Flood Map Service Center](https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home) and relevant local records; do not transfer English flood-zone or assessment rules to it. Other UK nations also have separate authorities and policies. ## How do river, sea, surface-water, and groundwater risks change the design response? Architects should stop treating all flood issues as interchangeable. **River and coastal flood risk** often changes the planning route first. It can affect vulnerability classification, evidence requirements, and whether parts of the site are suitable for the intended use at all. **Surface-water flood risk** often changes the layout first. It reveals where overland flow wants to move, where attenuation may be sensible, and whether the apparently easiest building footprint is actually sitting in the wrong part of the parcel. **Groundwater or local drainage pressure** may matter more to lower-ground ambition, substructure thinking, and drainage cost than to the map image itself. The architect's job at pre-design stage is not to solve all of those technically. It is to know which one is present and what kind of design problem it creates. That is a very different question from simply asking whether the site is "in flood risk". ## When does flood risk affect access, not just the footprint? Access must be assessed alongside the development footprint. A site can look workable on the parcel itself and still be weak if the route in or out of the site performs badly in flood conditions. That matters for residents, servicing, and emergency access. It also matters to planning officers, because the project is not evaluated as an isolated shape in plan. It is evaluated as a functioning development. This is where flood should be read together with topography, transport access, and the wider site feasibility workflow. A passable footprint does not rescue an unsafe or operationally weak access story. For architects, the practical question is: "If we keep the current footprint assumption, are we also keeping a weak access assumption without noticing?" ## What should go into the pre-design flood note before a formal FRA is commissioned? A useful early flood note should be decisive and short. It should say: - where the risk is - what type of flooding matters - whether access is affected - whether the issue changes layout, use, or viability - what next specialist input is needed For example: "Eastern edge of parcel intersects Flood Zone 2 and medium surface-water risk. No mapped risk was identified on the western access route in the reviewed layers; its safety remains unverified. Current preferred footprint would put ground-floor residential into the weakest part of the site. Recommend pulling vulnerable uses west, reserving eastern edge for attenuation / landscape, and commissioning FRA before lower-ground assumptions are fixed." That is far more useful than "Flood risk present". Keep the note with its source dates and unresolved questions. Atlasly can help organise available context; verify coverage and any export before reuse. ## How does early flood screening change the design conversation? It changes the design conversation by removing false certainty early. Without screening, the team often treats the site as if the original yield, footprint, and access assumptions are still intact. With screening, the team can decide much earlier whether: - the project still supports the intended use mix - the vulnerable part of the programme needs relocation - attenuation or open space should absorb a weaker site edge - the brief is still viable in its original form Connect the findings to layout decisions and obtain the necessary specialist assessment before those decisions depend on unverified flood assumptions. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews mapped flood information alongside site levels and the proposed access. It records which sources and routes still need checking and obtains the appropriate specialist assessment before relying on a layout. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Which flood maps should architects check before planning?** In England, check the current planning map’s relevant layers, future risk and the local strategic flood risk assessment, plus other sources needed for the proposal. **Can a site in Flood Zone 2 or 3 still be developed?** Sometimes, yes. The answer depends on the intended use, the extent of the risk, access conditions, and whether a viable layout and evidence strategy exist. **Why is flood more than a planning issue?** Because it often changes layout, access, lower-ground use, attenuation strategy, and project viability before design is fixed. **Does early flood screening replace a formal FRA?** No. It shortens the first decision and shows the team whether the site needs redesign, deeper technical work, or a different brief before planning advances. **What should the output of early flood screening look like?** A short note explaining the type and location of the risk, its likely design consequence, and the next technical step required. ## Conclusion Flood risk should shape the first concept or stop it. It should not arrive after the concept has already taken root. The architect who screens flood properly before planning does not eliminate uncertainty, but they do remove a dangerous amount of false confidence. If your team wants flood risk read together with topography, access, and planning context before the brief hardens, Atlasly is built for exactly that stage. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/topographic-survey-vs-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [FRA applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK - [Current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-for-architects-before-planning-what-to-check-before-you-draw Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Site Package Handoff Checklist: Review Evidence, Revisions and Exports" description: "Review a site package before sharing it: a five-step handoff checklist, blank evidence register and an illustrative example with explicit unknowns." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-11 primary_keyword: "site package handoff checklist" target_query: "how to review and hand over a site intelligence package" intent: informational --- # Site Package Handoff Checklist: Review Evidence, Revisions and Exports > Review a site package before sharing it: a five-step handoff checklist, blank evidence register and an illustrative example with explicit unknowns. ## Quick Answer Before handing over a site package, check its purpose and boundary, trace each finding to a dated source, separate facts from assumptions, open the requested exports and assign outstanding issues. Record the revision and recipient so later changes can be understood. ## Introduction A handoff succeeds when the recipient can identify the current revision, inspect the evidence and understand what they can use it for. This checklist is a practical review aid, not a planning determination or certification. Start with the [definition and contents of a site intelligence package](/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package) if you are agreeing the deliverable for the first time. Then [download the blank evidence register (CSV)](/templates/site-package-evidence-register.csv). It contains review categories and empty evidence fields; no site has been assessed in that file. ## 1. Agree the purpose and site boundary Write down the intended decision and the limits of the work. Confirm the boundary, address, jurisdiction, proposal description and revision. Ask the recipient which outputs they need and which application or review process will receive them. Do not label early screening as a complete development appraisal. Record any excluded topics, inaccessible sources or areas outside the evidence coverage. ## 2. Trace the findings to their sources Use one register row per finding or unresolved question. Record the source, relevant section, date and extent. Separate the date you accessed a source from its publication or effective date. If an edition is unknown, write that explicitly. For changing policy, revisit the issuing authority before relying on a saved extract. If two sources disagree, keep both references and identify the reviewer who will resolve the difference. Do not silently select the more favourable answer. ## 3. Separate observations, assumptions and unknowns An observation describes what the source shows. An assumption fills a gap for a stated purpose. An unknown remains open. Those states should not look interchangeable in a summary. | Illustrative item | Evidence state | Next action | | --- | --- | --- | | A source map shows a designation near the boundary | Observation; site intersection not yet checked | Compare the source geometry and agreed boundary | | A massing option uses an assumed access location | Design assumption | Confirm access requirements and relevant rights | | An export has no recorded vertical reference | Unknown | Request its reference before using elevations | These are invented examples for using the checklist, not results for an actual site. ## 4. Open and check the requested exports Open each representative file in the receiving application. Check that it contains the intended site and layers, and inspect units, origin, extent and known reference points. Record the receiving software/version, any conversion and the outcome. For GeoJSON following [RFC 7946](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7946), longitude/latitude positions are in decimal degrees. Confirm any projection or conversion needed for a metre-based drawing. A file extension or successful download does not prove positional accuracy or compatibility. If an output fails, keep the failure in the register and agree a replacement. Do not mark the package accepted while an essential file remains unusable. ## 5. Issue a revision with named next actions Give the recipient a short decision summary, the agreed outputs and the evidence register. List outstanding issues with an owner and next action. State which revision replaces which earlier issue and how material corrections will be communicated. Use the [blank evidence register](/templates/site-package-evidence-register.csv) as a starting template, adapting the rows to the project. It does not replace an agreed information-management process or prove that the checks were performed. ## Illustrative example Illustrative example, not a customer result: before a concept review, the architect opens the supplied geometry and finds that the origin is undocumented. The team issues the narrative for discussion, marks geometry reuse as unresolved, and assigns an export check before the design drawing is based on it. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is the evidence register a completed site assessment?** No. It is a blank review template with suggested categories. Add the actual sources, findings, limitations, reviewer and revision for your project. **What should I do if a source is missing or outdated?** Record the gap and assign a follow-up check. Keep the conclusion provisional instead of presenting an unsupported absence of risk. **Can a package be shared with open issues?** Yes, if its intended use and open issues are clear to the recipients. Agree which decisions must wait for those issues to be resolved. ## Conclusion A useful handoff makes the next decision and its evidence clear. Record limitations alongside findings, verify the files people will use and keep unresolved issues visible. Read the [Atlasly site analysis method](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) to check where the product may support your workflow. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit ## Sources - [RFC 7946: GeoJSON coordinate reference system](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7946) · IETF / RFC Editor (2016) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Measure Time and Review Effort in Site Analysis" description: "A repeatable trial for architecture practices: compare evidence collection, verification, corrections and handover before claiming a site-analysis time saving." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research-where-architecture-firms-actually-save-time published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "AI site analysis vs manual research" target_query: "how to measure time savings and correction effort in site analysis" intent: commercial --- # How to Measure Time and Review Effort in Site Analysis > A repeatable trial for architecture practices: compare evidence collection, verification, corrections and handover before claiming a site-analysis time saving. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Site-analysis tools can reduce repetitive evidence collection and formatting where the relevant sources and outputs are available. Measure the time spent verifying and correcting results as well as collecting them. This article does not establish a universal time saving or replacement for professional judgement. ## Introduction Architecture teams can spend substantial effort collecting sources, reviewing maps and preparing context for a new brief. The useful comparison is whether a tool reduces the total effort needed to produce a reliable, reusable result for the same decision. Atlasly can be evaluated as part of that workflow. Keep the scope, site and evidence requirements consistent, and count missing information and rework alongside any time saved. ## Keep the planning judgement and evidence review explicit Architects and planners retain responsibility for the advice they issue, including the applicable planning strategy, design interpretation and specialist coordination. The [NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) is England policy, not a UK-wide compliance code. A connected source or generated summary still needs an applicability check. Use [Atlasly’s methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) to establish what the initial output can support and where measured or specialist evidence is required. ## Measure a real baseline Choose representative sites and define the required output before comparing workflows. Log time spent finding sources, checking policy editions, correcting locations, filling data gaps, formatting the result and handing it to the next person. A practice can establish its own baseline from completed jobs, recording site complexity and scope so an easy automated case is not compared with a difficult manual one. ## Compare consistency and completeness separately Use the same evidence checklist for both workflows. Record whether each item is verified, incomplete, unavailable or outside scope. A consistently formatted report can still contain consistently missing local records. For a multi-site comparison, keep source dates, coverage and assessment assumptions visible. Do not give an undocumented missing layer a favourable score. Review whether the output actually improves the decision, rather than judging it only by length or presentation. ## Include the handoff in the trial Test the intended report and export in the receiving workflow. Check the available format, coordinates, units and relevant features in the actual CAD application. Record any repair or redraw time. The presence of an export function does not establish universal compatibility with AutoCAD, Revit or SketchUp, and a file need not be suitable for measured design work. The [DXF handoff guide](/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly) sets out useful checks. ## Decide where the tool earns its place A practical trial combines available source collection with human verification and specialist escalation. Use automation for tasks it demonstrably handles, and keep responsibility for checking the resulting evidence clear. Report time and quality together: hours to a reviewed package, number of missing material sources, corrections required and usefulness to the design decision. That gives the practice a defensible basis for adoption without a universal speed or superiority claim. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team screens several sites using the same questions, records missing evidence separately and compares the review effort for each. Any time-saving claim would require measured preparation, generation and correction time. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does site-analysis software replace architects?** No. It can support evidence organisation within its scope; the design and professional advice remain the team’s responsibility. **How should a practice measure time saved?** Compare equivalent sites and outputs and include verification, correction, missing-source research and downstream handoff time. **Does consistent formatting prove complete coverage?** No. Check the source inventory and missing information independently. **Why test exports?** The actual file must work in the receiving application with appropriate units, coordinates and geometry before it can save handoff effort. ## Conclusion Evaluate a site-analysis workflow against a defined brief and a reviewed output. Keep the evidence quality and total effort visible so the decision to use it is based on the practice’s own results. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant ## Sources - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research-where-architecture-firms-actually-save-time Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Read a Zoning Map for a Live Project: The 10-Minute Architect's Method" description: "A practical method for architects to read a zoning map in 10 minutes, covering base districts, overlays, policy documents, and how to translate mapped designations into design decisions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map-for-a-live-project-the-10-minute-architects-method published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "how to read a zoning map" target_query: "how to read a zoning map for architects" intent: informational --- # How to Read a Zoning Map for a Live Project: The 10-Minute Architect's Method > A practical method for architects to read a zoning map in 10 minutes, covering base districts, overlays, policy documents, and how to translate mapped designations into design decisions. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer To read a zoning map for a live project, identify the base district, check every overlay, open the controlling policy text, and translate each mapped designation into real controls on use, height, setbacks, density, parking, and review triggers. The map is only useful when those labels become design and viability decisions. ## Introduction Architects do not usually misread zoning because they cannot understand a colour-coded map. They misread it because they stop at the map when the project question is actually one level deeper. The map tells you what category the site sits in. It does not automatically tell you what that means for the first massing test, the likely planning route, or the commercial comfort of the brief. That translation step is where a surprising amount of early design risk still lives. This article is written for the first ten minutes of a live project review, not for a planning textbook. The aim is to get the architect from map label to project consequence quickly enough that the brief improves before concept design gets attached to the wrong assumptions. ## What should you pull from the map in the first ten minutes? The first ten minutes should answer four questions: - what is the base district or designation? - what overlays or special policy areas also apply? - what nearby designations affect the interface? - which documents define the actual controls? As an illustrative US example, a district might combine base controls with a transit overlay and a separate design-review requirement. District labels such as R-6 have different meanings by jurisdiction; this is not a statement of an actual parcel’s controls. In a UK context, it might mean a local allocation, conservation-area setting issue, flood overlay, and local design-code guidance rather than one classic "zoning" district. That distinction matters because architects working internationally often assume the same map-reading logic travels cleanly across jurisdictions. It does not. The consistent part is not the document structure. It is the discipline of turning mapped condition into project implication. ## Which overlays change the answer even when the base district looks favourable? This is where the first-pass optimism usually breaks. Common answer-changing overlays include: - flood zones and surface-water risk - heritage or conservation boundaries - Article 4 directions - protected views or townscape control areas - transport-led parking or mobility zones - environmental designations and buffers A site can look positive at the base-district level and still become materially more constrained once one of these overlays is added. That is why Atlasly's planning workflow matters more when it is read in context with planning constraints, flood risk, and the full pre-construction site analysis stack. The practical lesson is simple: if the first site note ends with the base district only, the map has not yet been read properly. ## How English planning and US zoning reviews differ For a US site, identify the responsible jurisdiction and current controlling code, then examine the controls and procedure that actually apply. The [NYC handbook](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/about-us/publications/nyc-zoning-handbook-2025.pdf) illustrates one city’s system; it is not a national code. By-right, discretionary, special-district and state-law requirements vary. For an English site, review the adopted development plan, current [NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework), local records and relevant material guidance. Other UK nations have separate national frameworks. A mapped designation can trigger further reading without giving an automatic height or use allowance. The transferable method is to connect each mapped record to its current source and the actual proposal, while keeping unresolved interpretation visible. ## What should go straight into the design brief after the map review? A good zoning review should produce a short note that says: - what uses are realistic - what height or density assumptions still hold - what overlays complicate those assumptions - what evidence or consultant input the planning route is likely to require - which part of the site still appears most strategically buildable That note should be written in project language rather than planning language. The architect does not need "D1 overlay with supplementary controls" in the abstract. They need to know whether the current assumption about frontage, height, parking, or massing is still safe. The best output is not "site is zoned mixed use". The best output is "mixed-use brief still looks plausible, but flood and heritage overlays make the southern frontage and original six-storey assumption high risk." ## Why a source review still matters Atlasly can help organise available context, but this guide does not establish universal completeness or a measured speed advantage over manual review. Open material sources and record unavailable or stale information. The sequence is map, applicable controls, source text, interpretation and next action. “Ten minutes” describes an initial orientation exercise, not the time needed to complete every zoning investigation. In DC, for example, the [official-source guidance](https://dcoz.dc.gov/service/view-zoning-regulations) distinguishes the courtesy regulations viewer from the official text. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reads the base district, overlays and current code together for the same parcel. It keeps a possible height or area allowance provisional until applicability, conditions and the relevant authority records are checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should an architect look at first on a zoning map?** The base district, every overlay, adjacent designations that affect interfaces, and the documents that define what those mapped areas actually mean. **Is the zoning map enough to assess development potential?** No. It is the first layer. You still need the policy or code text plus connected constraints such as flood, heritage, and access. **How is UK map reading different from US zoning review?** US workflows are often more code-driven and numerical. UK workflows are more policy-led and context-led, with the answer sitting across several documents and constraints. **What should the output of a zoning review be?** A short note explaining what the reviewed designations may imply, what remains unverified, what they complicate, and what that means for the first design assumptions. **Why is this important before concept design?** Because once the wrong massing or programme assumption becomes emotionally attached to the project, correcting it is more expensive. ## Conclusion A zoning map is useful only when it changes the brief in time to matter. That means the real skill is not reading the colours. It is translating them into project consequences before the design starts leaning on the wrong assumptions. If you want that translation to happen faster and in a more connected workflow, Atlasly is built for exactly that first live-project review. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects ## Sources - [NYC handbook](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/about-us/publications/nyc-zoning-handbook-2025.pdf) · New York City Department of City Planning - [England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map-for-a-live-project-the-10-minute-architects-method Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Batch Site Review for Architecture Firms: Evidence and Integration Planning" description: "How a firm can organise a site register, common evidence fields, missing-data review and a pilot before commissioning an integration against an agreed contract." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-api-for-architecture-firms-batch-screening-sites-without-building-another-internal-tool published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "site analysis API for architecture firms" target_query: "site analysis API for architecture firms" intent: commercial --- # Batch Site Review for Architecture Firms: Evidence and Integration Planning > How a firm can organise a site register, common evidence fields, missing-data review and a pilot before commissioning an integration against an agreed contract. ## Quick Answer For a firm screening multiple sites, first agree the decision, common evidence fields and supported integration route. A batch review can be organised before a custom service is built. The current OpenAPI reference publishes no callable REST operations; confirm actual connected-tool availability or obtain an agreed integration contract before automating requests. ## Introduction A firm needs a comparable review of sites more than it needs another dashboard. Start with the decision and the evidence reviewers must see. This guide focuses on organising that batch review; the separate integration checklist covers technical request and error handling once a supported contract is agreed. ## Define the screening decision Specify the proposed use, geographic area and stage of commitment. Selecting sites for further investigation is different from approving an acquisition. Agree who owns the decision and which questions must be resolved first. Do not let an attractive comparison score stand in for a title, access or planning conclusion. ## Prepare a stable site register Give each site a unique internal identifier and retain its submitted boundary, address, source and revision date. Decide how overlapping parcels and alternative boundaries will be handled. Record whether the boundary is supplied by the client, derived from mapping or confirmed elsewhere. This avoids comparing different definitions of the same site without noticing. ## Choose common evidence fields and explicit gaps Use a small set of fields tied to the decision: for example, applicable planning documents, access questions, terrain constraints and evidence still needed. Record source dates and limitations. Show unavailable data separately from a negative finding, and avoid ranking a poorly evidenced site favourably because fewer issues were returned. ## Confirm the supported collection route Check the [developer resources](/developers), [REST publication reference](/openapi.json) and actual connected-tool discovery. The published REST reference currently has no callable operations. If the firm needs a custom integration, obtain an agreed contract covering access, supported tasks, limits and results before commissioning it. ## Use a small pilot and a review queue Choose representative sites with different sizes, locations and evidence availability. Track which tasks complete, fail or return partial information. Give each material finding a reviewer, source check and next action. If a service contract is agreed, implement bounded concurrency and safe retry handling; see the [integration checklist](/blog/site-analysis-api-integration-proptech). ## Compare decisions and total effort Measure preparation, collection, review, correction and handover. Check whether the same reviewers reach a defensible decision from the evidence, and investigate disagreements. Expand the batch only after the pilot shows how gaps are handled. This article does not claim a measured time saving, fixed quota or complete coverage across every region. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team tests a small batch against a confirmed integration contract, records failed and incomplete requests separately and reviews material findings before comparing sites. A completed request does not establish complete site coverage. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Do we need to build an internal application first?** Start with a site register, common review fields and a pilot. Build only the integration and interface the agreed workflow needs. **Can we assume a public REST API exists?** No. The current OpenAPI reference has no callable operations. Verify connected tools separately or agree a supported contract. **How should incomplete sites appear in a ranking?** Keep material gaps visible and separate from favourable findings; investigate them before committing to a comparison outcome. **How can we evaluate the pilot?** Compare evidence coverage, reviewer corrections, decisions and total effort across representative sites. ## Conclusion A useful batch process leaves comparable evidence, visible gaps and a named next action for each site. Establish that review method and the supported collection route before investing in a custom internal application. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-api-integration-proptech - https://atlasly.app/blog/multi-criteria-site-scoring-comparison - https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports ## Sources - [REST publication reference](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) · Atlasly (2026) - [Developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) · Atlasly (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-api-for-architecture-firms-batch-screening-sites-without-building-another-internal-tool Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How a 15-Minute City Site Review Works: An Illustrative Method" description: "An illustrative site-review method for walking catchments, service access and route barriers, with explicit assumptions and checks before planning conclusions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-a-15-minute-city-analysis-works-on-a-real-development-site published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "15-minute city analysis" target_query: "how does a 15-minute city analysis work for development sites" intent: informational --- # How a 15-Minute City Site Review Works: An Illustrative Method > An illustrative site-review method for walking catchments, service access and route barriers, with explicit assumptions and checks before planning conclusions. ## Quick Answer Start a site-based walkability review at a real entrance, identify daily destinations and compare routes under declared travel assumptions. Use a score to summarise the chosen criteria, then verify barriers and missing services before making planning or design claims. ## Introduction This is a worked review method, not a report of a measured customer outcome. The useful question is what different users can reach from the proposed entrance and what would need to change to improve access. ## Set up a review that another person can reproduce Keep the site boundary and entrance location separate. Choose a walking or cycling profile, a time allowance and the destinations relevant to the brief. Save the date and the data source. Use the same settings when comparing an existing entrance with an alternative. ## Inspect the catchment and the destinations separately A network isochrone estimates reachability through its routing data. A circular catchment is an approximation. Atlasly’s shared walkability implementation can fall back to a circle, and its counts are filtered by radius; a network-shaped polygon therefore does not prove that all listed amenities lie on usable routes. Inspect important destinations individually. ## Work through an illustrative access problem Suppose a school appears nearby but the available route crosses a railway only at a distant bridge. Record the school entrance, route length, crossing and access conditions. Test the existing route first. If the design proposes a new link, show it as a separate option with its land, delivery and approval assumptions. Do not include an unbuilt connection in the existing-access score. ## Compare user needs without pretending to predict behaviour A household with children may prioritise a school route; another resident may need step-free access to healthcare. Review gradients, crossings and route quality alongside destination weights. A changed weight expresses a priority. It does not prove safety, demand, parking entitlement or the travel behaviour of a demographic group. ## Put the result into the brief Document the strongest connections, material barriers, missing data and the next investigation. Include a route diagram and an issue list with an owner for each follow-up. Read the result alongside the [pedestrian movement guide](/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design), which separates route access from actual footfall. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks whether the walking route to a school uses an accessible crossing. It records an unresolved barrier before comparing route options. A score alone does not establish a safe route or justify a parking strategy. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is this a measured project case study?** No. The example explains a review method and is explicitly illustrative. **Can a strong score justify reduced parking?** Not by itself. Parking and transport strategy depend on applicable policy, service capacity, route quality and the agreed transport evidence. **How should sites be compared?** Use the same criteria and assumptions, then explain differences in coverage and unresolved barriers. ## Conclusion A useful site review leaves a traceable route and decision record. The score is a summary of the chosen evidence, not a substitute for checking how the route works. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool - https://atlasly.app/blog/transport-access-analysis-urban-planners - https://atlasly.app/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design ## Sources - [Isochrone API](https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/) · Mapbox - [Planning with WebCAT](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat?intcmp=25861) · Transport for London --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-a-15-minute-city-analysis-works-on-a-real-development-site Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Create Architectural Concept Renders That Still Respect the Site" description: "How to create architectural concept renders grounded in real site context, covering orientation, topography, neighbouring scale, and review checks that keep early visuals honest." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-architectural-concept-renders-that-still-respect-the-site published: 2026-03-28 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "architectural concept renders that respect the site" target_query: "how to create architectural concept renders from real site context" intent: informational --- # How to Create Architectural Concept Renders That Still Respect the Site > How to create architectural concept renders grounded in real site context, covering orientation, topography, neighbouring scale, and review checks that keep early visuals honest. ## Quick Answer To create architectural concept renders that still respect the site, start with orientation, topography, neighbouring scale, access conditions, and the planning story the scheme must support. A useful early render is not just attractive. It stays close enough to real site conditions that it helps the team think rather than mislead. ## Introduction The easiest thing in the world is to create an early image that makes a project look convincing. The harder and more valuable thing is to create an image that still helps the architect see the project clearly. That distinction matters because the current generation of visual tools can generate atmosphere faster than they generate judgement. If the render stops responding to the site, it becomes dangerously persuasive. It can make the design feel resolved before the context, planning sensitivity, slope, or neighbour relationship has actually been understood. Keep the source context available during review. Supplying it to a visual tool does not guarantee that geometry, camera position or surrounding features will be preserved. ## Which site inputs should shape the image before visual preparation starts? An early concept render should be built from the same factors that shape the scheme itself. At minimum, that means: - **orientation and light direction** - **topography and horizon condition** - **neighbouring building scale and grain** - **street approach and arrival sequence** - **planning sensitivity**, such as conservation context or visual prominence - **material and landscape character** appropriate to the place If those inputs are missing, the image may still look refined, but it is no longer helping the design process. It is performing confidence rather than building it. This is where Atlasly's 3D context and site-analysis stack matter. The render becomes more useful when it grows out of terrain, context, and planning understanding instead of bypassing them. Even a simple early image becomes materially stronger when it is anchored to the same north orientation, contour logic, and neighbouring-height data the architect is already using elsewhere in the project. ## How do you stop AI renders drifting away from planning reality? The most reliable method is to treat the image as a checked output rather than a free-standing creative object. Before sharing a concept render, the team should ask: - does the sun direction match the real orientation? - does the massing still match the current scheme test? - do neighbouring heights feel credible? - is the slope of the site still visible, where it should be? - is the image accidentally implying a planning story the project cannot yet support? That last question matters more than teams usually admit. A beautiful image can imply a frontage calmness, building height, or townscape fit that the current scheme has not earned yet. Once the client or internal team starts believing the image, it becomes harder to keep the design discussion honest. ## Which review checks should architects apply before sharing the image? The review should not be long, but it should be disciplined. Use a five-point check: **1. Context check.** Are the surrounding buildings, horizon line, and street proportions roughly true to the site? **2. Light check.** Does the rendering logic align with the actual orientation and likely solar behaviour? **3. Access check.** Does the image show a plausible arrival and public-realm condition, or has it accidentally invented a calmer site than exists? **4. Planning check.** Would a planning officer looking at the image feel that it reflects the constraints already known about the site? **5. Design check.** Does the image still help the architect think, or has it started turning a tentative concept into false certainty? Check the image against the available site evidence, noting any missing or uncertain terrain, neighbouring heights and planning information. ## When does a context-grounded render genuinely help the design process? The render is most useful when it does one of three jobs well: - helps the internal team test whether the concept sits plausibly in the site - helps the client understand massing and atmosphere without overstating resolution - helps a planning or pre-app conversation by making the context relationship clearer That is a much narrower and more useful role than "make the project look impressive". Early renders should still behave like design tools. This is why Atlasly's visualisation angle works best when it sits next to 3D site context, solar access, and the wider pre-construction site analysis stack. Context-grounded visualisation is strongest when it grows out of the same site understanding that shapes the design. You can try the workflow in [Atlasly Vision](/vision): the first render of the day is free and needs no account. ## How should the team record revisions? Retain the source context and the image version reviewed by the team. Identify any changed massing, material assumptions or invented landscape. Label illustrative content clearly and avoid presenting it as an existing view or an approved design. If the image is revised, repeat the relevant checks before it is shared. ## Label concept images and retain the review record An illustrative concept image is not a verified photomontage, daylight assessment or accurate shadow study. Keep the source massing, viewpoint, image version and a note of material changes. Check whether the tool has altered boundaries, heights, vegetation or access. Where a planning decision requires formal visual evidence, agree an appropriate representation method; Landscape Institute guidance addresses that different purpose. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A reviewer compares a concept image with the source terrain and photographs. If a slope or tree line has been softened, the team corrects or labels the image before discussing the proposal. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should an early architectural render be based on?** Real orientation, topography, neighbouring scale, access sequence, planning sensitivities, and the actual massing under review. **Why are generic AI renders risky at pre-construction stage?** Because they can make the project look resolved or contextually comfortable before the site conditions actually support that conclusion. **How can architects test whether a concept render is credible?** By checking it against the current massing, light direction, site model, neighbour heights, and planning narrative before sharing it. **When should early renders be used?** For internal design testing, early client communication, and planning discussions where the image supports a genuine site-based argument. **Why is this a good fit for Atlasly?** Because Atlasly already assembles the site context that should anchor the visual, making the image part of the same workflow rather than a disconnected extra. ## Conclusion Use concept visuals to discuss a developing option, with source context and uncertainties visible. When the decision needs verified visual evidence, commission the appropriate method and keep it distinct from illustrative imagery. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects ## Sources - [Visual Representation of Development Proposals](https://landscapeinstitute.org/news/new-visual-representation-guidance-2019/li_tgn-06-19_visual_representation/) · Landscape Institute --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-architectural-concept-renders-that-still-respect-the-site Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly vs PlanningBot: Compare Evidence, Reports and Site Workflows" description: "A dated, source-backed comparison of Atlasly and PlanningBot: published capabilities, coverage checks, report requirements and how to evaluate both on the same site." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "Atlasly vs PlanningBot" target_query: "Atlasly vs PlanningBot comparison AI planning tool" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly vs PlanningBot: Compare Evidence, Reports and Site Workflows > A dated, source-backed comparison of Atlasly and PlanningBot: published capabilities, coverage checks, report requirements and how to evaluate both on the same site. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Choose using a representative site and the deliverable you actually need. Compare source coverage, policy editions, maps, reports, export requirements and total plan cost. This review does not establish a universal winner or independently validate either service's accuracy or speed. ## Introduction Reviewed on 12 September 2026 by the Atlasly team. This article compares published product information and provides an evaluation method; it is not a hands-on benchmark. [PlanningBot's current product page](https://planningbot.ai/) advertises site assessment, interactive maps, DOCX/PDF reports and connections to Claude and ChatGPT. Its scope includes flood, heritage, ecology and ownership information. Earlier descriptions of it as text-only policy lookup were incomplete and have been corrected here. For the concise comparison and source register, see [Atlasly vs PlanningBot](/vs/planningbot). Test the same location and requested output in both services before making a purchasing decision. ## What the published evidence establishes Vendor documentation establishes what a supplier describes, not whether an output will meet your particular brief. This review did not call PlanningBot's services, measure response time or assess the correctness of a planning conclusion. The [PlanningBot product and plans page](https://planningbot.ai/) is the primary source for its current offering. Confirm package allowances and territory directly. Exact CAD export formats and a separate general-purpose API were not established by the material inspected; this is a verification gap, not evidence that they are unavailable. For Atlasly, review the [source coverage and limitations guide](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits), inspect a returned result and check the [current plans](/pricing). A supported workflow does not imply that every source or export is available for every site and account. ## Compare both services against the same brief Use a site that represents your actual work. Define the site boundary, relevant authority, proposal stage and required deliverable before comparing the responses. | Criterion | Evidence to collect from each service | | --- | --- | | Site coverage | Returned datasets, geographical coverage, study boundary and missing-source notices | | Planning interpretation | Source publication date, policy text, jurisdiction and applicability to the proposal | | Map and report | Layers included, source references, usable legend and the report's scope | | CAD or other export | A sample in the exact required format, checked for units, coordinates, layers and geometry | | Repeatability | The same brief and timestamp, including failures, missing data and materially different results | | Collaboration | Who can access, revise, share and retain the output under the chosen account | | Cost | Seats, contract term, usage allowance, optional data and export charges, and applicable taxes | Treat a missing result as a reason to inspect coverage. It is not proof that a site has no constraint. Treat an attractive visual as an illustration until its measurement and evidence basis are established. ## Policy references need edition checks The NPPF applies to England. Check any extract against the [current official framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework), the relevant local plan and the proposal's circumstances. The new framework was published on 17 August 2026; older indexed material does not become current because it appears in a recent answer. Record the source date and the role of the cited material. A reference may be useful background while still being superseded or inapplicable to the project. Neither a citation nor a summary establishes professional sign-off for a formal submission. ## Connected assistants and account access Atlasly has a published [connection guide](/mcp) and [developer documentation](/developers). It should no longer be described as an integration that is merely in development. Follow the current documentation for account access and the particular operation you want to use. When evaluating a connected workflow, check that the result retains the original source links and that the saved deliverable can be reviewed by the project team. Confirm which actions need authentication and which usage limits apply. A successful connection is only the start of evaluating the complete workflow. ## Evaluate cost without assuming equivalent plans Use the live [PlanningBot plans](https://planningbot.ai/) and [Atlasly plans](/pricing), then price the same number of users and representative workload. Do not infer a like-for-like saving from two entry prices with different included operations. List any required reports, data access, exports or collaboration features before obtaining a quote. Record billing term, tax treatment and additional charges. Trial allowances can help test suitability, but they are not evidence that a production workload will be free or unlimited. ## Illustrative example Illustrative workflow: a practice needs a pre-application evidence pack for one selected site. It gives each service the same boundary and questions, records the returned sources, and opens each report or export in the receiving application. The team records gaps and additional manual work before comparing cost. This is a proposed evaluation method, not a reported client case or measured result. ## Frequently Asked Questions **How should I choose between Atlasly and PlanningBot?** Use the same representative site and compare source coverage, policy editions, required deliverables, account access and total plan cost. This published-source review does not establish a universal winner. **Has this article independently tested either product's accuracy?** No. It reviews published information and describes checks to run on your own project. Accuracy, speed and output quality require a controlled test with the same brief and recorded failures. **Does Atlasly offer a connection for assistants?** Yes. Atlasly publishes connection and developer guides. Check their current authentication requirements, supported operations and account allowances before using a connected workflow. **Can I assume an unlisted capability is unavailable?** No. A capability not verified in this review may still be offered. Ask the supplier for current documentation and a sample that matches the required output and plan. **Which tool is cheaper?** Compare the current plans for the same seats, workload, reports, data and exports, including billing terms and tax. Entry prices alone do not establish an equivalent package or a saving. ## Conclusion Build the comparison around the decision and deliverable your team needs. Keep the original sources, note missing coverage and test the exported output before committing the workflow to a project. Review the [dated comparison](/vs/planningbot), [Atlasly coverage guide](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) and current plans before starting your evaluation. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research ## Sources - [PlanningBot product scope and plans](https://planningbot.ai/) · PlanningBot (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2026) - [Atlasly connection guide](https://atlasly.app/mcp) · Atlasly - [Atlasly developer documentation](https://atlasly.app/developers) · Atlasly --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How To Use Atlasly Inside Claude, ChatGPT, and Other AI Assistants" description: "Connect Atlasly’s hosted MCP endpoint in a supported Claude or ChatGPT client, verify discovered tools and distinguish public checks from account-linked operations." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "how to use Atlasly in Claude ChatGPT" target_query: "how to use Atlasly in Claude or ChatGPT" intent: commercial --- # How To Use Atlasly Inside Claude, ChatGPT, and Other AI Assistants > Connect Atlasly’s hosted MCP endpoint in a supported Claude or ChatGPT client, verify discovered tools and distinguish public checks from account-linked operations. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Atlasly’s hosted endpoint is https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp. Add it through your client’s supported custom connector or app setup, then inspect the tools available to your account and run a bounded site question. Setup and permissions vary by client and plan; public evidence checks and account-linked operations have different access requirements. ## Introduction Connecting Atlasly can make its available site-review tools accessible within a compatible assistant. It does not give every client every Atlasly feature or guarantee the correctness of a planning answer. Confirm the current client setup, inspect discovery and review the sources in a first result. The endpoint and public/account-linked distinction were checked against Atlasly’s published server card and content contracts. Client guidance was reviewed on 12 September 2026; this is not an end-to-end compatibility certification for every plan or device. ## Confirm your client supports the connection Use Atlasly’s [connection page](/mcp) and the client’s current official instructions. The hosted URL is `https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp`. This remote connection differs from installing a local desktop server. The [public server card](/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json) lists 27 public tools and five account-linked operations. Those counts are a dated description, not a promise that your client exposes every tool or that every request succeeds. Inspect the discovered list, input requirements and access information. ## Connect in Claude Follow [Claude’s custom remote connector guide](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11175166-get-started-with-custom-connectors-using-remote-mcp). Add a custom connector from the supported connector settings, name it Atlasly and enter the hosted URL. Workspace permissions and the current client control availability. After connecting, start a conversation with the connector enabled and ask a bounded question such as “Using Atlasly, review available flood evidence for this site and identify missing sources.” Check that an actual tool result and source links are returned. Do not assume a slash command is supported in every interface. ## Connect in ChatGPT Use [OpenAI’s developer-mode and MCP app guidance](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12584461-developer-mode-and-full-mcp-connectors-in-chatgpt-beta). The documented full MCP workflow is on ChatGPT web for eligible Business and Enterprise/Edu accounts with the appropriate permissions; the page distinguishes Pro read/fetch access. Do not equate this with a Custom GPT action or promise availability on every Plus account. An authorised user creates the custom app, supplies the Atlasly endpoint and authentication configuration, scans the tools and tests the draft. Workspace publication and access follow the administrator’s controls. Follow the current official flow when labels change. ## Keep public checks separate from account-linked actions Public tools are intended to support an initial review without an Atlasly account, subject to request limits and service availability. Creating a project, running a site package, checking its job, generating a saved brief and enabling Site Watch are the account-linked operations listed in the server card. Follow the offered authorisation flow when needed and inspect the requested permissions. Do not assume consent is permanent or that credentials can never expire. Client-plan eligibility, Atlasly account access and export entitlement are separate questions. ## Evaluate the first answer and export handoff Ask for the source, date, boundary used and missing layers. Verify material planning and environmental conclusions against the underlying record. A successful connection does not establish nationwide completeness. The public tool list does not establish direct CAD-file delivery in every chat. Where a response provides a link into Atlasly, check the available export format and entitlement in the app. Do not promise that a signed file appears in every answer or that AutoCAD opens automatically. Read [the methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) before relying on the evidence. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A planner asks for source links alongside a site summary, then opens the current policy and designation records. An unverified paragraph reference stays out of the client advice until checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What endpoint should I use?** Use https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp through your supported client’s custom remote connector or app setup. **Do public checks require an Atlasly account?** They are intended for anonymous public access, subject to request limits. Account-linked operations and export entitlements are separate. **Does this work identically in every assistant?** No. Client capabilities, account plans, permissions and interfaces vary. Confirm discovery and test the intended workflow. **Can I export a DXF automatically in any chat?** This guide does not establish universal direct file delivery. Follow the supported export handoff in Atlasly and check the resulting file. ## Conclusion Connect through the current official client workflow, inspect available tools and test a focused evidence question. Treat successful setup and verified site evidence as separate checks. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat - https://atlasly.app/blog/ask-ai-for-uk-planning-constraints-nppf ## Sources - [Custom remote connectors](https://support.claude.com/en/articles/11175166-get-started-with-custom-connectors-using-remote-mcp) · Anthropic - [Developer mode and MCP apps](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12584461-developer-mode-and-full-mcp-connectors-in-chatgpt-beta) · OpenAI --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Export Site Analysis to DXF: A CAD Handover Checklist" description: "How to request and verify a site-analysis CAD export, including actual file formats, units, coordinates, layer coverage and checks before AutoCAD or Revit coordination." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "export DXF DWG from AI chat" target_query: "how to export DXF from AI chat or Claude / ChatGPT" intent: commercial --- # Export Site Analysis to DXF: A CAD Handover Checklist > How to request and verify a site-analysis CAD export, including actual file formats, units, coordinates, layer coverage and checks before AutoCAD or Revit coordination. ## Quick Answer Use a site-analysis export as a starting point for CAD coordination: request the available format, wait for confirmed completion, inspect the files actually returned, then check units, origin, coordinate reference system and geometry in the receiving application. Do not assume that a DXF package contains native DWG, SKP or every requested evidence layer. ## Introduction A connected site-review workflow can help carry available context into design. The useful question is whether the delivered files preserve the information your team needs. A successful chat response or an export request alone does not establish a usable, complete CAD handover. ## Define the handover before requesting a package Record the site boundary, required layers, receiving application and intended use. A concept-context drawing has different requirements from measured design geometry. Agree the horizontal reference, units, vertical datum where relevant, and a known check distance or control point. Ask for formats currently offered by the product or documented API; format availability and account access can change. ## Check the returned package rather than the requested list Wait for the operation to finish and inspect its status, file list and any warnings. A partial package may omit unavailable evidence. Keep the source dates and limitations with the drawing. Native DWG or SketchUp SKP should only be promised when that exact file is delivered and tested; a DXF that an application can import is a different deliverable. ## Understand what the coordinate setting means The 3D context DXF exporter defaults to local coordinates in metres and also contains WGS84 and UTM options. The site drawing exporter supports local metres and British National Grid drawing frames. Check the actual export path, selected frame and coordinate note rather than applying one exporter’s settings to every file. British National Grid output does not establish surveyed control or automatic shared coordinates in Revit. Ordnance Survey publishes transformations for its reference systems; use the appropriate transformation when those systems are required, rather than relabelling coordinates. ## Validate the drawing in the receiving application Open a copy, confirm units and measure a known distance. Inspect the origin and placement against trusted project geometry. In Revit, choose an import or link placement deliberately and coordinate shared positioning with the project team. Inspect boundaries, contours, elevations and layer names; identify open polylines, duplicates and missing objects. Record any conversion or cleanup needed. ## Keep evidence separate from drawing appearance A visible flood polygon, building outline or tree symbol does not certify its currency, survey accuracy or statutory status. Check the source and coverage for each layer. Treat desktop context as an early design aid until verified against the project survey and appropriate authority records. Share a short handover note listing received files, checks performed and unresolved issues. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reopens an exported context file in its intended design application and checks units, two known distances, location and layer contents. Missing or altered elements are recorded before the file is used as a design reference. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does a DXF export include native DWG or SKP?** No. Confirm the actual returned formats. Importing DXF into another application is not the same as receiving its native file format. **Will coordinates align automatically in AutoCAD or Revit?** Do not assume so. Check the export setting, units, origin, reference system and receiving application placement against known project information. **How long will an export take?** It depends on the requested work and service conditions. Use the reported completion status; this article does not establish a fixed duration or step count. **Which subscription or API quota is required?** Check current pricing and the documented account entitlement. This guide does not assert a fixed price or quota. ## Conclusion A reliable handover is a tested set of files with a clear coordinate and evidence note. Use the [export review checklist](/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit) and the current [developer documentation](/developers) for the applicable workflow. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-to-autocad-and-revit-without-redrawing-the-site - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/free-ai-site-analysis-tool-for-architects ## Sources - [Positioning for imports and links](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2024/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-C922A152-0A30-4E27-BED2-BCE9FF2E5E30.htm) · Autodesk - [Scaling for imported CAD files](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2023/ENU/Revit-Model/files/GUID-AB37F1CB-CF6B-4C15-B26A-D0F0F3EF1F2B.htm) · Autodesk - [Coordinate transformations](https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/geodesy-positioning/coordinate-transformations) · Ordnance Survey --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Free Site Analysis for Architects: How Atlasly's Starter Plan Works" description: "What Atlasly Starter includes, where its limits sit, and how to evaluate site evidence before choosing a paid plan." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/free-ai-site-analysis-tool-for-architects published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "free AI site analysis tool for architects" target_query: "free AI site analysis tool for architects" intent: commercial --- # Free Site Analysis for Architects: How Atlasly's Starter Plan Works > What Atlasly Starter includes, where its limits sit, and how to evaluate site evidence before choosing a paid plan. ## Quick Answer Atlasly's Starter plan is a free way to evaluate site analysis. Its configured allowance, reviewed on 12 September 2026, is five saved site analyses per month, a maximum 2 km study radius, site chat, and PDF/image exports. Paid-plan requirements apply to the main site workflow’s CAD/BIM and portfolio exports, financial features and API access. Standalone tools have their own access rules. Check current pricing and your account's available usage before starting a project. ## Introduction A useful free site-analysis tool should help you understand the location, inspect the evidence and decide what needs further investigation. The number of maps it returns is only part of that evaluation: source coverage, dates, boundaries and useful exports matter too. This guide separates Atlasly's Starter allowance from paid features and suggests a practical way to evaluate it on a real brief. Plan details were reviewed on 11 September 2026. The [pricing page](https://atlasly.app/pricing) and the allowance shown in your account remain the places to check before committing to a workflow. ## What the Atlasly Starter plan includes The current Starter allowance includes: - **Five saved site analyses per month.** Use them to explore available evidence for your chosen sites. - **A maximum 2 km study radius.** Choose a study area appropriate to your question; a radius is not a surveyed or legal site boundary. - **Site chat.** Ask follow-up questions about the site and inspect the sources behind an answer. - **PDF and image exports.** Review the generated material before including it in a brief, presentation or portfolio. These are access allowances, not a guarantee that every data layer exists at every address. Missing results require a coverage check. See the [site-analysis methodology](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) for how to interpret the evidence. ## What is outside the free allowance **Main site-workflow CAD, BIM and GIS exports** depend on a paid plan and the output available in that workflow. The standalone [Image to CAD tool](/tools/image-to-cad) separately supports CAD download with a free account; it reconstructs a supplied drawing or photo rather than exporting the site-analysis package. Choose the required format before evaluating the handover into your design application. **Portfolio export and financial calculators** are paid features. Starter's PDF/image allowance should not be confused with access to the dedicated portfolio exporter. **API access** is not included in the Starter API allowance. Public MCP checks and account-linked API or export operations are different access paths. A plan allowance also does not replace the conditions of the underlying service or data source. Check available usage in your account rather than assuming an exact reset date or that an operation will always complete. ## What to compare when choosing a paid plan Professional is £19/month or £15/month billed annually. Teams is £199/month or £159/month billed annually. Enterprise has custom pricing. Prices displayed here follow Atlasly’s shared plan configuration; confirm current terms on the pricing page. Professional and Teams currently provide expanded saved-analysis allowances, a maximum 10 km study radius, portfolio and calculator access, and additional export formats. Professional lists 100 API calls per month; Teams lists 1,000 and five team members. A plan allowance does not establish a verified public REST endpoint: the REST contract currently publishes no callable operations. Review [developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) for current integration status. Use the [current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) to compare the price, billing term, seat requirements and export access for your project. An account allowance can differ from the limits of a particular operation: an API request may accept a smaller radius, and an export may depend on the information collected for that site. Upgrade for a specific requirement you have tested, such as a supported CAD handover or shared project access. A paid subscription does not turn incomplete source coverage into verified site evidence. ## A practical evaluation on one site Choose a site you already know and a question with an answer you can independently check. For example, you could compare the study boundary and a known planning constraint with the responsible authority's published information. 1. Confirm the location and boundary assumptions. 2. Record which sources are returned, their dates and any coverage gaps. 3. Compare a finding with the primary source; do not infer absence of a constraint from a missing result. 4. Export the available PDF or image and check that the location, labels and conclusions are clear. 5. Record the useful findings, corrections and follow-up checks before deciding whether the workflow fits your brief. This is an evaluation method, not a reported benchmark. No completion-time, accuracy or cost-saving result is claimed here. ## Using Atlasly through a compatible assistant The hosted MCP service is available at https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp. Use the [connection guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt) to see how a compatible assistant can request site information. Some public checks can be used without an Atlasly account. Account-linked operations may require sign-in and the relevant project, export or monitoring entitlement. Public access should not be read as a promise of unlimited request throughput or identical access to every tool. For authentication and the distinction between public and account-linked operations, read the [authentication guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp). The tools exposed by your connection are the practical inventory to check. ## When Starter is enough Starter can fit an evaluation or occasional site study when its saved-analysis allowance, radius and PDF/image output cover the work you need to do. Students can use those outputs as inputs to their own analysis, keeping source references and academic requirements in view. Consider an eligible paid plan when you need a supported design export, the portfolio exporter, financial calculators, API access or team features. Before choosing it, check one representative output in your receiving application: coordinates, units, geometry and source detail can affect how much preparation is still needed. There is no substitute here for a measured survey, an authoritative policy check or appropriate professional assessment. Compare tools on the task they help you complete and the evidence you can inspect, rather than assuming a free analysis is equivalent to a consultant's full scope. ## Illustrative example Illustrative evaluation: a team records its assumed boundary, compares one returned constraint with its primary source, and records a missing dataset as an open question. The review produces a list of supported findings and outstanding checks that another team member can inspect before choosing the next design step. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What does Atlasly Starter include?** The current Starter allowance includes five saved site analyses per month, a maximum 2 km study radius, site chat, and PDF/image exports. Check current pricing and the usage shown in your account. **Are CAD exports included in the free plan?** The main site-analysis Starter plan includes PDF and image exports; its CAD/BIM exports require an eligible paid plan. Separately, the standalone Image to CAD tool offers CAD download with a free account. Check the specific workflow’s access rules. **Is the student portfolio exporter free?** The dedicated portfolio exporter is a paid feature. Students can evaluate Starter's PDF and image outputs for their own coursework, subject to the brief and source-citation requirements. **What happens when I reach my Starter allowance?** Check your account for the remaining allowance and next available usage. Review current plans if you need additional saved analyses; this guide does not promise a particular reset date. **Can I use Atlasly without an account through MCP?** Some public checks are available without an Atlasly account. Account-linked operations can require sign-in and relevant entitlements. Availability and service limits still apply; consult the connection and authentication guides. **How should I judge the quality of a free site analysis?** Check a known site, inspect the sources and dates, verify the boundary and compare a finding with a primary source. Record missing coverage and further checks before using the output for a decision. ## Conclusion Start with one site and a clear question. Use the Starter allowance to inspect available evidence, test the PDF/image handover and understand what further work remains. [Start a site analysis](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai), then compare [current plans and export access](https://atlasly.app/pricing) against the requirements you have actually identified. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlas-ai-free-architecture-planning-assistant - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/free-ai-site-analysis-tool-for-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How To Ask AI For UK Planning Constraints: NPPF, Conservation Areas, Flood Zones, And Getting It Right" description: "Use Atlasly to organise early UK planning questions, then verify current policy editions, source records, coverage and missing information before relying on an answer." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/ask-ai-for-uk-planning-constraints-nppf published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "AI UK planning constraints NPPF" target_query: "how to ask AI for UK planning constraints" intent: commercial --- # How To Ask AI For UK Planning Constraints: NPPF, Conservation Areas, Flood Zones, And Getting It Right > Use Atlasly to organise early UK planning questions, then verify current policy editions, source records, coverage and missing information before relying on an answer. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer For a useful planning answer, specify the site, jurisdiction and decision, request source links and dates, then verify material findings against current official records. Atlasly can help organise available site evidence through compatible assistants, but no generated answer establishes complete coverage or planning compliance. ## Introduction An answer can sound convincing while relying on an old policy edition or incomplete site records. The practical check is to open each material source, confirm its scope and date, and identify what is still unknown. This guide explains how to frame that review with Atlasly. Its UK focus does not mean that every dataset covers every UK nation or local authority. ## Why general AI fails at UK planning questions Any assistant can return stale, incomplete or incorrect references. Connected tools do not remove the need for review. Check policy editions, actual paragraph text, designation boundaries and local records in their original sources. The [current NPPF publication page](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) applies to England and identifies the edition published on 17 August 2026. Do not reuse paragraph numbers from older articles without checking the current text and applicable transitional arrangements. Other UK nations have their own planning frameworks. ## What Atlasly's MCP adds to the AI Atlasly makes available site-review tools discoverable through its [hosted connection](/mcp). Inspect the current tool list and its input requirements in the connected client. Depending on the tool, place and available sources, a result may help organise flood, heritage, planning, terrain or access questions. Review the returned source links and any gaps. Tool access does not prove that every requested layer was queried successfully, that national datasets contain every local record, or that a source is current. Read [the methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) before using the output. ## Sample prompts that return real planning data These are suggested questions, not recorded outputs or guarantees of coverage: - Using Atlasly, review the available planning constraints for this site boundary and list each source, date and missing layer. - Which authority record should I open to verify whether this boundary lies in a conservation area? - Find available nearby application records, keeping the proposal, decision and current status separate. - Which current England planning policies and flood guidance are relevant to this proposal, and which applicability questions need professional review? For flood matters, inspect the [current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and [official flood guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change). Check dates and cross-references rather than treating an older paragraph number as current. ## What the AI's answer should look like A useful answer distinguishes observed evidence from interpretation. Look for the publisher, source URL, document edition or dataset date, the relationship to the actual boundary, and missing information. An authoritative publisher does not automatically make every location-specific interpretation correct. Check the underlying record. If a result lacks evidence or a tool call fails, record the gap rather than repeating the request until it produces a confident answer. ## Legal status: statutory vs material vs guidance Distinguish legislation, development-plan policies, national policy and guidance. They are not interchangeable labels. The NPPF is national planning policy for England; a citation to it is not itself a statutory designation or proof that a proposal complies. Open the current official text and review the development plan and other applicable considerations with the appropriate professional. Do not accept a generated legal-status tag without verification. ## Data coverage: where it is strong and where it is not Coverage varies by UK nation, local authority, dataset and date. An England dataset is not automatically UK-wide, and a national collection may omit local records. Check the relevant authority portal for material planning history, conservation boundaries, Article 4 directions and tree records. Treat missing data as unknown. A planning-policy summary, a terrain estimate and a designation record support different decisions; none establishes a measured survey, complete constraints search or permission. See [Atlasly sources and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits). ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A planner asks for source links alongside a site summary, then opens the current policy and designation records. An unverified paragraph reference stays out of the client advice until checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can I trust AI answers about UK planning?** Use them to organise evidence and questions. Verify current source records and material interpretations before relying on the result. Connecting Atlasly does not guarantee correctness or complete coverage. **How should I check the edition of an NPPF reference?** Check the publication date and paragraph text against the current GOV.UK framework for England. Historical examples and older indexed extracts do not establish current policy or its applicability to a proposal. Review the relevant local plan and transitional provisions as well. **Can AI check if my site is in a conservation area?** It can help find available records, but verify the current boundary and designation with the responsible authority. A missing result does not establish that the site is outside a conservation area. **Does Atlasly cover every UK council?** Do not assume complete coverage. Availability varies by nation, authority and layer, and local records may not appear in national collections. Check the relevant authority for material missing information. **Is there a free way to check UK planning constraints with AI?** Atlasly provides public tools accessible through compatible clients, subject to request limits. Account-linked operations require the relevant access. Inspect current tool discovery and account allowances rather than relying on an old tool count. **Is Atlasly's AI better than PlanningBot for planning Q&A?** This guide does not establish comparative superiority. Use the same site and evidence questions to evaluate each service against its current documented scope, inspect citations and record missing information. **Can I use AI planning answers in a planning application?** Use the response to locate and organise evidence, then verify each source and its application to the proposal. A qualified reviewer should take responsibility for the advice issued. There is no general requirement established here that every planning statement must be written by a planning consultant. ## Conclusion Use a connected assistant to organise the review, then keep the source evidence and remaining questions with the site record. Start with the [Atlasly connection guide](/mcp) and verify the relevant current policy before relying on a planning answer. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot ## Sources - [Current England NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/ask-ai-for-uk-planning-constraints-nppf Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly MCP Tools: Public Discovery and Site-Research Limits" description: "A dated reference to Atlasly MCP public tool discovery, practical tool groups, input schemas, source coverage and account-linked actions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis published: 2026-04-19 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "Atlasly MCP tools reference" target_query: "Atlasly MCP tools complete reference list" intent: navigational --- # Atlasly MCP Tools: Public Discovery and Site-Research Limits > A dated reference to Atlasly MCP public tool discovery, practical tool groups, input schemas, source coverage and account-linked actions. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Atlasly MCP at https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp returned 27 public tool definitions through tools/list on 12 September 2026. Use that live list for current names and input schemas. Five additional account-linked operations exist in source but were not verified in an authorized live session. Discovery confirms a tool is advertised; it does not prove every source, jurisdiction or analysis result. ## Introduction This is a dated discovery reference for Atlasly at [atlasly.app](https://atlasly.app), the UK-focused site-analysis service. It is not a complete accuracy benchmark or a guarantee of US planning coverage. Public initialization and tools/list returned successfully during the review. No site-analysis tool was called and no private project was created. The table below groups the actual public names so a team can choose what to inspect next. For connection permissions, read the [authentication guide](/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp). ## Find the schema before supplying a site Initialize the MCP connection, then request tools/list. Initialization is not the tool manifest. Use each returned inputSchema to find required fields, permitted values and limits; do not guess a radius or copy a partial JSON fragment from an older article. The current source adds an optional site_ref to many tools so a returned site reference can carry location context into the next check. Preserve that reference where returned, inspect its boundary confidence, and avoid conflicting address or coordinate overrides. A resolved address point is not a surveyed ownership boundary. ## Public tool groups observed on 12 September 2026 | Purpose | Names returned by public discovery | | --- | --- | | Discovery and source readiness | search_tools; get_lpa_adapter_status; get_official_source_adapters | | Site screening and comparison | site_verdict; compare_sites; boundary_doctor; analyze_site; find_development_sites | | Planning research | check_planning_constraints; check_permitted_development; get_local_plan_policies; get_planning_history; find_precedents; assess_planning_approval_likelihood | | Environmental and heritage research | get_flood_risk; calculate_biodiversity_net_gain; run_sequential_test; get_heritage_impact_table | | Costs and regulatory scoping | estimate_planning_costs; check_building_regulations_triggers | | Briefing, maps and research support | draft_site_description; generate_site_map; search_aec_knowledge; plan_site_intelligence; get_map_layer_plan | | Terrain and movement | get_site_topography; check_walkability_transport | This is the observed public list, not a promise that the list will remain unchanged or that all advertised operations have passed a live result check. ## Interpret the output before using it Read the returned status, errors, warnings, source links and coverage notes as well as any summary. Keep the requested location and study boundary with the result. A missing dataset or failed upstream request must remain unknown, rather than becoming evidence that a constraint is absent. The get_site_topography implementation retrieves point elevation; it does not supply surveyed contours, slope profiles or a full terrain model. Planning likelihood, biodiversity estimates, permitted-development checks and sequential-test support are screening aids. Their names do not establish a planning decision, statutory metric assessment, lawful-development certificate or professional sign-off. Many relevant public datasets are England-specific. Confirm the applicable nation, authority, policy edition and source for each check. The [methodology and limits guide](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) explains the next level of verification. ## Account-linked operations need a separate check Source defines five additional operations behind account permissions: - create_project_from_site saves a project. - run_site_package starts an account-linked analysis job. - get_job_status reads a job’s status. - generate_site_brief creates a project brief. - enable_site_watch configures recurring site checks. These were absent from the unauthenticated tools/list response. Their current authorized discovery, account allowances and end-to-end behavior remain unverified in this review. Do not assume that calling a missing name automatically signs a user in. Authorize through the client flow, discover again, and inspect the schema before requesting an action. Do not repeat a write after a timeout without checking whether it already succeeded. ## A useful research sequence For an illustrative England feasibility review, first establish the site boundary and authority. Inspect source readiness, then select the available planning, flood, heritage and transport checks that answer the brief. Keep each material result beside its primary-source reference and record unavailable evidence. Only compare two sites after confirming comparable study areas and source coverage. Resolve findings that could change the brief through current official data and the appropriate specialist. This proposed sequence is not a tested claim that every listed operation returns complete evidence for every site. ## Versioning, logging and publication limits The reviewed session negotiated MCP protocol 2025-03-26. Protocol negotiation does not freeze Atlasly’s tool catalog or validate every client. Re-discover after reconnecting or receiving a tool-list change notice, and use the current schema. Source contains tool-call logging that can include site addresses and coordinates. This article does not promise anonymous telemetry, no personal data, or a 30-day retention period. Review actual client disclosures and terms before sending sensitive material. The public REST hostname previously used in examples did not resolve during the same review. See [developer documentation](/developers) for its publication status; a reachable MCP endpoint does not verify a separate REST API. ## Illustrative example Illustrative evidence register: record discovery as successful, each uncalled assessment as not tested, and each unavailable source as unknown. This separates connectivity from the evidence needed for a project decision; it is not a reported customer deployment. ## Frequently Asked Questions **How many tools were verified?** Public tools/list returned 27 definitions on 12 September 2026. Their presence was verified, but their analysis outputs were not executed or benchmarked in this review. **Does initialize return the complete tool list?** No. Initialize negotiates connection capabilities and protocol. Request tools/list for the tool names and input schemas visible to the current session. **Does get_site_topography return contours?** The reviewed implementation provides point elevation, not surveyed contours, slope profiles or a complete terrain surface. **Are the private tools available anonymously?** They were absent from unauthenticated discovery. Five account-linked operations exist in source; verify permissions and discover their current schemas after an authorized connection. **Can I assume full UK or US coverage?** No. Confirm source availability and jurisdiction for each check. Much planning and environmental evidence is England-specific, and US planning coverage was not established. ## Conclusion Use live discovery to choose a tool, then inspect its returned evidence and limitations before relying on the finding. Tool availability, successful execution and a defensible project conclusion are separate checks. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat - https://atlasly.app/blog/ask-ai-for-uk-planning-constraints-nppf - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot ## Sources - [MCP tools specification](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2026-07-28/server/tools) · Model Context Protocol (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Atlasly public MCP health and discovery information](https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp/health) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Atlasly source coverage and limitations](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly MCP Authentication: Discovery, Permissions and Integration Limits" description: "Connect to Atlasly MCP using current discovery metadata, understand account permissions, and distinguish verified public discovery from unverified private workflows and REST availability." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp published: 2026-04-21 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "Atlasly agent authentication OAuth API key" target_query: "how AI agents authenticate with Atlasly API and MCP" intent: navigational --- # Atlasly MCP Authentication: Discovery, Permissions and Integration Limits > Connect to Atlasly MCP using current discovery metadata, understand account permissions, and distinguish verified public discovery from unverified private workflows and REST availability. ## Quick Answer Connect to https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp using a compatible MCP client. Public discovery and 27 unauthenticated tool definitions were verified on 12 September 2026. Account-linked actions require suitable authorization. Use live discovery metadata for authentication; the separate REST publication reference currently contains no callable operations, so obtain an agreed contract before building a REST integration. ## Introduction This guide concerns Atlasly at [atlasly.app](https://atlasly.app), the site-analysis service for architects and planners. Its verified public MCP endpoint is https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp. It is not Atlas at atlas.co, AtlasMapping, or MongoDB Atlas. Atlasly focuses on UK site research, with England-specific sources for many planning and environmental checks. A successful connection does not establish US planning coverage, complete UK coverage, or that every returned finding is current. Read the [coverage and methodology guide](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) alongside this integration guide. Reviewed on 12 September 2026: public initialization, tool discovery and authentication metadata responded successfully. Those public-discovery checks do not establish account permissions, completed assessments or paid-operation results. ## Start with discovery, not a copied token example Configure the server URL in the client, then let its MCP connection flow initialize the session and request tools/list. Initialization negotiates a protocol version; tools/list supplies the available names and input schemas. Discovery references include: - [Protected-resource metadata](https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp), identifying the protected resource and authorization server. - [Authorization-server metadata](https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server), describing authorization, token, registration and revocation endpoints. Read these documents afresh when configuring an integration. Do not infer that a protocol revision in an article is the version negotiated by your client; the reviewed initialization response negotiated 2025-03-26. ## What the advertised authorization flow supports The live metadata advertises authorization-code and refresh-token grants, public-client token authentication, S256 proof-key challenges, and client metadata document support. Its advertised scope names are atlasly.mcp, atlasly.projects.write, atlasly.site_package.run, atlasly.site_watch.write and offline_access. Scope availability does not establish that an account has a particular entitlement. The [current MCP authorization specification](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2026-07-28/basic/authorization) describes discovery, resource-bound access tokens and the OAuth authorization flow. Use a client implementation that validates state and issuer, uses S256 PKCE, and identifies the intended protected resource in the authorization and token requests. Request only the permissions needed. Do not place a token in a source file, public browser bundle, screenshot or shared log. These are integration requirements to verify, not a certification that every Atlasly client or private authentication path has passed an end-to-end compliance test. ## Public research and account-linked actions are different Public discovery returned 27 tool definitions without credentials. Availability in that list does not prove a data source will answer a particular site query or establish unlimited production usage. Observe current account terms and any returned service limits. The source implementation also defines create_project_from_site, run_site_package, get_job_status, generate_site_brief and enable_site_watch behind account permissions. They were not present in the unauthenticated discovery response. Re-run discovery after authorization and use the schema actually returned for that session. Confirm the requested project action with its owner before saving a project, starting a package or enabling recurring checks. ## Handle expiry, missing permissions and retries explicitly Use the authentication challenge and client connection flow when credentials expire. Refresh only when the server issued an eligible refresh token; do not assume a fixed token lifetime or that every connection grants offline access. Store credentials in the client’s supported secure storage and use its disconnect or revocation flow when access is no longer needed. A missing tool can reflect authentication or permission differences. A returned error can also mean invalid input, a service limit, unsupported geography or an unavailable source. Keep these cases distinct. Do not blindly retry actions that create projects or start work after a timeout: the first request may already have succeeded. Check a returned project or job identifier before repeating a write. Respect retry guidance for read operations and retain the original error for diagnosis. ## REST examples and webhooks are not a verified contract The [REST publication reference](/openapi.json) currently contains no callable operations. Public MCP discovery and REST access are separate. Obtain an agreed production contract before implementing REST requests or completion notifications. Consult [developer documentation](/developers) for the current publication status. Obtain a verified base URL, authentication contract, request schema, response examples and operation-specific retry rules before building a REST integration. ## Retain useful evidence without inventing privacy guarantees Keep enough diagnostic context to identify the operation and failure, while excluding access tokens and unnecessary project information. Operational records can include requested tasks and site locations. Check the applicable retention, privacy and data-processing terms; this guide does not promise anonymity. Review current terms and the actual information your client sends before using sensitive project material. For source interpretation and tool selection, continue with the [MCP tools reference](/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis). ## Illustrative example Illustrative integration check: a practice connects its client, records the negotiated protocol and visible tools, and verifies the site and source coverage before authorizing a saved project action. Successful discovery is recorded separately from a completed assessment. This is a proposed check, not a reported customer result. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can I inspect Atlasly MCP without an account?** Yes. Public initialization and 27 tool definitions were available without credentials on 12 September 2026. This check did not execute those tools or establish unlimited usage. **Does this guide verify private OAuth actions?** No. It verifies public metadata and compares relevant source implementation. Private authorization, account entitlements and project actions still require an authorized end-to-end check. **Should I use the old api.atlasly.app example?** Follow current developer documentation and obtain an agreed production REST contract before integrating; the published reference currently contains no callable operations. **Does Atlasly MCP cover US planning?** Atlasly at atlasly.app focuses on UK site research, with England-specific datasets for many checks. Confirm jurisdiction and source availability for the individual operation. ## Conclusion Build against the current session’s discovery and permissions, preserve source limitations, and test each required operation before depending on it. Public MCP availability and a working private or REST workflow are separate evidence claims. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot ## Sources - [MCP authorization specification](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2026-07-28/basic/authorization) · Model Context Protocol (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [MCP tools specification](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2026-07-28/server/tools) · Model Context Protocol (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Atlasly authorization metadata](https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Atlasly protected-resource metadata](https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Check UK Planning Constraints Inside Autodesk Forma Site Design" description: "Forma Site Design gives UK architects terrain, buildings and environmental analysis, but no planning constraint layers. The Atlasly extension adds flood zones, heritage, Article 4, trees, ecology, landfill and ground conditions to the site limit you draw, measures how much of the site each one covers, checks your massing against them, and writes out the assessments the findings imply." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-constraints-in-autodesk-forma-site-design published: 2026-09-16 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "planning constraints Autodesk Forma Site Design" target_query: "check UK planning constraints in Autodesk Forma" intent: commercial --- # How to Check UK Planning Constraints Inside Autodesk Forma Site Design > Forma Site Design gives UK architects terrain, buildings and environmental analysis, but no planning constraint layers. The Atlasly extension adds flood zones, heritage, Article 4, trees, ecology, landfill and ground conditions to the site limit you draw, measures how much of the site each one covers, checks your massing against them, and writes out the assessments the findings imply. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Install the Atlasly extension from Forma's Extensions panel and draw a site limit; the panel screens it as soon as it opens. It checks the site against Environment Agency, Historic England, planning.data.gov.uk and BGS sources, measures the share of your boundary each constraint covers, checks the masses you have drawn against them, and states the consent route and the assessments the findings imply. Every result carries its source link and retrieval date. The check is free and needs no account; results are a screen, not a planning search. ## Introduction Autodesk Forma Site Design has become the starting point for many early-stage UK schemes: Revit 2027 is a Forma Connected Client, and Autodesk's AU 2026 announcements put more planning and analysis work directly into Forma. For a UK site Forma sets up terrain, surrounding buildings, roads and property boundaries in minutes, and runs sun, wind, noise and carbon analyses on your massing. What it does not hold is the planning evidence that decides whether the massing is worth drawing: the Environment Agency flood zone, whether the site sits in a conservation area, which listed buildings are nearby, whether an Article 4 direction has withdrawn permitted development rights, and what the ground is likely to do under a foundation. Those answers live in official UK datasets that Forma's automated context does not include. This guide shows how the Atlasly extension brings that evidence into the Forma left panel, what each result means for the design, and how to carry the findings forward into a full site package and Revit. It was written on 16 September 2026 against the extension as built; the Design & Make Marketplace listing is pending Autodesk's review, so installation currently uses the extension ID. ## What Forma knows about a UK site, and what it does not Forma Site Design's automated context for the UK covers terrain, building footprints and heights, roads and property boundaries, plus weather data for its environmental analyses. That is enough to test massing options and compare sun hours, wind comfort and noise while the design is still fluid. Planning constraints are a different class of evidence. Flood zones come from the Environment Agency's Flood Map for Planning. Conservation areas, Article 4 direction areas, Tree Preservation Orders and national environmental designations are published by councils and Natural England through planning.data.gov.uk. Listed buildings sit on Historic England's National Heritage List. Ground movement risk comes from the British Geological Survey's GeoSure data. None of these arrive with the Forma site by default, and stitching them together by hand takes an afternoon that most early-stage budgets do not have. The Atlasly extension does that stitching for the site limit you have already drawn, and keeps each answer tied to its source so it can be checked. ## Installing the extension Open a project in Forma Site Design and select Extensions in the left panel, then Add extension. Extensions that have not yet been published to Autodesk's Marketplace are shared by ID and installed from the Unpublished tab: paste the Atlasly extension ID, select Add, then Agree to the terms. Extensions install per project, so repeat this for each project where you want the panel. Once installed, Atlasly appears in the Extensions tab of the left panel. Draw or select a site limit before opening it; without one the panel falls back to the project location and says so. The panel needs no Atlasly account. It uses Atlasly's public site tools, the same ones exposed to Claude, ChatGPT and other assistants through the hosted MCP endpoint. ## Running a check and reading the verdict If a site limit is already drawn, the check runs the moment the panel opens. Otherwise choose a search radius of 250, 500 or 1,000 metres and select Check constraints. The panel retrieves eight official sources live, which usually takes fifteen to forty seconds, and shows an elapsed timer while it works. The result opens with a verdict line, for example 5 of 8 need attention, followed by chips for high, check, none found and no data, and then the read: one sentence naming what consent will turn on, the likely consent route, and the statutory notes that follow from it. Below that a site map draws the search radius, your site limit and the evidence layers in their own colours; a legend toggles each layer, and a layer that blankets the whole frame, such as a city-wide Article 4 area, is drawn as a dashed outline so it does not hide the rest. The ledger lists each constraint with a short value, a planning implication and, where you drew a site limit, how the evidence relates to it. That relation is measured rather than described: a layer that overlaps your boundary reports the share it covers, such as covers 41% of your site, sampled on a regular grid across the boundary. A layer outside the boundary reports the distance to its nearest edge. Expanding a row shows the evidence text, any coverage caveat, the source records and the retrieval date. ## What each constraint means for the design Flood Zones 2 and 3 require a flood risk assessment; some Zone 1 sites do too, including sites of at least one hectare and sites with current or future flood risk. Check the local strategic flood risk assessment for functional floodplain, Zone 3b. The sequential test is separate and subject to NPPF F5 exceptions; use compatibility and any exception test follow F6 and Annex F. Surface water requires a separate check. A conservation area brings design, demolition and tree-works controls and usually a heritage statement. Listed buildings nearby make the setting of heritage assets a material consideration, and Grade I or II* assets raise the bar. An Article 4 direction withdraws some permitted development rights; the council text says which classes. Tree Preservation Orders normally require consent for protected tree works, subject to limited exceptions, but many councils have not yet published their orders to the national dataset, so the panel reports no data rather than none, and points you to the council register. Nearby environmental designations, landfill records and ground instability are reasons to scope ecological, contamination and ground assessments. Their presence in a search radius does not by itself determine the report or foundation specification; confirm relevance to the proposal and the local requirements. ## Checking the massing you have already drawn A constraints list describes the site. The question a designer actually has is what it does to the scheme, and Forma is the one place where both halves are present at once. The panel reads the masses in your proposal and reports three things: how much of the built footprint sits inside each flagged constraint, the height of the tallest mass, and the share of the site limit you have covered. It is stated the way a designer would say it, for example 62% of your built footprint sits inside conservation areas, alongside 4 masses, 2,140 m² of footprint, tallest 24 m, covering 43% of the site limit. That read is recalculated whenever the model changes, using the evidence already retrieved, so moving a block and seeing the exposure change costs nothing and needs no second check. Heights are measured from each mass's own base, so they describe the massing rather than an absolute datum. ## What the evidence says you will have to commission The findings imply a scope of work, and the panel writes it out rather than leaving it to be inferred. Flood Zone 2 or 3 requires a flood risk assessment; check separately whether the sequential test applies. A conservation area or nearby designated assets means a heritage statement and an assessment of significance. Trees affected by a proposal may require a BS 5837 survey and arboricultural impact assessment. Designations, historic landfill and ground instability indicate questions for ecological, contamination and ground specialists, with the assessment scope confirmed for the actual proposal. Check biodiversity net gain eligibility separately. In-scope development in England requires at least 10% gain. From 6 August 2026, red-line sites of 0.2 hectares or less may be exempt unless on-site priority habitat is affected. Self-build status alone no longer exempts new applications; check the current exemption guidance and transitional rules. Each line names the evidence that put it there, which is what makes the list defensible in a fee proposal rather than a generic checklist. It is a scope to confirm with the planning authority, not a determination. ## Getting the check out of the panel Copy appraisal puts the whole thing on the clipboard as formatted text: the read, the consent route, the scope, the massing implications, then every finding with its source and retrieval date and the screening caveat. It pastes into a feasibility report, a design and access statement or a pre-application enquiry without reformatting. Copy share link produces a URL that reopens the same check, against the same red line, in any browser. The recipient needs no Atlasly account and no Forma seat, which makes it the quickest way to put the evidence in front of a client, a planning consultant or a colleague. The evidence is retrieved live each time the link is opened, so the page reflects the day it is read rather than the day it was sent, and it says so. If Forma's panel blocks clipboard access, the panel falls back to a selectable text box rather than failing silently. ## Carrying the findings into Atlasly and Revit The panel ends with the questions this particular check left open, each opening Atlas AI with the question ready to run. They follow the findings rather than a fixed list: a site in a flood zone is asked whether it passes the sequential test, a site in a conservation area is asked what has actually been approved there and at what height, a site under an Article 4 direction is asked which permitted development rights are left. Alongside them sit the local plan policies for the authority, cited by paragraph, and the site package with a DXF drawing and PDF report, alongside GeoJSON, Shapefile, SVG and CSV outputs where generated. Native DWG or IFC delivery is not part of this package contract. Each of those links carries the boundary you drew in Forma, so Atlasly opens on your red line and draws it on the map instead of reverse-geocoding an address to a point. Planning history, precedents and policy answers are then specific to the site rather than to a pin near it. The site package is the handover artefact. Its DXF carries the constraint boundaries, contours and surrounding buildings on named layers, and imports into Revit through Insert and Import CAD in metres. Your Forma massing reaches Revit through the Forma Connected Client as usual, so the constraint layers and the scheme meet in the same model. The Atlasly guide to exporting site analysis data to AutoCAD and Revit covers the import settings. Saving the site to an Atlasly project also enables Site Watch, which re-runs the checks and flags changes in the planning record over time. ## Limits to keep in view The underlying retrieval is a point-radius screen around the site centre, so it says whether evidence exists near the centre. The site-limit lines, coverage shares and footprint exposure are a planar check against the boundary you drew, not an official parcel intersection, and the shares are sampled on a regular grid, which makes them accurate to a few percent rather than surveyed. None of it replaces a planning search, a flood risk assessment or professional review. Coverage is UK only: England in full, Scotland and Wales in part. Forma projects with another country code are declined before any check runs. Some sources time out on busy days; the panel then reports that fact for that source rather than guessing. Inside the Forma scene, Autodesk's renderer draws overlay layers in a single style, so painted layers share one colour; the panel's own map is what separates them by colour. Overlays are visual only and are cleared by Forma when the panel closes. ## Illustrative example Illustrative check: a practice sets up a central London infill site in Forma Site Design, draws the site limit and runs the Atlasly check at 500 metres. The verdict flags Flood Zone 3a at the site centre, a conservation area that covers the whole site limit, a hundred listed buildings within the radius and a city-wide Article 4 direction on basements, while Tree Preservation Orders return no data because the council has not published to the national dataset. The team opens the local plan policies for the authority before the first massing study. This is a proposed workflow, not a reported customer result. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does Forma Site Design include UK planning constraints?** Not in its automated site context, which covers terrain, buildings, roads and property boundaries. Flood zones, conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4 directions, TPOs and designations come from official UK datasets that the Atlasly extension retrieves for your site limit. **Is the Atlasly check in Forma free?** Yes. The check uses Atlasly's public site tools and needs no account. An account adds saved sites, planning history and policy; the Pro plan adds unlimited analyses and CAD, BIM and GIS exports. **Does the extension paint constraints onto the Forma site?** Yes. Every flagged layer can be drawn at once, clipped to the search radius. Forma draws overlays in a single style, so the panel's own site map is what separates the layers by colour. Overlays are visual and Forma clears them when the panel closes. **Can it check my massing against the constraints?** Yes. The panel reads the masses in the proposal and reports how much of the built footprint falls inside each flagged constraint, the tallest height and the share of the site limit covered, recalculated whenever the model changes. **How much of my site does a constraint cover?** Where a layer overlaps the boundary you drew, the panel reports the measured share, for example covers 41% of your site, sampled on a regular grid across the boundary rather than estimated. **Can I share the constraints check with a client?** Yes. Copy share link produces a URL that reopens the same check with your site boundary in any browser, with no account and no Forma seat needed. Copy appraisal puts the full text, with sources, on the clipboard for a report or a pre-application enquiry. **Can I install it from the Forma Extensions list?** Once the Design & Make Marketplace listing is approved it appears in the public list. Until then it installs from the Unpublished tab using the Atlasly extension ID, per project. **Does it work for sites in Scotland, Wales or outside the UK?** England is covered in full and Scotland and Wales in part, with SEPA and Natural Resources Wales flood sources. Projects outside the UK are declined before any check runs. ## Conclusion Forma Site Design settles the massing questions early; the Atlasly extension supports the initial planning review in the same panel, with evidence tied to its source. Check the site limit before the first massing study, watch the exposure as the massing changes, copy the appraisal into the report that has to be written anyway, and carry the package into Revit when the direction is set. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis ## Sources - [Tree preservation orders and trees in conservation areas](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas) · MHCLG (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [Flood risk assessments: applying for planning permission](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · Environment Agency (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [NPPF Chapter 18: managing flood risk and coastal change](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework-chapter-18-managing-flood-risk-and-coastal-change-f1-9) · MHCLG (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [Biodiversity net gain: exempt developments](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · Defra (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [How Autodesk Forma and AI are advancing a more connected future for AEC](https://adsknews.autodesk.com/en/news/autodesk-forma-ai-aec-connected-workflows-2026) · Autodesk (15 September 2026) - [What Is Autodesk Forma Site Design? Uses and Project Types](https://blogs.autodesk.com/forma/2026/08/20/what-is-forma-site-design/) · Autodesk (20 August 2026) - [Add extensions in Forma Site Design](https://www.autodesk.com/learn/ondemand/tutorial/add-extensions-in-forma) · Autodesk (Reviewed 16 September 2026) - [Flood Map for Planning](https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/flood-map-for-planning) · Environment Agency (Reviewed 16 September 2026) - [Conservation area dataset](https://www.planning.data.gov.uk/dataset/conservation-area) · MHCLG planning.data.gov.uk (Reviewed 16 September 2026) - [The National Heritage List for England](https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/) · Historic England (Reviewed 16 September 2026) - [GeoSure ground stability data](https://www.bgs.ac.uk/datasets/geosure/) · British Geological Survey (Reviewed 16 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-constraints-in-autodesk-forma-site-design Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Which Planning Reports Will Your Site Need? A Constraints-Led Checklist" description: "The supporting documents a UK planning application needs are decided by the site, not by the scheme. This works backwards from the constraints on a site to the assessments a validation checklist will ask for, and shows how to settle the list before you quote a fee." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/which-planning-reports-does-my-site-need published: 2026-09-18 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "which planning reports does my site need" target_query: "what supporting documents does a UK planning application need" intent: informational --- # Which Planning Reports Will Your Site Need? A Constraints-Led Checklist > The supporting documents a UK planning application needs are decided by the site, not by the scheme. This works backwards from the constraints on a site to the assessments a validation checklist will ask for, and shows how to settle the list before you quote a fee. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Site constraints help scope supporting reports; the proposal and local validation checklist determine the requirements. Check flood risk, heritage effects, trees, ecology, contamination and ground conditions, then confirm which assessments apply. Flood risk assessment and sequential-test requirements are separate. In England, check current biodiversity net gain exemptions before allowing for the minimum 10% gain. A constraints screen supports this review; it does not settle the application requirements. ## Introduction Every UK planning fee proposal contains the same guess: which supporting documents will this application actually need? Guess low and the fee is wrong, or the application sits invalid while a consultant is appointed. Guess high and the proposal loses to someone who guessed better. The guess is avoidable, because the answer is mostly not about the scheme. It is about the site. Most of the documents on a local validation checklist are triggered by a condition that is already a matter of public record: the Environment Agency's flood zone, a conservation area boundary, a Tree Preservation Order, a designation, a former landfill, the ground beneath it. Those are knowable on the first day, before a line is drawn. This article works in that direction: from the constraints on a site to the assessments they imply, with what each one is for and when it stops being optional. It was written on 18 September 2026, with flood risk, tree controls and biodiversity net gain guidance reviewed on 30 September 2026. It reflects the position in England unless stated. Local validation checklists vary between authorities and are the authority on what any particular council will require. ## Why the site decides the document list A planning application is validated against two things: the national requirements, and the local validation checklist published by the authority. Most items on those checklists are conditional. They apply if the site is in a flood zone, if it is in or adjacent to a conservation area, if protected trees are present, if the land has a contaminative history, and so on. That conditionality is what makes the list predictable. The scheme affects scale and detail, and it decides a handful of documents outright, such as a daylight and sunlight assessment where the surrounding context demands it. The site decides most of the rest, and the site does not change while the design does. The practical consequence is a sequencing one. If the constraint picture is established in the first hour, the fee proposal, the programme and the consultant appointments can all be right from the start. If it is established after the massing, each new constraint arrives as a change. ## Flood risk: a flood risk assessment and the sequential test The Environment Agency's national map shows Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3. Check the local strategic flood risk assessment for Zone 3b, the functional floodplain. A site-specific flood risk assessment is required in Zones 2 and 3, and some Zone 1 sites also require one, including sites of at least one hectare and sites with current or future flood risk. The sequential test is a separate policy question. NPPF F5 sets out exceptions, including householder development, small non-residential extensions and most changes of use, as well as qualifying allocated sites and proposals supported by specified flood risk evidence. Check F5 before commissioning the test. Where applicable, assess use compatibility and the exception test under F6 and Annex F. The design consequences arrive early and are not cosmetic. Finished floor levels have to sit above the design flood level with freeboard, which moves the whole section. Safe access and escape have to work in a flood event. Ground floor uses may have to change. None of that is a late adjustment. Surface water is a separate question from the fluvial and tidal zones, and a site in Zone 1 can still have a surface water problem. Check it separately rather than reading Zone 1 as an all-clear. ## Heritage: a heritage statement, and sometimes listed building consent If the site is in a conservation area, or if designated heritage assets sit near enough for their setting to be affected, expect a heritage statement with an assessment of significance. The statutory duties are specific: for listed buildings and their setting the decision-maker must have special regard to preserving the building, its setting and its features, and in a conservation area special attention must be paid to preserving or enhancing character and appearance. Grade I and Grade II* assets raise the bar for what counts as an acceptable effect. Proximity alone does not decide it, because setting is about how an asset is experienced, but proximity is what tells you the question will be asked. Inside a conservation area two further controls bite. Check whether the proposed demolition needs planning permission. Tree works normally need six weeks’ notice even without a Tree Preservation Order, but exemptions apply. Work that affects a listed building itself needs listed building consent, which is a separate consent from planning permission and is not interchangeable with it. ## Trees: a BS 5837 survey and an arboricultural impact assessment A Tree Preservation Order normally requires consent for works to protected trees, subject to limited exceptions. Where trees are present and the scheme could affect them, expect a tree survey and an arboricultural impact assessment to BS 5837:2012, usually with a tree protection plan and a method statement. The design consequence is the root protection area. It is the constraint that most often moves a building line, and it is far cheaper to design around at the massing stage than to argue about at determination. One caveat matters more than it should. Tree Preservation Orders are published to the national dataset by the council, and many councils have not done so. An absence in the national data is not evidence of absence on the ground, and the council's own register remains the only reliable check. Treat a national no-data result as a question, not as a clear site. ## Ecology, contamination and ground A national environmental designation near the site, such as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Area of Conservation, a Special Protection Area or a Ramsar site, points to a preliminary ecological appraisal and possibly consultation with Natural England. Some catchments carry further requirements of their own, so the local position has to be checked rather than assumed. A registered historic landfill within range, or any contaminative former use, points to a Phase 1 contaminated land desk study. Where it finds a credible pathway, ground gas monitoring and a remediation strategy follow, and a condition on the permission is the usual outcome. Ground conditions decide foundation cost before they decide anything else. A British Geological Survey shrink-swell classification of 3 or higher indicates ground that moves with moisture, which points to a ground investigation and to foundation depths that interact with nearby trees. Desk data is regional and is not a substitute for a site investigation. ## Check biodiversity net gain eligibility separately In-scope development in England must deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain; check any higher local requirement. Establish eligibility separately from a constraints screen. For applications from 6 August 2026, a red-line area of 0.2 hectares or less can qualify for exemption unless on-site priority habitat is affected. Householder and other exemptions remain subject to their own rules. Self-build status alone no longer exempts new applications from that date; transitional rules may apply to earlier permissions. It needs a baseline habitat assessment, a metric calculation and a plan for delivering the uplift on site, off site or through statutory credits, with at least thirty years of maintenance for off-site gains and significant on-site gains. The cost lands in the appraisal, not in the design, which is why it belongs in the first conversation about viability rather than the last one before validation. ## Settling the list in the first hour The constraint picture behind all of this is public data: Environment Agency flood zones, planning.data.gov.uk for conservation areas, Article 4 directions, tree preservation zones and designations, Historic England's National Heritage List, and BGS ground data. Assembling it by hand for one site takes an afternoon, which is why it usually happens after the massing rather than before it. Atlasly retrieves those sources for a site and states the implications alongside them, each with its source link and retrieval date. Inside Autodesk Forma Site Design the same check runs against the site limit you draw and writes out the consent route, the assessments the evidence implies and what each constraint does to the massing, which copies out as text for a fee proposal or a pre-application enquiry. Two caveats stay attached to any such list. It is derived from a screen against national datasets, not from a planning search, and the local validation checklist published by the authority is what an application is actually validated against. Use the derived list to scope and to price, and confirm it with the authority, ideally at pre-application stage where the scheme warrants it. ## Illustrative example Illustrative example: a practice is asked to price a small residential scheme on a central London infill site. A constraints screen on the first day returns Flood Zone 3a at the site centre, a conservation area covering the whole site, a hundred listed buildings within 500 metres, a city-wide Article 4 direction and a BGS shrink-swell class of 3, with tree orders unpublished for that council. The fee proposal allows for a flood risk assessment, checks whether the sequential test applies, and scopes heritage and ground assessments plus biodiversity net gain if the scheme is in scope, with the council's tree register flagged as an open question rather than priced blind. This is a proposed workflow, not a reported customer result. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What reports does a UK planning application need?** It depends on the site and the scheme, and the local validation checklist is the authority. Site-driven documents commonly include a flood risk assessment in Flood Zones 2 and 3, a heritage statement in or near a conservation area or listed buildings, a BS 5837 tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment where protected trees are affected, a preliminary ecological appraisal near designations, a Phase 1 contaminated land desk study where the land has a contaminative history, and a ground investigation on unstable ground. Biodiversity net gain of 10% applies to most new development in England. **Can I work out the document list before I design anything?** Largely yes. Most conditional items on a validation checklist are triggered by site conditions that are already public record, so the list can be established before the first massing study. The scheme decides scale, detail and a few scheme-specific items such as daylight and sunlight where context requires it. **Does a flood risk assessment apply in Flood Zone 2?** Yes. A site-specific flood risk assessment is required in Flood Zone 2. The sequential test is separate: check the exceptions in NPPF F5. Use compatibility and any exception test are assessed under F6 and Annex F. **Does biodiversity net gain apply to every scheme?** No. Check the current exemptions and application date. From 6 August 2026, sites of 0.2 hectares or less may be exempt unless on-site priority habitat is affected. Self-build status alone is no longer an exemption for new applications. Earlier permissions may have transitional protection. **The national tree dataset shows nothing. Is the site clear of tree orders?** No. Tree Preservation Orders reach the national dataset only when the council publishes them, and many have not. Treat an absence in national data as an open question and check the council's own register, which is definitive. **Is a constraints screen the same as a planning search?** No. A screen tests a site against national datasets and tells you which questions apply. A planning search, a site-specific flood risk assessment and professional review are separate and are not replaced by it. ## Conclusion The supporting documents for a planning application are mostly decided by the site, and the site is knowable before the design starts. Establish the constraint picture first, derive the scope from it with the evidence attached to each line, price the work honestly, and confirm the list against the authority's own validation checklist before it becomes a commitment. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-constraints-in-autodesk-forma-site-design - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis ## Sources - [Flood risk assessments: applying for planning permission](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · Environment Agency (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [NPPF Chapter 18: managing flood risk and coastal change](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework-chapter-18-managing-flood-risk-and-coastal-change-f1-9) · MHCLG (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [Biodiversity net gain: exempt developments](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · Defra (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Reviewed 18 September 2026) - [Flood risk and coastal change planning practice guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change) · MHCLG (Reviewed 18 September 2026) - [Flood Map for Planning](https://environment.data.gov.uk/dataset/flood-map-for-planning) · Environment Agency (Reviewed 18 September 2026) - [Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/contents) · UK Government (Reviewed 18 September 2026) - [Understanding biodiversity net gain](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-biodiversity-net-gain) · UK Government (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [Tree preservation orders and trees in conservation areas](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas) · MHCLG (Reviewed 30 September 2026) - [Land affected by contamination planning practice guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-affected-by-contamination) · MHCLG (Reviewed 18 September 2026) - [GeoSure ground stability data](https://www.bgs.ac.uk/datasets/geosure/) · British Geological Survey (Reviewed 18 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/which-planning-reports-does-my-site-need Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Real Estate Feasibility Software: Compare by Task (2026)" description: "Compare Atlasly, Autodesk Forma Site Design, TestFit and financial spreadsheets by evidence, layout, environmental analysis and appraisal needs." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects published: 2026-04-21 modified: 2026-09-30 primary_keyword: "real estate feasibility software for architects" target_query: "real estate feasibility software for architects" intent: commercial --- # Real Estate Feasibility Software: Compare by Task (2026) > Compare Atlasly, Autodesk Forma Site Design, TestFit and financial spreadsheets by evidence, layout, environmental analysis and appraisal needs. ## Quick Answer Choose feasibility software by the question you need to resolve: site evidence, layout capacity, environmental performance or financial viability. Atlasly supports early site-evidence review; Autodesk Forma Site Design and TestFit describe design and feasibility workflows. Test the same brief and verify local coverage before buying. ## Introduction A feasibility tool is useful when its output helps a team make a specific decision. A constraints map, a layout and a cash-flow appraisal answer different questions; none should be treated as the whole study. We build Atlasly. This is an editorial comparison based on our documented scope and the linked vendors' descriptions reviewed on 12 September 2026. It is not an independent benchmark, a market-wide ranking or a claim that we have tested every product. We do not reproduce unverified customer results or fixed competitor prices. ## Try practical feasibility and handover resources Use the [12-check evidence register](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist) to record findings, sources and unresolved issues. Compare candidate sites with the [worked scoring example and CSVs](/blog/multi-criteria-site-scoring-comparison), keeping exclusions separate from weighted totals. Before choosing a CAD workflow, open the [synthetic DXF sample](/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly) and verify its known 100-metre line, local coordinate frame and named layers. These resources demonstrate a review method; they are not customer results or surveyed evidence. ## Start with the decision, not a winner Separate four tasks before comparing products: 1. **Site evidence:** establish the boundary, available sources, constraints and questions needing further review. 2. **Physical capacity:** explore layouts using explicit access, area, height and servicing assumptions. 3. **Environmental performance:** test the relevant design conditions with an appropriate method. 4. **Financial appraisal:** define areas, values, costs, timing and finance assumptions, then test sensitivities. A product that helps with one task may still need other software and specialist input for the rest. Use the [architectural feasibility guide](/solutions/architectural-feasibility) to scope the work before choosing tools. ## Atlasly: assembling and reviewing early site evidence Atlasly brings available site context into a workflow for architects and planners: inspect the location, review sources, identify missing evidence and prepare a handover. Review the [methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) before relying on a finding. It does not certify planning permission, survey accuracy, statutory compliance or financial viability. Dataset and export availability vary by location, workflow and account. Check [current pricing and allowances](/pricing) rather than treating an older article's price or quota as an entitlement. A useful trial is whether you can trace a material finding to its source and explain what still needs checking. We do not claim that Atlasly has the broadest coverage, is fastest or replaces a specialist appraisal. ## Atlasly Developments: the development record and a profit appraisal [Atlasly Developments](/product/developments) is development project software for property and real estate developers who run several sites at once. Each site keeps its parcels (title number, folio or APN), due diligence documents with page citations, development options with revisions, a development appraisal, actions, milestones and a fixed project pack for a committee or lender. Its appraisal covers both forms of a basic residual appraisal: profit, profit on cost and profit on GDV with sensitivity, and a residual land value solved for a target margin, pinned to one option revision, with every input tagged supplied, estimate or assumption. It has no dated cash flow or IRR and is not a valuation; see [what a development appraisal is](/blog/what-is-a-development-appraisal) for the difference. Keep a cash-flow model for funding decisions. ## Autodesk Forma Site Design: early design and environmental analysis Autodesk describes Forma Site Design as a tool for pre-design and schematic design with geolocated context and environmental analysis, including wind, solar and daylight. That makes it a candidate when you need to compare design proposals against these criteria. See [Autodesk's description](https://help.autodesk.com/view/BUILD/ENU/?guid=About_Autodesk_Construction_Cloud_Forma&p=DOCS). For your trial, check which analyses, context data and exchange workflows are included in the offered subscription. Confirm what inputs are needed and which outputs require further specialist assessment. This guide has not measured its speed or accuracy against Atlasly. ## TestFit: site layouts and deal evaluation TestFit describes a feasibility workflow covering editable site plans, layout iteration, pro-forma evaluation and quantities for parking, infrastructure and earthwork. Its listed project types extend beyond residential development. See the [current product description](https://www.testfit.io/). Consider it when the immediate question is how a site layout and its quantities affect the deal. Test your own typology, access constraints and assumptions, then inspect the resulting takeoffs and exports. A generated layout does not establish planning acceptability or validate the commercial assumptions entered into it. ## Financial spreadsheets and additional regional tools An explicit financial spreadsheet can help a team inspect assumptions about areas, values, build costs, professional fees, contingency, finance and timing. Its usefulness depends on the input evidence, formulas and review process; a spreadsheet does not verify its own assumptions. If a regional tool such as Archistar is on your shortlist, ask its provider to demonstrate the specific jurisdiction, parcel, rule version and proposed use. We could not fully retrieve Archistar's current product page during this review, so we do not rank its present coverage or repeat old pricing claims. Keep financial appraisal separate from an early constraints summary and obtain the professional input appropriate to the decision. ## A repeatable feasibility-software evaluation sheet Run each candidate against the same representative brief. Record: - **Decision:** the question the output should resolve. - **Inputs:** boundary revision, intended use, assumptions and source dates. - **Coverage:** required layers or rules that are present, missing or unknown. - **Traceability:** whether material findings link back to inspectable evidence. - **Output:** whether the file opens in the intended application and survives unit/location checks. - **Review work:** corrections and specialist checks needed after generation. - **Cost:** the actual quoted plan, limits, seats and required add-ons. Do not score a missing dataset as a clear site. Keep speed and usefulness separate: measure preparation, correction and review time as well as generation time. The [3D context handover checklist](/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture) provides a worked export check. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: a team compares two layout options on the same boundary. One has more floor area but needs a different access assumption. The team records that unresolved access question before comparing financial returns; no generated option is presented as approved or commercially proven. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is the best real estate feasibility software for architects?** There is no demonstrated universal winner in this review. Shortlist by task, jurisdiction, inputs and required outputs, then test a representative brief. Site evidence, design exploration and financial appraisal may require different tools. **Can Atlasly replace a financial feasibility appraisal?** Atlasly can help organise early site evidence. It does not establish market values, lender acceptance or investment returns. Keep financial inputs and professional appraisal separate. **Were all the tools independently benchmarked?** No. This guide uses documented scope and linked vendor descriptions. It does not claim measured superiority, verified customer savings or complete current coverage for every vendor. ## Conclusion Choose the combination that gives your team inspectable evidence and a workable handover. Start with a [representative site analysis](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline), retain the unknowns and evaluate the complete review effort. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-urban-planning-software-ai-architects-2026 ## Sources - [Forma Site Design overview](https://help.autodesk.com/view/BUILD/ENU/?guid=About_Autodesk_Construction_Cloud_Forma&p=DOCS) · Autodesk - [Real estate feasibility platform](https://www.testfit.io/) · TestFit --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Urban Planning Software: Compare Site Review, GIS and Scenarios" description: "Choose urban planning software by task: Atlasly for early site review, QGIS for spatial work, ArcGIS Urban for scenarios and tools for regional data exploration." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-urban-planning-software-ai-architects-2026 published: 2026-04-21 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "urban planning software for architects" target_query: "urban planning software for architects" intent: commercial --- # Urban Planning Software: Compare Site Review, GIS and Scenarios > Choose urban planning software by task: Atlasly for early site review, QGIS for spatial work, ArcGIS Urban for scenarios and tools for regional data exploration. ## Quick Answer Choose urban planning software around your task and evidence: site review, custom spatial analysis, development scenarios or regional comparisons. Atlasly, QGIS, ArcGIS Urban and UrbanFootprint describe different scopes. Verify jurisdiction coverage, source dates, methods and usable outputs on a representative project. ## Introduction A planner reviewing one application needs a different workflow from a team comparing development scenarios across a city. Choosing a product by a single score or an unsupported "best" label hides those differences. We build Atlasly. This guide compares documented scopes, with vendor sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. It is not an independent performance benchmark. It does not claim that a named authority uses a particular software stack or that any tool handles a stated percentage of casework. ## Match software to the planning task Write down the decision, geographic extent, required evidence and intended audience. Then distinguish: - **Site review:** inspect available constraints and record missing evidence for one boundary. - **Custom spatial analysis:** prepare layers, join attributes, define methods and reproduce the calculations. - **Scenario comparison:** compare explicit development assumptions using consistent indicators. - **Regional exploration:** examine patterns across areas and communicate the results. Set a minimum evidence standard before testing products. A clear result should state the source dates, assumptions and limitations as well as its headline number. ## Atlasly: early site evidence and review Atlasly supports an early [site analysis workflow](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) for architects and planners. Use it to assemble available context, open relevant evidence and identify the next checks. Read the [coverage and methodology limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) alongside a result. Do not treat a policy reference as a determination of compliance or a missing map feature as proof that no constraint exists. Available information varies by place and layer. A planning team should confirm the local authority's current records and validation requirements for the actual proposal. For purchasing decisions, check [current account allowances](/pricing) and trial a representative site. This article does not claim national completeness or replacement of GIS and specialist work. ## QGIS: maps, spatial processing and reproducible methods [QGIS](https://qgis.org/) describes a free, open-source application for creating maps, editing spatial layers, processing data and sharing results. It is a candidate when your work needs control over data preparation and analytical methods. Evaluate whether your team can reproduce a result from the same source data, coordinate reference system and processing settings. Record any plugins and their versions. Free software still requires appropriate data, expertise and review; a plugin's availability does not validate a planning method. ## ArcGIS Urban: development and land-use scenarios [Esri describes ArcGIS Urban](https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-urban/overview) as supporting 3D visualisation and comparison of zoning, land-use and development scenarios, with urban indicators and collaboration capabilities. It is a candidate when the decision concerns alternative development assumptions across a planning area. Test whether required local data can be represented and whether the team can explain each scenario's assumptions. Software capabilities do not determine which policy option should be adopted. ## UrbanFootprint: location-based data exploration [UrbanFootprint Explorer](https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/) describes exploration and communication of location-based resilience information for activities including site selection and investment prioritisation. Its current description is broader than the older claim that it is solely a city scenario-planning tool. Ask the provider to demonstrate coverage, indicator definitions and update frequency for your region. We have not independently validated the underlying data or compared its accuracy with other products. ## How should you compare walkability or accessibility scores? Before comparing scores, check the actual method: origins, destinations, walking speed, network permissions, barriers, crossing assumptions, opening hours and the data date. A distance threshold does not establish a safe, accessible route. Test a location with a known barrier such as a railway or restricted access. If the result crosses it incorrectly, record the failure instead of interpreting the score as measured accessibility. The [walkability workflow](/product/walkability-ai) can help frame a first review; site inspection and appropriate transport expertise may still be needed. ## A short procurement and review checklist Use the same boundary and question for each trial. Ask the provider or project team to show: 1. One result traced back to the actual source and date. 2. One missing or uncertain layer clearly reported. 3. The assumptions behind an indicator or scenario. 4. A usable export and an explanation of any lost information. 5. A repeat run or saved record that another reviewer can understand. 6. The current price, data licence, sharing permissions and account limits. Include setup, preparation and correction in the evaluation. Do not infer authority adoption, accuracy or time savings from a polished demonstration. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: a planning team checks a neighbourhood with a railway barrier before comparing accessibility scores. It records whether each route uses a real crossing, then keeps unresolved access assumptions alongside the result. This is a suggested evaluation exercise, not a customer case study. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is the best urban planning software for architects and planners?** Select by decision and scale. This guide compares documented scopes for site review, spatial analysis, development scenarios and regional exploration; it does not establish a universal winner. **Is Atlasly a replacement for QGIS or ArcGIS Urban?** They address different workflows. Atlasly supports early site-evidence review. Compare your requirements for custom spatial processing or city-scale scenarios with the relevant GIS tools, rather than assuming one product replaces the others. **Can a walkability score prove a route is accessible?** No. Examine its network data and assumptions, including barriers and permitted access. A score alone does not establish route safety, physical accessibility or current conditions. **Are the comparison results independently tested?** No. They are an editorial reading of documented product scopes, with our Atlasly affiliation disclosed. Use the checklist to test current behaviour on your own project. ## Conclusion Start with the decision and a shared evidence checklist. Use the [feasibility-software evaluation guide](/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects) when the next step is comparing a site proposal and its commercial assumptions. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/15-minute-city-walkability-analysis-tool - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [QGIS capabilities](https://qgis.org/) · QGIS project - [ArcGIS Urban overview](https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-urban/overview) · Esri - [Explorer](https://urbanfootprint.com/platform/explorer/) · UrbanFootprint --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-urban-planning-software-ai-architects-2026 Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Planning Application Costs in England: April 2026 Fees" description: "Estimate an English planning application fee using the April 2026 schedule, identify the correct category and separate the application fee from surveys and other costs." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "planning application cost UK 2026" target_query: "how much does a planning application cost in the uk 2026" intent: informational --- # Planning Application Costs in England: April 2026 Fees > Estimate an English planning application fee using the April 2026 schedule, identify the correct category and separate the application fee from surveys and other costs. ## Quick Answer From 1 April 2026 in England, an application to enlarge, improve or alter one existing dwelling costs £548. Full applications for fewer than 10 new dwellings cost £610 per dwelling; 10–50 cost £659 per dwelling. Other categories and larger schemes have different rules. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland use separate schedules. ## Introduction A planning fee estimate starts with the application route, the nation and the submission date. A householder extension, creation of flats and a change of use can look similar on a brief but fall into different charging categories. This guide covers England and the official rates effective from 1 April 2026, checked on 12 September 2026. Keep the statutory application fee separate from professional fees, surveys, pre-application advice, building control charges, planning obligations and any submission-service charge. Those costs need their own scope and quotation. ## The current fee bands and worked examples The [official April 2026 schedule](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a073bb07d7bff3604d6df6/Planning_fees_-_annual_indexation_from_1_April_2026.pdf) sets these selected rates: | Application | Fee | | --- | --- | | Alteration or extension to one existing dwelling | £548 | | Full application: fewer than 10 new dwellings | £610 per dwelling | | Full application: 10–50 new dwellings | £659 per dwelling | | Full application: more than 50 dwellings | £32,578 plus £196 per dwelling over 50; maximum £427,537 | Three new dwellings: 3 × £610 = **£1,830**. Ten: 10 × £659 = **£6,590**. Sixty: £32,578 + 10 × £196 = **£34,538**. The over-50 band uses its stated base, not 50 multiplied by the preceding rate. These examples assume a straightforward full application without a fee exemption or additional chargeable category. ## Identify the chargeable proposal before calculating Write a one-sentence description of the works and the existing lawful use. Confirm whether the application is householder, full, outline, reserved matters, prior approval or another consent. Creating an additional dwelling is not covered by the single-dwelling alteration fee. Do not infer the application route solely from a front door, kitchen or marketing description. For an outline proposal, establish the relevant site area and category. For floorspace-based categories, use the area definition in the regulations and the correct rounding increment. Do not interchange gross external area, gross internal area and net lettable area. Record the drawing revision behind the measurement so an amended design can be recalculated. ## Mixed, hybrid and other applications Outline, non-residential floorspace, change of use and prior approval have their own bands. Do not apply the new-dwelling table to them. Nor should you assume that every mixed or hybrid proposal is charged by simply adding two full fees: the fee regulations contain combination rules and caps. The April schedule itself flags an issue concerning the indexation of certain outline applications under regulation 14(2). Confirm an affected calculation with the authority. Listed building consent itself has no application fee in England; associated planning permission and professional work may still cost money. Tree applications are another reason a generic “all consents cost a fee” assumption fails. Use the [fees guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fees-for-planning-applications) for the actual category, reductions, exemptions and refund rules. ## Resubmission and changing rates Do not promise a free second application after withdrawal or refusal. The general “free go” exemption was removed on 6 December 2023, subject to transitional provisions for earlier applications. A fresh 2026 proposal should not be budgeted as free merely because it resembles a refused proposal. The [2023 amending regulations explanatory memorandum](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1197/pdfs/uksiem_20231197_en_001.pdf) explains the change. The April 2026 indexation was 3.8%; it was not a new 35% blanket uplift in late 2025. Date the estimate, retain its source and check the rate again before submission. If a long programme crosses a future annual update, show an allowance separately rather than presenting an unknown future fee as fixed. ## Use the calculator as a scoped estimate The [Atlasly planning fee calculator](/tools/planning-fee-calculator) supports selected English application categories. Enter the proposal type and the units it requests; read the rate date and exclusions beside the result. If the scheme needs a category, combination rule, exemption or concession outside that scope, work through the official schedule and confirm the calculation with the authority. Send the client the calculation with its assumptions: nation, submission date, application category, dwelling count or measured area, any additional categories and the supporting drawing revision. That makes the estimate reviewable. A calculator does not determine the lawful application route or guarantee validation. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A practice checks the current official fee schedule when scoping an application and again before submission. It records the calculation date, application type and any assumptions instead of relying on an older saved quotation. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Are these fees UK-wide?** No. This article covers England. Check the respective national regulations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. **What is the 2026 householder application fee?** From 1 April 2026, enlargement, improvement or alteration of a single existing dwelling in England is £548. Ancillary works within a dwelling’s curtilage can fall into a separate category; confirm the proposed works. **Is listed building consent free?** The application for listed building consent has no fee in England. Planning permission, surveys and professional services are separate. **Is outline always cheaper?** No. Compare the applicable site-area fee and later reserved-matters charges with the full-application route for the actual proposal. There is no universal saving. **Does the calculator guarantee validation?** No. Correct fees are one part of an application. The authority must also consider the required forms, plans and supporting information. ## Conclusion Treat the fee as a dated calculation attached to a defined proposal. Check the category before the arithmetic, record rounding and caps, and revisit the calculation before submission. Use the calculator for supported cases and the official schedule for exceptions. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot-uk-planning-ai-tool-comparison ## Sources - [Planning fees from 1 April 2026](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69a073bb07d7bff3604d6df6/Planning_fees_-_annual_indexation_from_1_April_2026.pdf) · GOV.UK - [Planning fee guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fees-for-planning-applications) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Check Flood Risk by Postcode: An England Planning Guide" description: "Use a postcode to locate a site, then check its boundary, current and future flood layers, local evidence and assessment requirements. England guidance with clear coverage limits." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/free-uk-flood-risk-checker-flood-zones-by-postcode published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "UK flood risk checker postcode" target_query: "uk flood risk checker postcode flood zone check" intent: informational --- # Check Flood Risk by Postcode: An England Planning Guide > Use a postcode to locate a site, then check its boundary, current and future flood layers, local evidence and assessment requirements. England guidance with clear coverage limits. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer A postcode helps locate a site; it does not establish flood safety. For an English planning proposal, inspect the full boundary in the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning, including relevant surface-water and future-risk layers, and the local strategic flood risk assessment. Flood Zone 1 alone does not rule out a flood risk assessment. ## Introduction A useful flood check follows the proposed building, access and drainage across the whole site. A postcode pin can sit on the dry part of a parcel while the access or proposed development lies elsewhere. Start with the map, then identify the evidence needed for the actual proposal. This article covers England and sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different mapping authorities and planning frameworks; do not label an Environment Agency dataset as complete UK coverage. ## Read the zones and the other layers separately The August 2026 [NPPF, Annex F](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework), distinguishes river/sea probability zones from other flood evidence. Zone 1 has less than 0.1% annual river/sea probability; Zone 2 sits between that level and the higher Zone 3a thresholds. Zone 3b is functional floodplain, normally including land with at least 3.3% annual probability with effective infrastructure, or land designed to flood. It is not simply land that floods every year. The standard zone layer does not include defence benefits or climate change. The planning map also provides other datasets, including current/future surface-water information. Read each layer’s definition. Zone 3b is not separately distinguished from 3a on the national zone map; use the local assessment and resolve site-specific uncertainty. ## When a flood risk assessment may be needed The [Environment Agency applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission), updated 28 May 2026, includes development in Zones 2 or 3, Zone 1 sites of at least one hectare, and additional triggers involving future flood zones, surface water, critical drainage and other identified risk. Being below one hectare in Zone 1 is therefore not automatic clearance. Scope the assessment with the appropriate adviser and authority. Straightforward low-risk proposals may be capable of a proportionate assessment by the applicant; it is inaccurate to say every case legally needs a “licensed flood consultant”. A substantive risk or uncertain access route warrants appropriate specialist input. ## Sequential and exception tests are different questions The sequential test addresses the location of development relative to flood risk. The exception test applies in specified circumstances depending on vulnerability, flood zone and the applicable exceptions. It is incorrect to say that Zone 2 normally avoids the sequential test or that the exception test applies only in Zone 3a. Use current NPPF policies F5–F7 and Annex F, together with the authority’s interpretation for the proposal. Some older guidance retains superseded paragraph numbers. Confirm the current policy text and scope rather than copying a historical cross-reference into an application. ## Build a site-specific flood evidence record Save the map extract with its date, layer names and site boundary. Add the proposed use and vulnerability, levels information, access/escape route, drainage concept and development lifetime. Identify model limitations and climate allowances. Read the [local strategic flood risk assessment guidance](/blog/flood-risk-for-architects-before-planning-what-to-check-before-you-draw) alongside the actual authority document. Check recorded events, groundwater or sewer issues and the relevant drainage authority where needed. A national map is a starting point; missing local information remains an open question. ## Use Atlasly as an initial check The [Atlasly flood checker](/tools/flood-risk-checker) can help start the enquiry where information is available. Read the returned source and coverage limits, then verify material findings against the current official map. An address match or successful result does not certify the whole site, its access or a proposed use as safe. Write the conclusion as an evidence statement: “The reviewed layer shows no mapped river/sea risk at this location; surface water, future risk and access still need review.” Avoid turning “no result returned” into “no flood risk”. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reviews mapped flood information alongside site levels and the proposed access. It records which sources and routes still need checking and obtains the appropriate specialist assessment before relying on a layout. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does Flood Zone 1 mean no FRA?** No. Site size, surface water, future flood risk and local evidence can still trigger an assessment. **Does the map show functional floodplain separately?** The standard national zone map does not distinguish Zone 3b separately from 3a. Check the local strategic assessment and relevant site-specific evidence. **Can a postcode checker confirm a site is safe?** No. A point check cannot establish conditions across the boundary, access route or development lifetime. **Is this guidance UK-wide?** No. This article’s policy and Environment Agency sources apply to England. Use the respective national authorities elsewhere. ## Conclusion Use the postcode to find the site, then review the full boundary, proposal and relevant layers. Carry missing evidence into a clear assessment brief before relying on a preferred layout. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 ## Sources - [Current NPPF](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · GOV.UK - [FRA applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK - [Preparing a strategic flood risk assessment](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-prepare-a-strategic-flood-risk-assessment) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/free-uk-flood-risk-checker-flood-zones-by-postcode Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How UK Architecture Practices Can Evaluate Atlasly and PlanningBot" description: "A practical trial checklist for UK architecture practices evaluating Atlasly and PlanningBot, with observable acceptance criteria and published-source boundaries." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot-uk-planning-ai-tool-comparison published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "Atlasly and PlanningBot practice evaluation" target_query: "how to evaluate Atlasly and PlanningBot for an architecture practice" intent: commercial --- # How UK Architecture Practices Can Evaluate Atlasly and PlanningBot > A practical trial checklist for UK architecture practices evaluating Atlasly and PlanningBot, with observable acceptance criteria and published-source boundaries. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Define the evidence pack your practice needs, give both services the same site and questions, and record whether each output meets the brief. Check jurisdiction, policy editions, source coverage, report usability, required exports and full account cost. Choose using those observations rather than a general winner label. ## Introduction Reviewed on 12 September 2026 by the Atlasly team. This is a proposed evaluation method for architecture practices, not a report of a completed comparative trial. Atlasly publishes this article and has a commercial interest in the choice. For the documented product scope and verification gaps, read the [Atlasly and PlanningBot source comparison](/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot). This article addresses a different question: how can your practice turn that information into a repeatable purchasing decision? [PlanningBot's current product page](https://planningbot.ai/) advertises site assessment, interactive maps, DOCX/PDF reports and connections to Claude and ChatGPT, alongside planning and environmental information. Its published scope is wider than a text-only policy assistant. Neither that documentation nor Atlasly's own descriptions establish which service will meet your particular project brief. ## Write the acceptance brief before starting the trial Select a representative site and record its boundary, authority, jurisdiction, proposal stage and the decision the evidence should inform. Use the same supplied information in both services and keep a copy of the questions. Name the deliverable and the person who will use it: for example, a source-linked feasibility note for the project architect or a report for an internal planning review. Set the required contents, file format and review date in advance. A trial without these criteria can reward presentation while missing a necessary source or output. PlanningBot's reviewed product page advertises UK planning research, with England-specific examples and sources. This does not establish complete coverage in each nation. If the practice works in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, obtain explicit coverage confirmation for each relevant source and operation from both suppliers. A UK address or a general planning description is not enough to establish national policy coverage. ## Use an evidence sheet that separates results from unknowns Keep one row per required check. Record the observed output and supporting source before assigning a status. Use “meets brief”, “needs follow-up” or “not assessed”; do not convert an untested feature into an unsupported negative claim. | Check | Evidence to retain | Acceptance question | | --- | --- | --- | | Site identity | Boundary, address and authority | Does the output concern the intended site and study area? | | Source coverage | Dataset names, dates and missing-data notices | Are required sources available for this location? | | Planning interpretation | Cited policy text and edition | Is the policy current and applicable to the proposal? | | Report | Saved file and source references | Can the reviewer trace each material conclusion? | | Required export | Actual sample opened in the receiving software | Are units, coordinates, geometry and layers usable? | | Connected workflow | Returned result and retained citations | Can the team review the evidence outside the conversation? | | Team access | Documented permissions and sharing behaviour | Can the intended reviewers access and retain the output? | | Workload cost | Dated plan or quote and allowance assumptions | Does the package cover the required users and operations? | Run the same agreed checks for both services. Record unavailable data, incomplete responses and failed operations alongside successful outputs. This proposed sheet is not a measured scorecard for either product. ## Review policy evidence with the correct jurisdiction and edition For a site in England, compare any NPPF reference with the [current official framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework), published on 17 August 2026, and inspect the relevant local plan. The NPPF applies to England; it is not the national framework for all four UK jurisdictions. Keep the cited extract, publication date and source URL with the review. An older policy can be relevant to an historical decision without being the current policy for a new proposal. Ask for clarification where the result does not disclose its source edition. A recent answer date does not establish that the underlying source has been updated. For Atlasly's documented coverage boundaries, use the [site analysis methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits). Apply equivalent questions to PlanningBot's documentation and returned results. ## Test the handover your team actually needs A product description is not a substitute for opening the deliverable. PlanningBot publishes DOCX/PDF report support; assess a sample against your required sections and source references. Where CAD or another specialist format matters, request the exact format and inspect a sample from each supplier. This review has not established PlanningBot's complete CAD offering, so it does not mark that capability absent. Atlasly publishes a [connection guide](/mcp) and [developer documentation](/developers); PlanningBot also advertises connections to assistants. Check the operation, authentication requirements, account allowance and preservation of evidence in the workflow you intend to use. No general claim of exclusive integration or universal interoperability follows from those published connections. Include a review by the person receiving the report or export. Record any manual reconstruction, missing attribution or reformatting required so that those costs remain visible in the decision. ## Compare the full practice commitment Use the current [Atlasly plans](/pricing) and [PlanningBot plans](https://planningbot.ai/) to price the same expected users, sites, reports and other required operations. Record the date of the quote, billing term, tax treatment, usage limits and optional charges. Do not compare unlike entry plans as if they included the same work. A sole practitioner may prioritise the deliverable and occasional workload; a larger practice may also need sharing permissions, repeatable review procedures and contractual assurances. These are criteria to investigate, not reasons to assign either product to an audience without evidence. At the end of the trial, document which requirements were met, which remain unverified and whether a further sample or supplier answer would change the decision. There is no universal winner established by this article. ## Illustrative example Illustrative evaluation: a practice selects one site and asks two project reviewers to inspect the same requested evidence pack from each service. They retain the sources, check the report in the receiving application and record follow-up work. They then compare the package cost for their expected workload. This is a proposed exercise, not an account of a client trial or a measured outcome. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should a practice prepare before comparing Atlasly and PlanningBot?** Prepare the same site boundary, authority, jurisdiction, questions and required deliverable for both services. Define the evidence and file checks that will count as meeting the brief before the trial begins. **Has this article run a comparative trial?** No. It supplies a proposed evaluation checklist and cites published product information reviewed on 12 September 2026. It does not report measured accuracy, speed, cost savings or client results. **Should an unverified export be marked unsupported?** No. Mark it not assessed or request a sample and current documentation. Absence of evidence in this review does not establish that a supplier lacks the capability. **Can the same planning policy checks be applied throughout the UK?** The evaluation method can be reused, but the applicable national and local policy sources must match the site. The NPPF applies to England, and coverage for each jurisdiction and source needs explicit confirmation. **How should a team compare plan costs?** Price the same users and expected workload, including required reports, data, exports and sharing. Record billing terms, allowances, optional charges and tax treatment from current plans or a supplier quote. ## Conclusion Choose on the evidence your practice can inspect and the handover it needs to complete. Keep unknowns visible, retain failed results and price the same workload before deciding. Use the [published-source comparison](/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot) as background and this checklist as the trial brief. Recheck supplier documentation before committing to a plan. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 ## Sources - [PlanningBot product scope and plans](https://planningbot.ai/) · PlanningBot (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2026) - [Atlasly source coverage and limitations](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) · Atlasly - [Atlasly connection guide](https://atlasly.app/mcp) · Atlasly - [Atlasly developer documentation](https://atlasly.app/developers) · Atlasly --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vs-planningbot-uk-planning-ai-tool-comparison Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Biodiversity Net Gain 2026: Architect's Guide + Free BNG Calculator" description: "An England-focused guide to statutory biodiversity net gain, August 2026 exemptions and using a unit-uplift calculator without confusing arithmetic with compliance." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-2026-architects-guide-free-calculator published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "biodiversity net gain architects" target_query: "biodiversity net gain 2026 architects guide free calculator" intent: informational --- # Biodiversity Net Gain 2026: Architect's Guide + Free BNG Calculator > An England-focused guide to statutory biodiversity net gain, August 2026 exemptions and using a unit-uplift calculator without confusing arithmetic with compliance. ## Quick Answer For development subject to England’s statutory biodiversity net gain regime, the biodiversity gain objective is generally at least 10%. Establish eligibility and the statutory habitat baseline first. Atlasly’s calculator compares biodiversity units entered by the user; it does not survey habitats, calculate the statutory metric or certify compliance. ## Introduction Biodiversity work starts with what is on the site and which requirements apply to the proposal. A landscape percentage or a green roof area is not enough to establish a statutory biodiversity result. This article separates exemption checks, the official metric and early design comparisons, using sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. The [Atlasly BNG calculator](/tools/bng-calculator) is an arithmetic aid for comparing a baseline and a proposed total expressed in the same biodiversity unit type. Obtain those values from the applicable official metric with appropriate ecology input. ## Establish the applicable regime and date Check the [current exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) before calculating. For relevant applications made on or after **6 August 2026**, development on a site of **0.2 hectares or less** is exempt only if it does not impact onsite priority habitat. The former self/custom-build exemption is limited by the transition date; do not keep applying the old nine-dwelling rule to new applications. Section 73 and other transitional cases need a separate check. Exemption from statutory BNG does not remove protected-species or other planning duties. ## Use the statutory metric, not fixed habitat weights The [statutory biodiversity metric](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/calculate-biodiversity-value-with-the-statutory-biodiversity-metric) is distinct from the older Biodiversity Metric 4.0. Habitat type, condition and other inputs affect the result; delivery risks and trading rules matter too. Hedgerow, watercourse and area habitat units cannot simply be added together. Do not assign all car parks one unit per hectare or all green roofs a fixed unit score. Habitat classification and condition need suitable evidence; mapped land use alone is not a statutory habitat baseline. ## What the Atlasly calculation means Enter baseline and proposed units from the same applicable metric category. For a positive baseline, the arithmetic uplift is (proposed − baseline) ÷ baseline × 100. An illustrative baseline of 10 units and proposed total of 11 units gives 10% uplift. This example demonstrates arithmetic only. A zero baseline needs separate handling; a percentage increase from zero is undefined. A result of 10% or more does not validate inputs, exemption eligibility, habitat trading rules, ecological feasibility, offsite registration or the biodiversity gain plan. Keep those checks outside this simple comparison. ## Turn landscape options into an evidence trail Ask the ecologist to identify retained habitats before drawing replacement landscaping. Test the location and long-term management of proposed planting, roofs, drainage features and habitat connections against the architecture, servicing and access strategy. A feature can have several design benefits without automatically attracting a particular number of biodiversity units. Maintain an option table with habitat assumptions, metric version, area or length, proposed condition, delivery period, management responsibility and outstanding evidence. Mark unverified design assumptions clearly. Update the metric when the layout changes, rather than treating an early comparison as a permanent result. ## Delivery, approval and long-term management The biodiversity gain plan normally needs approval before development commences under the biodiversity gain condition; that is different from saying the complete plan must be approved before planning permission can be granted. Significant onsite enhancements and offsite gains have long-term securing requirements, generally at least 30 years. Not every planted feature has the same legal securing route. Read the [government explanation of delivery](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-biodiversity-net-gain) before assuming all sites must exhaust onsite delivery first: since 6 August 2026, qualifying non-exempt minor development can consider onsite and offsite gains together. Purchased offsite biodiversity units and government statutory credits are different mechanisms. Identify the route and evidence required, rather than labelling both as habitat-bank credits. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares landscape options against a provisional habitat baseline, marks the assumptions and commissions the appropriate ecology input. A desktop calculator does not establish the statutory baseline or remove approval requirements. ## Frequently Asked Questions **When did statutory BNG start?** The main commencement dates for England’s planning regime were 12 February 2024 for major development and 2 April 2024 for non-major development, with exemptions and transitional arrangements. The August 2026 changes require a fresh eligibility check. **Does the England regime cover the whole UK?** No. The statutory regime discussed here is for England. Other UK nations have their own biodiversity policies and duties. **Can a green roof contribute?** Potentially. Its contribution depends on the applicable metric classification, design, condition assumptions and delivery requirements. There is no universal units-per-hectare credit for every green roof. **Can Atlasly certify 10% BNG?** No. It compares the units you supply. A numerical uplift does not establish that the statutory metric, gain plan or delivery requirements have been satisfied. ## Conclusion Check eligibility, establish a credible baseline and use the statutory metric for the scheme. Use a simple unit comparison to discuss options, retaining the ecological and legal delivery checks needed to support the final proposal. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 ## Sources - [Current BNG exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · GOV.UK - [Statutory metric guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/calculate-biodiversity-value-with-the-statutory-biodiversity-metric) · GOV.UK - [Understanding BNG](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-biodiversity-net-gain) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-2026-architects-guide-free-calculator Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Export Site Context to DXF for AutoCAD Using Atlasly" description: "Export available Atlasly site context to DXF and check layers, units, coordinates and geometry before using it in AutoCAD or another supported CAD workflow." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "export site context DXF AutoCAD" target_query: "how to export site context dxf autocad atlasly" intent: informational --- # How to Export Site Context to DXF for AutoCAD Using Atlasly > Export available Atlasly site context to DXF and check layers, units, coordinates and geometry before using it in AutoCAD or another supported CAD workflow. ## Quick Answer Use an available DXF export in Atlasly, then inspect the file in your CAD software before relying on it. Confirm units, coordinate reference, origin, layer contents and a known dimension. Exported context is an early-design input; it does not establish a measured survey, legal boundary, heritage curtilage or complete constraint search. ## Introduction A useful CAD handoff carries both the geometry and enough information to interpret it. The file should be checked against the intended site and the evidence used to create it before it becomes the base for design drawings. This guide describes a verification workflow. Available layers, formats and export times depend on the site, account and selected operation. ## Try the synthetic DXF before using project data Download the [synthetic DXF sample](/resources/atlasly-context-synthetic-sample.dxf) and [sample notes](/resources/atlasly-context-synthetic-sample-notes.txt). It contains a building outline, a road line exactly 100 metres long in the exporter’s local frame, a tree point, a contour at 25 metres and an invented constraint outline. All features are illustrative. Open the file in your CAD package, confirm metres, and measure the line on **A-ROAD-PRIMARY** from approximately (−50, −30) to (50, −30). It should measure 100 drawing units. Inspect the named layers and contour height. The file has been checked against the exporter’s output; opening it in your particular CAD version remains a handover check. ## What coordinates does the export use? The current drawing controls support **British National Grid (EPSG:27700)** or **local metres**, recorded in the drawing frame. Inspect the chosen setting and the export notes. The synthetic sample below deliberately uses the local frame: X runs east, Y north, and the origin is the selected extent centre. British National Grid conversion uses a seven-parameter Helmert transformation, not OSTN15. The exporter records its alignment limitation; verify against measured survey control before design use. It is not for setting out. Local coordinates are not national-grid eastings and northings; assigning a grid in CAD does not transform them. Keep the original file and record the coordinate setting and any reviewed alignment. ## Which named layers may appear? Layers depend on the geometry actually available and selected for export. A missing layer does not show that its real-world feature is absent. | Layer or group | Contents when available | | --- | --- | | A-BLDG | Building outlines; height or a default height may be applied as thickness | | A-ROAD-* | Roads, paths or rail geometry by class | | A-WATER / A-WATERWAY | Water outlines or lines | | A-GREENSPACE / A-TREE | Green space outlines or tree points | | C-TOPO-MAJOR / C-TOPO-MINOR | Contour geometry with source elevation | | C-TOPO-TEXT | Contour labels | | A-CONST-* | Available constraint geometry routed to its named layer | | A-DATA-SOURCE-INFO | Source notes when supplied with the export | | A-ANNO-* | Grid, scale bar, north arrow and title annotations | Polygons are outlines rather than guaranteed filled areas. Do not infer contour interval, vertical accuracy, a listed building’s curtilage or a complete constraint search from the layer name alone. ## Prepare the boundary and available context Locate the site and confirm the area intended for the export. Review which layers have loaded and whether their sources and dates are suitable. A visible map is not proof that every underlying feature is present in the exported file. Keep ownership boundaries, planning application boundaries and a user-drawn study area distinct. A terrain or building dataset is not a measured topographic survey. Mapped heritage records do not establish the legal curtilage of a listed building. ## Choose an available export and retain its settings Open the export controls available in the current product and choose DXF where offered. Check the account entitlement and the formats and settings actually shown. Retain any export summary, source information, coordinate setting and warnings. Do not assume a fixed layer inventory, contour interval or delivery time. If a layer is missing or a file is unexpectedly small, inspect the result and source coverage before continuing. The presence of a successful download alone is not a quality check. ## Check units and coordinates before combining files Open a copy in the target CAD application. Confirm the drawing units and compare a known dimension. Inspect the origin and coordinate system; local planar, latitude/longitude and projected coordinates are not interchangeable. Do not assume every export is British National Grid merely because the site is in Britain. Before combining the context with survey or consultant information, establish the agreed coordinate reference and any transformation. Check at least two identifiable locations as well as scale and orientation. Keep the original export unchanged so subsequent transformations are traceable. ## Inspect layers and geometry Review the layer list and turn layers on separately. Check the site extent, closed boundaries, overlapping lines, building footprints and any elevation information. Confirm that expected context appears in the file and that labels correspond to the intended features. Use separate layers for indicative context and verified survey information. Label limitations in the drawing package, especially where map boundaries or estimated heights could be mistaken for measured evidence. Avoid tracing a planning buffer as a definitive legal extent. ## Make a controlled design handoff Record the export date, site boundary, format, coordinate settings and checks performed. Identify unresolved discrepancies and the survey information that will replace early context. If the site area or source data changes, issue a revised context reference rather than silently overwriting the old drawing. The workflow can support early AutoCAD drafting, but compatibility with a particular version, imported entity type or other CAD application should be tested on the actual file. See [Atlasly’s methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) for the evidence boundary. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reopens an exported context file in its intended design application and checks units, two known distances, location and layer contents. Missing or altered elements are recorded before the file is used as a design reference. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is an Atlasly DXF a measured survey?** No. Verify source accuracy and obtain an appropriate measured survey for decisions that depend on it. **Are exports always in British National Grid?** Do not assume that. Inspect the coordinate settings and metadata and confirm the target reference system. **Does the heritage layer show legal curtilage?** A mapped record alone does not establish legal curtilage. Review the listing and relevant evidence separately. **Will every layer or CAD format always be available?** Availability depends on the workflow, source coverage and entitlement. Inspect the actual export and test it in the target application. ## Conclusion Treat the export as a controlled context handoff. Check coordinates, units and features, retain source limitations and replace indicative information with verified survey evidence where the design depends on it. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-2026-architects-guide-free-calculator - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 ## Sources - [Planning Practice Guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance) · GOV.UK - [Planning Portal](https://www.planningportal.co.uk/) · Planning Portal --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "What is a 15-Minute City? Walkability Scores Explained for UK Architecture Sites" description: "Assess everyday access with walking routes and amenity evidence, distinguish London PTAL from walkability and apply the design-led London Plan approach to density." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-15-minute-city-walkability-score-uk-sites published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "15 minute city walkability score UK" target_query: "what is 15 minute city walkability score uk sites architects" intent: informational --- # What is a 15-Minute City? Walkability Scores Explained for UK Architecture Sites > Assess everyday access with walking routes and amenity evidence, distinguish London PTAL from walkability and apply the design-led London Plan approach to density. ## Quick Answer A 15-minute neighbourhood assessment considers access to everyday destinations along usable routes. PTAL is a London public-transport connectivity measure, not a UK-wide walkability or density entitlement score. Check actual routes, service availability, inclusive access and infrastructure capacity alongside any calculated catchment. ## Introduction A destination inside a circle on a map may still be hard to reach. Railway lines, missing crossings, gradients, restricted gates and poor surfaces can alter the real journey. Use a walking catchment to identify questions, then verify the routes that matter to the proposed occupants. This guide was checked on 12 September 2026. It separates London’s official PTAL method from broader neighbourhood-access assessment. ## Choose destinations and users before scoring Define the purposes of the assessment: access to food shopping, education, health care, public transport, work, green space or other services relevant to the brief. Record opening hours, eligibility and capacity where these affect practical access. A school entrance nearby does not prove a place is available. Consider different users and journey conditions. A single assumed walking speed will not represent every age, mobility need, gradient or weather condition. Explain the assumptions rather than presenting a catchment edge as an exact universal travel time. ## PTAL measures public-transport connectivity Transport for London’s [WebCAT guidance](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat) explains that PTAL combines walk time to the transport network and service wait times. It is useful evidence about access to public transport in London. It does not directly measure all amenities, pedestrian quality, step-free journeys or spare transport capacity. Do not describe an Atlasly composite access score as an official TfL PTAL unless the source and method establish that equivalence. Outside London, identify the authority’s relevant method and actual service evidence rather than inventing a nationwide equivalent PTAL. ## London density is a design-led decision The [London Plan 2021, policies D2 and D3](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design), links development capacity to context, design and supporting infrastructure. Use the applicable design and infrastructure policies when considering development capacity. PTAL can inform the assessment, but it does not automatically grant a density, height or parking outcome. Test design options against the adopted plan, local policies, access to services and infrastructure capacity. Record the applicable policy and the actual supporting evidence. ## Validate the routes behind an isochrone Check entrances, crossings, paths, gradients, barriers and any access restrictions on the important routes. Compare the mapped route with a site visit and current local information. Mark assumed links and missing data. Record the routing network, calculation date, speed assumptions and destination source. An isochrone generated from incomplete paths can give a precise-looking but misleading result. Present route improvements as proposals requiring feasibility and delivery checks, not as benefits already secured. ## Turn access evidence into design actions Compare entrance positions, pedestrian connections, crossing needs, cycle provision and servicing conflicts. Prioritise inclusive routes and legible public space. A shared surface is not automatically an accessibility improvement; assess the needs of disabled users and the applicable design guidance. Use [Atlasly walkability context](/product/walkability-ai) as an early evidence aid where available, and retain the limitations with the output. The useful conclusion explains the destinations and journeys supported by the evidence, what remains uncertain and which interventions would need agreement and delivery. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks whether the walking route to a school uses an accessible crossing. It records an unresolved barrier before comparing route options. A score alone does not establish a safe route or justify a parking strategy. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is PTAL a national UK walkability score?** No. TfL’s PTAL is a London public-transport connectivity measure. It does not cover every aspect of walking or everyday access. **Does a high PTAL allow a fixed density?** No. Current London Plan policy takes a design-led approach informed by context and infrastructure, rather than the old density matrix. **Does a 15-minute catchment prove accessible service provision?** No. Route quality, opening times, capacity and individual needs must also be considered. **Can I quote Atlasly’s score as official PTAL?** Only where the output explicitly establishes the official source and method. Otherwise describe it as the stated Atlasly assessment and retain its assumptions. ## Conclusion Use access evidence to improve the layout and the brief. Keep the transport metric, route assumptions and planning judgement separate so a convenient score does not become an unsupported development entitlement. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-much-does-a-planning-application-cost-uk-2026 - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 ## Sources - [Planning with WebCAT](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat) · Transport for London - [London Plan: design and infrastructure](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/the-london-plan-2021-online/chapter-3-design) · Greater London Authority --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-15-minute-city-walkability-score-uk-sites Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "AI Tools for UK Architects: A Practical Evaluation Guide (2026)" description: "Evaluate AI tools for UK architecture by task, source quality and review effort. Compare site research, early design and documentation without unsupported rankings." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "AI tools UK architects" target_query: "AI tools UK architects" intent: commercial --- # AI Tools for UK Architects: A Practical Evaluation Guide (2026) > Evaluate AI tools for UK architecture by task, source quality and review effort. Compare site research, early design and documentation without unsupported rankings. ## Quick Answer The right AI tool for a UK architecture practice depends on the task and the evidence it can support. Evaluate site research, early design and document assistance separately. Require source traceability, current local coverage, usable outputs and human review; no tool or ranking establishes planning acceptability. ## Introduction Start with a real task your practice needs to complete, then decide what a useful and trustworthy output would look like. A polished image, a planning summary and a site-evidence pack need different checks. We build Atlasly. This guide describes an evaluation method and links to documented product scope; it is not an independent market survey. We have no verified evidence to rank the tools most used by UK architects or to claim that Atlasly is the most complete or fastest option. ## Site research: can you inspect the evidence? For a site-research tool, select a location with a known constraint and one with incomplete records. Check whether the output identifies its sources, dates and geographic coverage and makes missing information visible. Atlasly supports [early site analysis](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) and [access through compatible assistants](/mcp). Read the [methodology and limits](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits), inspect material findings in their primary sources, and check the [current account allowances](/pricing). Availability depends on the place, data layer and workflow; this is not a guarantee of complete local records or compliance. For another vendor, ask for the same evidence. Do not assume that a planning-focused assistant has or lacks maps, exports or current local data without checking its present product documentation. ## Early design: compare the assumptions behind the output Autodesk describes [Forma Site Design](https://help.autodesk.com/view/BUILD/ENU/?guid=About_Autodesk_Construction_Cloud_Forma&p=DOCS) as supporting early design with contextual data and environmental analysis. Test the particular analysis and exchange workflow you need rather than treating a product-family name as a feature guarantee. When evaluating concept imagery, keep the design inputs and any altered geometry visible. A generated image does not establish dimensional accuracy, buildability or environmental performance. For spatial handovers, use the [3D context export checklist](/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture) to check scale, location and missing elements before continuing design work. ## Documents: can a reviewer trace each material statement? For a drafting assistant, provide a bounded set of project notes and approved sources. Ask for a draft that distinguishes project facts from assumptions and flags missing information. A reviewer should be able to trace each material planning statement to its actual source, document version and relevant passage. Do not treat a plausible reference as a verified citation. Check it in the original source. Review the service's current data-handling terms and your practice's confidentiality requirements before supplying project material. Keep professional judgement and sign-off with the appointed team. ## A practical trial scorecard Use the same brief and record these results for each candidate: 1. **Task completion:** did the output address the specified question? 2. **Evidence:** which material statements could be verified, and which could not? 3. **Coverage:** what was missing, stale or outside the supported scope? 4. **Correction effort:** what had to be redrawn, rewritten or researched separately? 5. **Handover:** could another person open and understand the output and its assumptions? 6. **Commercial fit:** what are the actual plan, seat, data and export limits? Record setup and review time separately from generation time. Repeat on more than one representative task before making a practice-wide purchasing decision. This is a proposed evaluation method, not a claim that we have performed the tests. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: a practice asks two tools to summarise the same approved site notes. One draft looks polished but cites a policy that the reviewer cannot locate. The team marks that statement unverified and checks the original source before using it. No measured productivity result is claimed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What are the best AI tools for UK architects in 2026?** This guide does not establish a universal ranking. Evaluate the tools against your actual site-research, early-design or documentation task, checking evidence, coverage, correction effort and outputs. **Can an assistant determine whether a proposal will receive permission?** A generated answer does not establish planning acceptability. Review the relevant current development plan and other material considerations with the appropriate professional input. **Has Atlasly tested all the products in this guide?** No. We disclose our Atlasly affiliation and distinguish documented scope from a suggested evaluation method. We do not claim an independent market survey or comparative performance test. **How can I evaluate Atlasly?** Start with a representative site using the available demo or account workflow, inspect the source links and missing information, and check whether the output supports your next decision. Verify current allowances on the pricing page. ## Conclusion Choose tools whose outputs your team can inspect and use responsibly. Start with the [recorded demonstration](/demo), then evaluate a representative task. The [feasibility comparison](/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects) provides a more detailed checklist for site and design decisions. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-real-estate-feasibility-analysis-software-ai-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide ## Sources - [Forma Site Design overview](https://help.autodesk.com/view/BUILD/ENU/?guid=About_Autodesk_Construction_Cloud_Forma&p=DOCS) · Autodesk --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Explained: A Practical Architects Guide for 2026" description: "How England’s statutory biodiversity net gain regime affects site layout, ecology evidence, delivery and management, including the August 2026 exemption changes." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-bng-explained-architects published: 2026-04-22 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "biodiversity net gain" target_query: "biodiversity net gain explained for architects" intent: informational --- # Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Explained: A Practical Architects Guide for 2026 > How England’s statutory biodiversity net gain regime affects site layout, ecology evidence, delivery and management, including the August 2026 exemption changes. ## Quick Answer Biodiversity net gain is a measured improvement against a habitat baseline. England’s statutory regime generally requires at least 10% for development within scope, but exemptions and transition dates matter. Establish habitat evidence and the correct metric before relying on an early landscape or viability assumption. ## Introduction The useful architectural question is not simply whether a plan contains enough green space. It is which habitats exist, what the proposal retains or changes, and whether the intended outcome can be delivered and managed. BNG can affect site layout and responsibilities long after construction. This guide addresses England’s statutory planning regime as reviewed on 12 September 2026. Do not transfer its percentage, exemptions or approval process to another UK nation. ## Start with applicability, not a universal charge Mandatory BNG does not apply to every project. The [government’s planning guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain) sets the eligibility and transition rules. Applications from 6 August 2026 have a new small-site exemption at no more than 0.2 hectares, subject to no impact on onsite priority habitat. Earlier self/custom-build exemptions and section 73 cases need their own date-sensitive checks. Keep evidence of the site area and habitat assessment used for an exemption. An exemption from the biodiversity gain condition does not answer separate questions about designated sites, protected species, ancient woodland or local policy. ## How the habitat baseline affects design A competent assessment must distinguish habitats, their extent and condition. Existing mapping can guide survey scoping but may miss recent changes or habitats beneath a broad land-use label. Ask for the survey date, methodology and any inaccessible areas. Investigate whether past habitat degradation affects the statutory baseline rather than assuming the current appearance is always sufficient. Mark retained habitat and construction protection on the same coordinated plan as building footprints, levels, drainage, utilities and temporary works. This reveals conflicts before a preferred option becomes expensive to revise. ## Understand units and delivery risks Use the [statutory metric guidance and tools](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/calculate-biodiversity-value-with-the-statutory-biodiversity-metric), including the Small Sites Metric only where its eligibility conditions are met. Do not call the current statutory tool “Metric 4.0”. Area habitats, hedgerows and watercourses use separate unit types and trading rules. A positive total in one category cannot automatically repair a deficit in another. A proposed woodland does not instantly have the value of an established woodland. Delivery time, difficulty and location can affect the calculation. Ancient woodland and other irreplaceable habitats need their own treatment; they cannot be treated as ordinary high-value habitat that any surplus can replace. ## Choose an achievable delivery strategy Compare habitat retention and enhancement with the realistic space needed for the project. A green roof, rain garden or planting proposal needs appropriate habitat classification and management assumptions; it is not automatically a fixed biodiversity credit. Obtain quotes for the actual delivery route rather than using an unsourced nationwide price per unit. The August 2026 minor-development changes allow qualifying non-exempt minor schemes to consider onsite and offsite gains together. For other cases, establish the applicable hierarchy. Distinguish registered offsite gains from government statutory credits, and record who will arrange any allocation, registration and legal securing. ## Separate application evidence from the gain plan Identify the biodiversity information required with the planning application and the gain plan that normally needs approval before commencement. Do not defer habitat investigations until that condition is due: the early layout must remain capable of delivering the assumed outcome. For significant onsite enhancements and offsite gains, establish the applicable long-term management and securing arrangements, generally at least 30 years. Agree responsibilities, access, monitoring, costs and remedies with the relevant advisers. Avoid promising that every minor landscape feature must appear in the same legal agreement. ## A practical architect–ecologist handover Issue the ecologist a boundary plan and a revision-controlled layout including temporary works and service corridors. Request a marked-up baseline, proposed habitat plan, metric file, assumptions, outstanding surveys and delivery issues. Carry habitat decisions into specifications and maintenance information. If a retained tree, drainage feature or roof build-up changes during design, ask whether that affects the assessment. The [Atlasly unit-uplift calculator](/tools/bng-calculator) can illustrate arithmetic using supplied metric units; it is not the habitat survey, statutory metric or approval process. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares landscape options against a provisional habitat baseline, marks the assumptions and commissions the appropriate ecology input. A desktop calculator does not establish the statutory baseline or remove approval requirements. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is BNG required for every small site?** No. Exemptions changed on 6 August 2026. Check application date, site area, priority habitat and the other applicable conditions rather than assuming all small sites are in scope. **Can I add hedgerow units to habitat-area units?** No. Use the separate metric categories and their rules. A combined single score can hide a shortfall. **Must the entire gain plan be approved before planning permission?** Normally the biodiversity gain condition requires approval of the gain plan before commencement. Information is also required at the application stage; confirm both stages for the proposal. **Does more planted area guarantee compliance?** No. Baseline evidence, habitat type and condition, delivery risks, trading rules and the securing of gains all matter. ## Conclusion Make biodiversity decisions alongside the layout and document the evidence behind them. The useful output is a deliverable, maintainable habitat proposal with a traceable assessment, not a landscape percentage presented as automatic compliance. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/heritage-ecology-constraints-site-analysis ## Sources - [BNG planning guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain) · GOV.UK - [Statutory metric](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/calculate-biodiversity-value-with-the-statutory-biodiversity-metric) · GOV.UK - [Current exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-bng-explained-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Daylight and Sunlight Analysis (BRE 209): What Architects Actually Need to Know" description: "How to scope a daylight and sunlight assessment using BRE BR 209 (2022), distinguish advisory targets from planning decisions, and retain the evidence behind design comparisons." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/daylight-sunlight-analysis-bre-209-architects-guide published: 2026-04-25 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "daylight sunlight analysis" target_query: "BRE 209 daylight analysis for architects" intent: informational --- # Daylight and Sunlight Analysis (BRE 209): What Architects Actually Need to Know > How to scope a daylight and sunlight assessment using BRE BR 209 (2022), distinguish advisory targets from planning decisions, and retain the evidence behind design comparisons. ## Quick Answer BRE BR 209 (2022) is advisory guidance for daylight and sunlight, not a statutory pass/fail code. Select the appropriate tests for existing neighbours, new rooms and amenity spaces with a specialist. Assess the surveyed geometry and assumptions, local context and relevant policy; a solar diagram or single threshold does not establish planning acceptability. ## Introduction Daylight questions become useful when they are tied to actual receptors: a neighbouring living-room window, a new bedroom or a shared garden. Identify these before fixing a massing option. A generic shadow graphic cannot answer every one of those questions. This guide was reviewed against the publisher’s current BR 209 information on 12 September 2026. It explains an assessment workflow without reproducing the complete technical standard or claiming a legal compliance test. ## Which guidance applies? The [BRE publisher’s description](https://bregroup.com/store/bookshop/site-layout-planning-for-daylight-and-sunlight-a-guide-to-good-practice-br-209-2022-edition) identifies the 2022 edition, which revises the 2011 guide and is intended to work alongside BS EN 17037 for interior daylight in new buildings. BRE explicitly describes its numerical targets as advisory and potentially adaptable to the development and location. Use the current guide and a justified methodology agreed for the proposal. A locally appropriate interpretation must be explained; it is not a licence to select convenient targets after seeing the result. ## Separate neighbouring daylight, new rooms and sunlight Existing-neighbour assessment may consider vertical sky component and daylight distribution where appropriate. New-room assessment addresses the actual room, window and internal conditions using the applicable method. Sunlight exposure and sunlight to amenity areas involve different receptors and measures. Do not label a median daylight-factor figure as the complete BS EN 17037 method. Do not combine VSC, sunlight and room-daylight criteria into one general “BRE score”. Ask the specialist to explain the relevant tests, affected receptors and why each is appropriate. ## Avoid isolated threshold claims A percentage without its comparison and test conditions can be misleading. Keep threshold, proportional-change and contextual criteria distinct when interpreting the applicable method. Request a results table containing existing and proposed values, absolute and proportional change where relevant, receptor use, adopted targets and a reasoned assessment. Apply the complete method from the guide, including eligibility and contextual considerations. Technical results inform the planning judgement; they do not determine it automatically. ## Get the geometry and assumptions right Coordinate surveyed building heights, window positions, levels, balconies, boundary structures and rooftop plant. Identify any room layouts or internal dimensions that could not be measured. State how trees and other obstructions have been treated and assess material uncertainty. Compare revisions against the same baseline, weather data and assumptions. A difference caused by changing inputs should not be presented as a design improvement. Keep the version of the context and the proposed massing with each result. ## Use the findings while the design can change Test an initial option, then consider the effect of shifting height, setting back an upper floor, changing a courtyard or adjusting window arrangements. Review daylight alongside overheating, ventilation, privacy, aspect and internal planning. Improving one measure can create another problem. Commission the necessary assessment in time for the planning submission and design decisions; a RIBA stage label alone does not determine a statutory submission deadline. [Atlasly site context](/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) can support early orientation and massing discussion, but should not be described as a surveyed BRE assessment or a guarantee against refusal. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team identifies neighbouring windows that may be affected by an option and commissions an appropriately scoped daylight assessment before fixing the massing. The early view identifies a question rather than demonstrating compliance. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is BRE 209 legally binding?** The guide is advisory. Applicable planning policy, the proposal and the decision-maker’s assessment determine its relevance and interpretation. **Does a shadow image prove compliance?** No. It may illustrate a particular time and date but does not replace the relevant daylight or sunlight tests. **Are rights of light the same assessment?** No. Private rights of light are a separate legal matter, even where survey information can be shared. **Can all daylight results be reduced to one threshold?** No. The relevant receptors, complete method, assumptions and context must be considered. ## Conclusion Scope the receptors, commission suitable evidence and compare options consistently. Present the complete method and limitations with the results, rather than describing an isolated number as planning clearance. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture ## Sources - [BR 209, 2022 edition](https://bregroup.com/store/bookshop/site-layout-planning-for-daylight-and-sunlight-a-guide-to-good-practice-br-209-2022-edition) · BRE - [Daylighting and sunlighting guidance](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/land-standards/daylighting-sunlighting) · RICS --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/daylight-sunlight-analysis-bre-209-architects-guide Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Permitted Development Rights in England: What Architects Should Check in 2026" description: "An updated PDR guide for English architects: Class MA, Class E to C3, householder PD, prior approval triggers, and the schemes worth testing before going to full planning." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/permitted-development-rights-2026-uk-architects published: 2026-05-02 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "permitted development rights" target_query: "permitted development rights 2026 UK architects" intent: informational --- # Permitted Development Rights in England: What Architects Should Check in 2026 > An updated PDR guide for English architects: Class MA, Class E to C3, householder PD, prior approval triggers, and the schemes worth testing before going to full planning. ## Quick Answer Permitted development is a national grant of planning permission for defined work that meets the applicable conditions and limitations. Some routes require prior approval; many ordinary householder routes do not. Check the exact class, current legislation, planning conditions and any Article 4 direction. England’s Class MA no longer has the former 1,500 m² ceiling or three-month vacancy requirement. ## Introduction A permitted-development review is an eligibility exercise tied to a particular building and proposal. It is useful before developing an option, but a class name on a checklist is not an approval. This guide covers England, with sources reviewed on 12 September 2026. Other UK nations use different orders. Keep a written record of the building’s lawful use, history, dimensions, designation status and the precise works proposed. Those facts determine which route is worth investigating. ## What the permission covers The General Permitted Development Order grants permission subject to the limitations and conditions of the relevant class. Prior approval is required only where the class provides for it; it is incorrect to say permitted development almost always requires prior approval. A lawful development certificate may be useful to establish the lawfulness of a proposed scheme, but it does not replace a required prior approval. The government’s [when permission is required guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/when-is-permission-required) explains the general framework. Building regulations, listed building consent and private rights remain separate. ## Class MA: check the amended commercial-to-residential route Class MA concerns specified commercial, business and service uses changing to dwellinghouses. The [2024 amendment](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/141/pdfs/uksi_20240141_en.pdf), effective **5 March 2024**, removed the three-month vacancy condition and the floorspace upper limit. A current appraisal must not reject a building solely because it exceeds the old 1,500 m² ceiling. That removal does not make every Class E building eligible. Check the current qualifying use-history provisions, excluded sites and buildings, any withdrawn rights, and all prior-approval matters against the [consolidated Class MA](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/3/crossheading/class-ma-commercial-business-and-service-uses-to-dwellinghouses). Retain evidence of actual lawful use; a commercial estate-agent description is not enough. Use the current text for the precise application information and assessment requirements. ## Householder classes are not interchangeable Under Part 1, Class A deals with enlargement, improvement and alteration; Class B covers roof enlargements; Class C covers other roof alterations. Class AA is an additional-storey route, not the general rear-roof route. The upward-extension provisions in Part 20 are separate and depend on the building and works; there is no general “Class V purpose-built upward extension” shortcut. Use the [householder technical guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance) for its explained classes and diagrams, checking later amendments in the current Order. An older guidance publication cannot establish the terms of a class introduced later. Establish the original building, subsequent additions and applicable dimensional rules from evidence. ## Check restrictions and other permissions Obtain the operative Article 4 direction and its map, date and schedule of withdrawn rights. A direction may withdraw specified rights in a defined area; it does not automatically remove every class throughout an authority. Also inspect earlier permission conditions and the class-specific treatment of designated land. List separate approvals and constraints: building control, listed building consent where needed, protected trees and species, drainage, highways and private rights. Consider CIL liability and any notice or exemption procedure for the actual scheme. Permitted development should not be described as automatically free of contributions or consent requirements. ## Prepare a reviewable route assessment For each candidate route, create four columns: exact provision, relevant site fact, supporting document and unresolved issue. Confirm which works the route actually authorises; external alterations may need a different class or a planning application. Identify prior-approval requirements before setting the programme or fee. Use [Atlasly’s planning context](/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk) to organise available evidence, then verify local directions and the legal route. If a condition cannot be evidenced, keep the route conditional and investigate it before the client relies on it. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks the current permitted-development legislation, use history, restrictions and prior-approval requirements before recommending a route. It does not assume that an older area threshold or a neighbouring approval applies. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does Class MA still have a 1,500 m² limit?** The national Class MA floorspace upper limit was removed from 5 March 2024. Other eligibility conditions, restrictions and prior-approval requirements still apply. **Is Class AA the route for a rear dormer?** No. Class B is the Part 1 roof-enlargement class; Class AA concerns additional storeys. Check all applicable limitations and conditions. **Does every permitted development need prior approval?** No. The requirement depends on the class and proposal. Do not start work while a required prior-approval process remains outstanding. **Do the same classes apply across the UK?** No. This article covers the English order. Check the separate legislation for the relevant nation. ## Conclusion Choose a permitted-development route by matching current provisions to documented facts. An apparently suitable class is the start of the review; confirm conditions, prior approval and separate consents before relying on it. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/uk-planning-compliance-checker-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Class MA amendment, effective 5 March 2024](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/141/pdfs/uksi_20240141_en.pdf) · legislation.gov.uk - [Householder technical guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/permitted-development-rights-2026-uk-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "US Zoning 101 for Architects: FAR, Setbacks, Overlays, and What Actually Decides a Scheme" description: "A practical framework for researching US zoning: identify the jurisdiction, use current maps and code text, check overlays and distinguish a theoretical FAR calculation from development entitlement." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/us-zoning-101-for-architects-far-setbacks-overlays published: 2026-05-04 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "us zoning for architects" target_query: "us zoning 101 for architects" intent: informational --- # US Zoning 101 for Architects: FAR, Setbacks, Overlays, and What Actually Decides a Scheme > A practical framework for researching US zoning: identify the jurisdiction, use current maps and code text, check overlays and distinguish a theoretical FAR calculation from development entitlement. ## Quick Answer US zoning rules and procedures vary by jurisdiction. Identify the responsible authority, current district and special controls, then read the applicable text and amendment history. FAR, height, setbacks, use and procedure must be assessed together where they apply; no national formula or fixed review time establishes a parcel’s development entitlement. ## Introduction The same district abbreviation can mean different things in different cities. Some codes emphasise floor area, others lot coverage, form, density or combinations of controls. State law and other applicable requirements can also affect the local route. Use this as a research framework, with New York City and Washington, DC sources checked on 12 September 2026. It is not a statement of the rules in every US municipality. ## Establish the authority, parcel and current documents Confirm the parcel and zoning lot used by the relevant rules; these need not be interchangeable concepts. Locate the current official zoning map, controlling ordinance or resolution, amendments and any applicable site-specific approvals. A convenient map or handbook may be an aid rather than the legally controlling text. Washington, DC’s [Office of Zoning](https://dcoz.dc.gov/service/view-zoning-regulations) explicitly distinguishes its courtesy viewer from the official amended regulations. Record the source hierarchy and effective date in the site note. ## Read use, bulk, form and process together The [NYC Zoning Handbook 2025](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/about-us/publications/nyc-zoning-handbook-2025.pdf) is an introduction to that city’s system, including use and bulk controls. For an actual New York site, verify the applicable Zoning Resolution and map amendments. Do not transfer its district labels, definitions or bonuses to another city. Build a schedule of the controls that actually apply: use, floor area, height, setbacks, lot coverage, frontage, parking and other relevant provisions. Record any cross-references, qualifying conditions and definitions. A use entry alone does not establish that a particular building form is permitted. ## What a FAR calculation does and does not show FAR expresses the ratio of the floor area counted under the applicable zoning definition to the relevant lot area. In an illustrative case, FAR 2.0 × a 10,000-square-foot zoning lot gives 20,000 square feet of zoning floor area. That arithmetic does not establish 20,000 square feet of gross building area or a buildable design. Check counted and excluded areas, height, setbacks, lot coverage, uses and any special provisions. A theoretical floor-area allowance can be constrained by other requirements. Label the example as illustrative, not as a benchmark for an unreviewed site. ## Identify special controls and the decision route Review special districts, historic designations, flood requirements, affordable-housing provisions and any other controls relevant to the parcel. Do not assume every transit overlay awards a bonus, every historic designation overrides all zoning or every residential project must provide affordable units. The applicable text and triggers decide that. “By right” generally describes a route within the relevant rules, but does not mean no permits, no other review or a guaranteed fast programme. Variances, special permits, conditional uses and rezoning have jurisdiction-specific criteria. The [DC statute](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/6/chapters/6/index.full.html), for example, distinguishes practical difficulties and hardship; a single nationwide “unique hardship” test would be misleading. ## Write a conditional development assessment Separate confirmed controls from interpretation and missing information. Record the district, source date, proposed use, numerical assumptions, applicable special controls and next authority or specialist enquiry. Check the role of the comprehensive plan under the local and state framework rather than assuming it has the same legal effect everywhere. Atlasly’s [US zoning directory](/zoning/us) can help locate jurisdiction information. It should not be described as a verified parcel-specific zoning determination for every major city. The useful output is a traceable research note, not a guaranteed yes/no answer in one afternoon. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team reads the base district, overlays and current code together for the same parcel. It keeps a possible height or area allowance provisional until applicability, conditions and the relevant authority records are checked. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What does FAR 2.0 mean?** It permits a ratio of two units of counted zoning floor area per unit of the applicable lot area, where that rule applies. Other controls and the local floor-area definition still matter. **Is US zoning one federal code?** No. Local rules, state frameworks and other applicable laws interact. Verify the jurisdiction rather than assuming a single national system. **Does by-right mean no other approvals?** No. The relevant permits, other regulations and local procedures still need review. **Is there one national variance test?** No. The applicable law and type of variance determine the criteria and process. ## Conclusion Read the current map and controlling text together, then connect them to the defined parcel and proposal. Keep illustrative arithmetic separate from a verified development entitlement. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-read-a-zoning-map - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [NYC Zoning Handbook 2025](https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/downloads/pdf/about-us/publications/nyc-zoning-handbook-2025.pdf) · New York City Department of City Planning - [Official and courtesy zoning regulations](https://dcoz.dc.gov/service/view-zoning-regulations) · DC Office of Zoning - [DC zoning statute](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/6/chapters/6/index.full.html) · Council of the District of Columbia --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/us-zoning-101-for-architects-far-setbacks-overlays Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Embodied Carbon for Architects in 2026: A Practical Guide That Actually Changes Decisions" description: "Compare embodied-carbon options with consistent quantities, boundaries and product evidence, and check project-specific assessment requirements before claiming compliance." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/embodied-carbon-architects-2026-practical-guide published: 2026-05-06 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "embodied carbon for architects" target_query: "embodied carbon practical guide architects 2026" intent: informational --- # Embodied Carbon for Architects in 2026: A Practical Guide That Actually Changes Decisions > Compare embodied-carbon options with consistent quantities, boundaries and product evidence, and check project-specific assessment requirements before claiming compliance. ## Quick Answer Embodied-carbon assessment accounts for material and construction-related emissions across a defined life cycle. Compare options using consistent quantities, service life, scope and environmental product data. A material label or generic savings percentage cannot establish a lower-carbon building, and there is no single UK-wide planning assessment requirement for every project. ## Introduction Carbon decisions are most useful while the team can still test retention, structure, spans, quantities and replacement assumptions. Start with a comparable baseline rather than a preferred material and an unsourced savings percentage. This guide was reviewed on 12 September 2026. It distinguishes a useful design comparison from the specific assessment required by a planning authority, client or procurement brief. ## Define the boundary and the question Upfront carbon commonly concerns product and construction stages A1–A5. Whole-life assessment also considers use, replacement and end-of-life stages as appropriate. Operational energy and water sit in B6 and B7; benefits and loads beyond the system boundary are reported separately in module D. State the reference study period, included elements, area denominator and exclusions. A result limited to the structure cannot be compared directly with a whole-building result. Avoid presenting a module D benefit as if it cancels immediate emissions without showing the separate totals. ## Check what the project actually requires London’s Policy SI 2 requires whole-life-cycle assessment for proposals referable to the Mayor. The [GLA guidance](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/whole-life-carbon-assessments-london-plan-guidance) explains the submission stages and assessment approach. That requirement should not be described as a blanket rule for every UK application. Elsewhere, check the adopted local policy, validation requirements, procurement documents and client brief. Distinguish a mandatory submission from a voluntary design study or certification target. Record the required methodology and edition before commissioning the work. ## Compare retention and new construction fairly Assess a retention option before assuming demolition and replacement. Record what is retained, what must be repaired, any strengthening, the replacement programme and operational implications. Existing fabric does not automatically have an unlimited remaining life. For the new-build option, use equivalent accommodation and performance requirements. Show the changes in quantities and service-life assumptions. Do not promise a fixed 200–400 kgCO₂e/m² saving for every retrofit: the baseline and scope determine the result. ## Use product evidence instead of generic material rankings Obtain relevant environmental product declarations and check declared units, geography, manufacturing route, scope and validity. Compare quantities needed to meet the same structural, fire, acoustic, durability and maintenance requirements. Timber, recycled steel or lower-clinker concrete may be worth testing, but a material category alone does not guarantee a particular percentage saving. Consider biogenic-carbon accounting, sourcing, replacement and end-of-life assumptions explicitly. A concrete specification also needs technical review for performance, availability and construction programme. ## Keep the assessment connected to the drawings Use a quantity schedule linked to drawing and specification revisions. Identify provisional allowances, missing products and elements excluded from the comparison. Test sensitivity where an assumption materially changes the option ranking. Record the chosen option and why it was preferred, then update the assessment as quantities and products become known. Do not assume planning always coincides with RIBA Stage 4; commission evidence when the project’s actual submission and design decisions require it. Atlasly context can support early site questions, but a verified whole-life carbon calculation requires its own quantities, method and evidence. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team compares retain-and-extend and replacement options using the same assessment boundary and declared quantity assumptions. It records uncertain quantities instead of presenting an early estimate as a verified carbon saving. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is embodied carbon mandatory for every UK planning application?** No universal requirement is established here. Check the relevant jurisdiction, local policy and client or procurement requirements; London referable applications have a specific requirement. **Is timber always lower carbon?** No. Assess the actual quantities, product evidence and life-cycle assumptions for equivalent performance. **Can I compare two kgCO₂e/m² figures directly?** Only when scope, stages, study period, area definition and other material assumptions are comparable. **Can an early estimate be used unchanged at completion?** It should be updated for the actual quantities, products and assessment requirements as the design and construction information develops. ## Conclusion Define a consistent assessment before comparing options. Retain the quantities, product evidence and assumptions so the carbon decision can be reviewed as the design develops. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-bng-explained-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [Whole Life Carbon Assessments guidance](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/whole-life-carbon-assessments-london-plan-guidance) · Greater London Authority --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/embodied-carbon-architects-2026-practical-guide Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Site Due Diligence: 30 Questions Every Developer Should Answer Before Exchange" description: "A working developer checklist of 30 site due diligence questions covering planning, environmental, legal, physical, and market risks before exchange of contracts." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions published: 2026-05-08 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "site due diligence checklist" target_query: "site due diligence checklist for developers" intent: informational --- # Site Due Diligence: 30 Questions Every Developer Should Answer Before Exchange > A working developer checklist of 30 site due diligence questions covering planning, environmental, legal, physical, and market risks before exchange of contracts. ## Quick Answer Site due diligence tests planning, environmental, legal, physical and market assumptions before a capital commitment. These 30 questions provide a starting structure, not a complete search or a guarantee that the deal is safe. Commission the investigations needed for the actual site and decision. ## Introduction Before relying on a site appraisal, identify the assumptions that could change the purchase, design or delivery strategy. The checklist below helps organise that enquiry. Its order should be adapted to the site and the information already available. Treat the list as a working framework and keep additional site-specific questions visible. ## Planning (questions 1 to 8) 1. What is the allocation in the adopted local plan? 2. What is the relevant planning history, including older permissions and restrictions that may still matter? 3. Are there any extant planning permissions and what are their conditions? 4. Is there an Article 4 direction over any PDR class? 5. Is the site in a conservation area, AONB, or National Park? 6. Are there listed buildings on the site or within the immediate setting? 7. What is the relevant LPA Officer view on the indicative scheme (informal pre-app)? 8. What CIL and Section 106 exposure should be modelled into the appraisal? ## Environmental and physical (questions 9 to 16) 9. What flood zone is the site in (1, 2, 3a, 3b)? 10. Is there a surface water flood risk on the actual parcel? 11. What do historic uses, environmental records and a proportionate contamination assessment show? Absence from a register does not prove clean ground. 12. Are there any TPOs (Tree Preservation Orders) on or adjacent to the site? 13. Which habitat or species surveys and BNG eligibility checks are needed for this proposal and application date? 14. What is the slope profile and likely retaining cost? 15. Are there any underground utilities, easements, or oversail rights? 16. What is the ground conditions risk (made ground, mining, alluvium, peat)? ## Legal and title (questions 17 to 22) 17. Is the title freehold or leasehold? If leasehold, what are the terms? 18. Are there any restrictive covenants on the title? 19. Are there overage clauses, clawback, or option agreements affecting future value? 20. Are there any rights of way, prescriptive or formal, across the site? 21. Does the proposed work trigger Party Wall Act notices, and is the statutory dispute-resolution process needed? 22. Are there any rights to light claims from neighbouring properties? ## Market and delivery (questions 23 to 30) 23. What are the achievable sales values per sqm in the immediate market? 24. What is the absorption rate for the indicative product mix? 25. What is the realistic build cost benchmark for this typology in this market? 26. What are the BCIS or local QS comparables for similar schemes? 27. What is the realistic planning timeline (months from purchase to permission)? 28. What is the construction programme (months from start to PC)? 29. What is the exit strategy (sale, refinance, hold)? 30. What is the breakeven margin if any major risk above hits? ## Use the checklist with the correct legal and evidence scope The planning examples focus on England; title and Party Wall Act references below concern England and Wales. Confirm the framework elsewhere. A title plan normally shows general boundaries, not the exact legal line: see [HM Land Registry guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-read-a-title-register-and-title-plan/how-to-read-a-title-plan). Ask the solicitor to investigate title, rights and restrictions and resolve material discrepancies with survey evidence. The [Party Wall Act booklet](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-and-resolving-disputes-in-relation-to-party-walls/the-party-wall-etc-act-1996-explanatory-booklet) distinguishes notices, consent and dispute resolution. An award is not automatic for every relevant operation. Separately, check the [current BNG exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) and survey requirements; neither mapped habitat nor a ten-year search limit establishes a complete legal review. Record an owner, evidence source, date, consequence and next action for each of the 30 questions. A seller’s pack is an input to be checked, not a substitute for the buyer’s scoped investigation. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A desktop review identifies a former potentially contaminative use. The team records the evidence and commissions the appropriate investigation before treating a remediation allowance as a reliable project cost. ## Frequently Asked Questions **When should due diligence start?** Before any non-refundable money is committed. The most expensive due diligence finding is the one made after exchange. **How long does proper due diligence take?** Programme depends on the legal enquiries, source availability, site access, seasonal surveys and specialist work required. Obtain a scoped programme; a generic two-to-four-week promise is not dependable. **Who pays for due diligence?** Costs and reliance arrangements should be agreed in the transaction. Check the scope, provenance and permitted reliance of any seller-provided reports. **Is site due diligence different from a site survey?** Yes. Surveys (topographic, structural, MEP, ecological) are inputs into due diligence. Due diligence is the broader exercise of testing the deal as a whole. ## Conclusion Use the questions to build a dated risk and action record. Atlasly can help organise available desktop evidence, but it does not answer half of every legal and technical checklist automatically or replace the appointed advisers. To keep the answers with the site, record each one as a finding against its source document in [Atlasly Developments](/product/developments). ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [Title plan limits](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-read-a-title-register-and-title-plan/how-to-read-a-title-plan) · GOV.UK - [Party Wall Act explanatory booklet](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-and-resolving-disputes-in-relation-to-party-walls/the-party-wall-etc-act-1996-explanatory-booklet) · GOV.UK - [BNG exemptions](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain-exempt-developments) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "What Is a Development Appraisal? Profit on Cost, Profit on GDV and Residual Land Value" description: "A plain guide to development appraisals for property and real estate developers: the two forms, profit on cost versus profit on GDV, how an appraisal differs from a valuation, and how to test it." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-development-appraisal published: 2026-09-23 modified: 2026-09-23 primary_keyword: "development appraisal" target_query: "what is a development appraisal profit on cost vs profit on GDV" intent: informational --- # What Is a Development Appraisal? Profit on Cost, Profit on GDV and Residual Land Value > A plain guide to development appraisals for property and real estate developers: the two forms, profit on cost versus profit on GDV, how an appraisal differs from a valuation, and how to test it. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer A development appraisal sets a scheme's gross development value (GDV) against its costs. With the land price as an input, it gives the developer's profit, usually expressed as profit on cost or profit on GDV. With a target profit as an input, it gives the residual land value: what the scheme can afford to pay for the site. Profit on cost is always higher than profit on GDV for the same scheme (20% on GDV is 25% on cost). An appraisal rests on the developer's assumptions, so it is a decision tool, not a formal valuation. ## Introduction Every development decision eventually comes down to one question: does the scheme carry enough value to cover its land, its costs and the risk of building it? A development appraisal is how that question is answered, and how the answer is shared with a partner, an investment committee or a lender. The terms vary by market. UK and Irish developers usually talk about a development appraisal and profit on cost or on GDV. North American developers usually build a development pro forma, which adds a dated cash flow and return measures such as IRR. The underlying arithmetic is the same. ## What a development appraisal calculates RICS defines a development appraisal as a financial appraisal of a development that is "normally used to calculate either the residual site value or the residual development profit". Both forms start from the same place: the value of the completed scheme minus the cost of delivering it. - **Residual development profit.** The land price is known (agreed, offered or already paid), so it is treated as a cost. What is left after all costs is the developer's profit. - **Residual land value.** A target profit is treated as a cost instead. What is left is the most the scheme can afford to pay for the land. Which form to run depends on the decision. Before an offer, the land-value form tells you what the site can support. Once the price is fixed, the profit form tells you whether the scheme still earns enough for its risk, and what happens when the design, costs or sales values move. ## What goes into an appraisal A useful appraisal keeps every material input visible and separately stated: - **Gross development value (GDV):** expected sales receipts or capitalised rents for the completed scheme. - **Land and acquisition costs:** the price, plus taxes, legal and agency costs of buying it. - **Build costs:** construction, usually a rate per square metre or square foot of gross area, plus demolition, site works and any abnormal costs. - **Professional fees and contingency:** usually percentages of build cost. - **Planning obligations:** contributions, levies and affordable housing assumptions where they apply. - **Finance:** interest on the money borrowed over the programme. - **Selling costs:** agency, legal and marketing on disposal. - **Programme:** how long the scheme takes, which drives the finance cost. The appraisal is only as strong as these inputs. A single optimistic figure hidden inside a total is the most common way an appraisal misleads the people relying on it. ## Profit on cost vs profit on GDV Profit is GDV minus total costs, including land. It is then expressed as a percentage in one of two ways: - **Profit on cost** = profit ÷ total costs. It shows the return on the money spent. - **Profit on GDV** (also called profit on revenue) = profit ÷ GDV. It shows the share of the scheme's value kept as profit. For a scheme with a GDV of £10,000,000 and total costs of £8,000,000, profit is £2,000,000. That is **25% on cost** but **20% on GDV**. The two measures describe the same result, so always say which one a target refers to. To convert, profit on cost = profit on GDV ÷ (1 − profit on GDV): | Profit on GDV | Profit on cost | |---|---| | 15% | 17.6% | | 17.5% | 21.2% | | 20% | 25.0% | In England, the government's planning practice guidance on viability says a return of 15 to 20% of GDV may be considered suitable for plan making, while allowing other figures where the type, scale and risk of development justify them. Individual developers, partners and lenders set their own hurdles. ## A development appraisal is not a valuation An appraisal is the developer's own model of a scheme, built on the developer's assumptions for their own decision. A formal valuation of development property is a different exercise: it is carried out by a valuer under professional standards, for a stated purpose and basis of value, and reported accordingly. The two use similar arithmetic, which is why they are often confused. Treat an internal appraisal as evidence for a decision, not as a valuation for a lender, a purchaser or a court. If a formal valuation is needed, instruct one. ## Basic residual or cash flow RICS describes two ways of applying the residual method. A **basic residual** appraisal treats costs and receipts in simple totals, with finance approximated over the programme. It suits early decisions and less complex schemes. A **discounted cash flow** places each cost and receipt in the month or quarter it happens, which matters for phased delivery, staged sales and funding structures, and it produces an IRR. Most development teams start with the basic form to test a site and move to a cash flow as the scheme firms up and funding is arranged. A US development pro forma is usually the cash-flow form from the start. ## Test sensitivity before trusting one number An appraisal that shows one profit figure hides how fragile that figure is. Test what happens when the inputs move: - sales values fall by 5% or 10%; - build costs rise by 5% or 10%; - the land price changes; - the programme runs three or six months longer. If a modest change turns an acceptable margin into a loss, the appraisal is telling you where better evidence is needed before committing: cost advice, comparable sales, a firmer programme or a different land position. RICS guidance on viability in planning likewise expects scenario and sensitivity testing rather than a single outcome. ## Keep the appraisal tied to the scheme and the site Appraisals drift when they are copied between spreadsheets and the scheme moves on. Tie each appraisal to the exact option it prices (its homes, floorspace and storeys) and to the site evidence behind its assumptions, and record where each figure came from. [Atlasly Developments](/product/developments) runs both forms of a basic residual appraisal. Each appraisal is pinned to one option revision. Every input is tagged as supplied, an estimate or an assumption, and missing inputs stay "not known" rather than being filled in. It shows profit, profit on cost and profit on GDV, a cost breakdown, and sensitivity to sales, build cost, land price and programme. Finance is approximated as the annual rate on land, acquisition costs and half the construction spend over the programme. Set a target margin, on cost or on GDV, and it solves for the residual land value and shows it against the land price. For sites with existing homes, a keep-and-rent case values the current rent at a cap rate. It does not produce a dated cash flow or IRR, and it is not a valuation. The free [residual land value calculator](/tools/residual-land-value-calculator) gives a quick land-side screen without an account. Before exchange, work through the [site due diligence checklist](/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions). ## Illustrative example The most useful appraisal conversation is usually about the inputs, not the answer. A committee that can see which figures are supplied, which are estimates and which are still assumptions asks better questions than one shown a single margin to approve. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is a development appraisal?** A financial appraisal of a development that sets its gross development value against its costs. It is normally used to calculate either the developer's residual profit, when the land price is known, or the residual land value, when a target profit is set. **What is the difference between profit on cost and profit on GDV?** Profit on cost divides profit by total costs; profit on GDV divides it by gross development value. For the same scheme profit on cost is always higher: 20% on GDV equals 25% on cost. **What profit margin do property developers target?** It depends on the scheme's risk, type and funding. In England, planning guidance on viability treats 15 to 20% of GDV as a suitable return for plan making, but individual developers and lenders set their own hurdles. **Is a development appraisal the same as a valuation?** No. An appraisal is the developer's own model for a decision, built on its own assumptions. A formal valuation is carried out by a valuer under professional standards for a stated purpose and basis of value. **What is the difference between a development appraisal and a pro forma?** They answer the same question. A development pro forma, the usual North American term, typically lays costs and receipts out as a dated cash flow and reports IRR. A basic development appraisal uses simple totals with finance approximated over the programme. ## Conclusion A development appraisal is only as good as the inputs behind it and the honesty of its sensitivity testing. State which profit measure you are using, keep each figure's source visible, tie the appraisal to the exact scheme it prices, and treat it as evidence for a decision rather than a valuation. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/residual-land-value-early-feasibility-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis ## Sources - [Valuation of development property (definitions and the residual method)](https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/to-be-sorted/Valuation%20of%20development%20property_ready%20for%20approvals.pdf) · RICS - [Viability: planning practice guidance (return to developers)](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability) · GOV.UK - [Assessing viability in planning under the National Planning Policy Framework 2019](https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/standards/Assessing%20viability%20in%20planning%20under%20the%20National%20Planning%20Policy%20Framework%202019.pdf) · RICS (2019) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-development-appraisal Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs): What Architects Need to Check Before Designing" description: "How to check English TPOs, conservation-area tree notices and arboricultural evidence before fixing a site layout, without confusing survey categories with legal permissions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/tree-preservation-orders-tpo-architects-guide published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "tree preservation order architect" target_query: "tpo for architects" intent: informational --- # Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs): What Architects Need to Check Before Designing > How to check English TPOs, conservation-area tree notices and arboricultural evidence before fixing a site layout, without confusing survey categories with legal permissions. ## Quick Answer In England, check the actual Tree Preservation Order and conservation-area status before proposing tree work. A survey category is not consent to remove a tree. Dying or diseased trees are not automatically exempt. Confirm applicable consent or notice requirements and use an arboriculturist to assess tree condition, root protection and construction effects. ## Introduction A tree can affect layout, excavation, service routes, temporary access and future maintenance. Start the arboricultural review alongside the boundary and levels survey, before an option relies on removing a tree or working close to its roots. This guide covers England’s TPO and conservation-area framework, checked on 12 September 2026. The operative order, its plan and current local records are essential evidence; a missing symbol on a general map does not establish an absence of protection. ## Read the order, not just a map marker Obtain the TPO schedule and plan and check whether it protects an individual tree, group, area or woodland. Identify the relevant trees on the survey and resolve discrepancies with the authority. Group and woodland protection can be misunderstood if the review relies only on individual point records. Record the order reference, confirmation status, source date and proposed works. A landowner’s recollection or an arboricultural category is not a substitute for the operative record. ## Consent, notices and the dead-tree exception The [government TPO guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas) distinguishes consent from exceptions. A diseased or dying tree still needs consent unless another exception applies. For work on a dead tree, normally give at least five working days’ written notice; urgently necessary work addressing an immediate risk of serious harm has different notification requirements. Keep evidence supporting any exception. Trees in conservation areas can require six weeks’ notice even without a TPO, subject to exceptions including specified small-stem cases. Check the measurement and purpose of the work before relying on an exception. Unauthorised work may lead to prosecution and replacement duties; there is no single £20,000 cap applying to all tree offences. ## Commission a survey that can inform the layout Ask the arboriculturist to record species, dimensions, condition, retention categories and the design implications using the applicable BS 5837 approach. Request an assessment of neighbouring trees affected by the works as well as those inside the ownership boundary. Categories A, B, C and U communicate arboricultural assessment; they do not mean that every A tree is legally immovable or that a C or U tree can be removed without checking protection, habitat value and consent. Consider the reasons for retention and removal within the planning strategy. ## Root protection requires interpretation A root protection area is a design and construction safeguard informed by tree measurements and the arboricultural method. The simple single-stem calculation is not sufficient for every tree. Multi-stem trees, existing structures, rooting conditions and the distribution of roots can change the assessment. Have the arboriculturist mark the relevant area and explain any adjustment. Do not treat a circular desktop buffer as a measured root survey or an automatic no-build rule. Foundations, drainage, utility trenches, level changes, storage and construction traffic must all be assessed, not just the finished building footprint. ## Coordinate protection through construction Carry agreed retained trees, protective fencing and working restrictions into the coordinated drawings, specification and site setup. Check whether the proposed build sequence can actually respect those areas. Resolve conflicts with temporary access and deliveries before tender. Keep the consent conditions and any arboricultural method statement with the site information. Reassess changes rather than allowing an early diagram to drift away from the construction plan. Costs and response times should be obtained for the specific instruction and application; an unsourced fixed survey price or assumed five-day council decision is not a dependable programme. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks the authority record and seeks arboricultural advice before locating development near trees. A mapped point alone does not establish the tree protection area or a permissible building line. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can a dying protected tree be removed without consent?** Not merely because it is dying. Check whether another exception applies, including any immediate risk of serious harm, and follow the relevant notice requirements. **Does every conservation-area tree need six weeks’ notice?** The general notice regime has exceptions. Check stem dimensions, the work proposed and whether a TPO also applies with the authority. **Can a Category C tree be removed automatically?** No. The survey category does not override protection, planning conditions or other legal and ecological considerations. **Is a root protection circle a statutory boundary?** No. It is an arboricultural design tool requiring professional interpretation. The TPO’s scope and any consent conditions are separate. ## Conclusion Verify tree protection, obtain a survey suited to the proposed works and keep tree decisions coordinated with the construction strategy. Record unresolved legal or physical assumptions before committing to a layout. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/biodiversity-net-gain-bng-explained-architects ## Sources - [Tree Preservation Orders and conservation-area trees](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas) · GOV.UK - [Ancient and veteran tree standing advice](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/tree-preservation-orders-tpo-architects-guide Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Section 106 and CIL in England: Checks for a Feasibility Appraisal" description: "How to distinguish planning obligations and CIL, check local charging documents and record provisional liabilities, relief conditions and procedural responsibilities." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/section-106-cil-explained-architects-developers published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "section 106 cil explained" target_query: "section 106 vs cil" intent: informational --- # Section 106 and CIL in England: Checks for a Feasibility Appraisal > How to distinguish planning obligations and CIL, check local charging documents and record provisional liabilities, relief conditions and procedural responsibilities. ## Quick Answer In England, section 106 planning obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy are different mechanisms that can affect a development’s obligations and costs. CIL depends on an applicable charging regime and statutory calculation rules; planning obligations must meet the relevant legal tests. Establish the site-specific position with the authority and appropriate advisers before using figures in an appraisal. ## Introduction An early feasibility estimate should identify possible obligations without pretending a generic percentage is a confirmed liability. This guide addresses England. Rules and guidance for other UK jurisdictions must be checked separately, and local charging schedules and policies remain essential. ## Distinguish planning obligations from CIL Section 106 obligations are used in the planning context and can include financial or non-financial requirements. Government guidance identifies tests of necessity, direct relationship to the development, and fair and reasonable relationship in scale and kind. CIL is a separate levy where a charging authority has brought a charging schedule into effect. A site may involve one, both or neither; do not assume a universal combined rate. ## Check the current charging and policy documents Identify the charging authority, charging zone, development use and relevant dates. Read the current adopted charging schedule and applicable planning policies, including any affordable-housing requirements. Rates quoted for another borough, use or year are not a reliable site allowance. Discuss potential obligations early and document the status of each assumption. ## Do not infer CIL liability from added area alone Liability, deductions and relief depend on the statutory rules and facts of the proposal. Changes of use and retained or demolished floorspace need careful review; a simple claim that no added area means no CIL can be wrong. Assemble evidence of existing use and floorspace and obtain the authority’s calculation or appropriate advice. The CIL guidance explains the relevant conditions. ## Treat relief and procedure as part of the programme Exemptions or relief are not safe assumptions merely because a development has a particular label. Check eligibility, required claims, notices and timing before commencement, together with possible withdrawal or clawback. Confirm payment timing and any local instalment policy. Keep responsibility for each submission and deadline in the project programme. ## Use current indexation and transparent appraisal assumptions Use the applicable indexation method and calculation date; government guidance identifies the RICS CIL Index for the relevant annual indexation from 2020. Keep a provisional allowance separate from a confirmed liability. Do not use a generic percentage of development value or an unsupported borough rate as if it were agreed. Test uncertainty in the appraisal and ask the appropriate planning, legal and cost advisers to review material assumptions. ## Record obligations as deliverable project actions For each likely obligation, record the trigger, beneficiary or authority, estimated or agreed amount, delivery mechanism and evidence status. Negotiation and viability evidence do not automatically remove a policy requirement. Update the feasibility review when the authority position, design or programme changes. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks the applicable charging schedule and planning-obligation context before inserting an allowance in the appraisal. It distinguishes a provisional estimate from an agreed liability. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does every development pay both CIL and section 106 contributions?** No. The applicable regime, proposal and planning circumstances determine the position. **Can I assume a relief applies automatically?** No. Check its conditions and procedural requirements before relying on it. **Does a change of use with no extra floor area always avoid CIL?** No. The statutory calculation and relevant existing-use facts need review. **Can Atlasly confirm the final liability?** This article does not establish that capability. Use the authority’s site-specific position and appropriate professional advice. ## Conclusion Identify obligations early, then replace provisional assumptions with traceable authority documents and advice. Keep the appraisal, submission responsibilities and programme triggers aligned. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [Community Infrastructure Levy](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy) · MHCLG - [Planning obligations](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations) · MHCLG --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/section-106-cil-explained-architects-developers Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Phase 1 Desk Study: Reviewing Land-Contamination Risk in England" description: "What preliminary land-contamination assessment covers in England, including desk research, walkover, a conceptual site model and risk-based further investigation." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/phase-1-desk-study-contaminated-land-architects published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "phase 1 desk study contaminated land" target_query: "phase 1 contaminated land report" intent: informational --- # Phase 1 Desk Study: Reviewing Land-Contamination Risk in England > What preliminary land-contamination assessment covers in England, including desk research, walkover, a conceptual site model and risk-based further investigation. ## Quick Answer In England, a preliminary land-contamination assessment uses desk research and a site walkover to develop a conceptual site model and assess potential pollutant linkages. The next investigation depends on the identified risks and decision context. A desktop site-analysis layer does not replace this work by an appropriately competent person. ## Introduction Historic uses can raise questions that a current aerial image or constraint map will not answer. The purpose of an early contamination review is to identify plausible sources, pathways and receptors, explain uncertainty and decide what evidence is needed before the project proceeds. ## Set the jurisdiction and assessment purpose This guide follows England’s land-contamination guidance. Confirm the applicable regulator and planning authority for work elsewhere. Agree whether the assessment supports acquisition, a planning application, a condition or design development. The required scope depends on the site, proposed use and decision; a generic report title does not establish adequacy. ## Build the preliminary conceptual site model Gather relevant historic maps, records of former activities, geology and groundwater information, environmental records and previous investigations where available. Combine desk research with an appropriately planned site walkover. Identify possible contaminant sources, migration pathways and people, waters or other receptors that could be affected. Record evidence quality and gaps. ## Decide whether further investigation is needed Environment Agency LCRM starts risk assessment with a preliminary assessment. Where evidence cannot establish an acceptable risk, further investigation or assessment may be needed. A former industrial use is a reason to investigate the history, not proof of a particular contaminant or remediation requirement. The competent assessor should justify sampling and analysis against the conceptual model. ## Connect findings to the design without assuming a remedy A proposed basement, garden, drainage system or change of use can alter exposure and pathways. Discuss these changes with the relevant specialists before selecting a response. Soil removal, cover systems, treatment and other measures need site-specific design and verification. Do not assume that one excavation depth or a generic cost per cubic metre establishes a safe or sufficient solution. ## Budget from a defined scope Seek project-specific quotations for desk work, investigation, analysis and any remediation or verification. Ground conditions, access, contaminants, disposal classification and the intended use affect the scope. Waste classification and lawful handling require their own checks; a planning risk conclusion alone does not establish how excavated material may be disposed of. ## State what the early Atlasly review contributes Use available site context to identify questions and organise the next searches. This review does not verify complete historic land-use archives, contamination sampling or a competent-person contamination report in Atlasly. Record these as separate evidence tasks and retain specialist conclusions with the site review. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A desktop review identifies a former potentially contaminative use. The team records the evidence and commissions the appropriate investigation before treating a remediation allowance as a reliable project cost. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is a Phase 1 study the same as taking soil samples?** A preliminary assessment is primarily desk research, site walkover and risk assessment. Intrusive investigation, where required, is a further defined task. **Does an industrial history mean the site is contaminated?** It can indicate a potential source, but the relevant risks require evidence about contaminants, pathways and receptors. **Can this guide provide a reliable remediation budget?** No. Obtain advice and quotations against a site-specific scope. **Can a desktop map replace the competent-person assessment?** No. It can help identify questions but does not supply the required investigation and professional assessment. ## Conclusion Commission the evidence needed for the decision and keep its uncertainties visible. Connect contamination findings with the [due-diligence review](/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects), ground investigation and the evolving design. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist ## Sources - [LCRM: Stage 1 risk assessment](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-contamination-risk-management-lcrm/lcrm-stage-1-risk-assessment) · Environment Agency - [Land affected by contamination](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-affected-by-contamination) · MHCLG --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/phase-1-desk-study-contaminated-land-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Rights of Light: What Architects Designing in Dense Cities Need to Know" description: "A practical England-and-Wales guide to investigating private rights of light separately from planning daylight policy, with current RICS and Land Registry sources." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/rights-of-light-london-architects-guide published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "rights of light architect" target_query: "rights of light london architect" intent: informational --- # Rights of Light: What Architects Designing in Dense Cities Need to Know > A practical England-and-Wales guide to investigating private rights of light separately from planning daylight policy, with current RICS and Land Registry sources. ## Quick Answer A right of light is a private easement that can constrain development independently of planning permission. It may arise through a grant or prescription, including a qualifying 20-year period; that period is not the only route. Technical light-loss calculations inform specialist advice but do not create a universal legal pass/fail threshold. ## Introduction An urban scheme can secure planning permission while private rights of light remain unresolved. Review the neighbouring apertures, title information and building history early enough to compare design options. This article addresses England and Wales and was checked against primary professional and government sources on 12 September 2026. ## Separate planning daylight from private rights Planning daylight and sunlight assessment addresses the public planning decision. Rights of light concern private legal interests. A favourable planning assessment does not release an easement or determine a neighbour’s remedy. The [RICS rights-of-light professional standard](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/building-surveying-standards/rights-of-light) addresses this specialist work and the evidence expected from surveyors. Keep two workstreams in the programme: planning amenity assessment and legal/technical rights-of-light investigation. They may share survey geometry, but their questions and conclusions differ. ## Investigate whether a right exists Ask the solicitor to examine title documents, conveyances, leases, express rights, releases and the relevant history. Rights can arise through different legal routes. The [Land Registry guide to rights of light or air](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-to-light-or-air-pg62a/practice-guide-62a-rights-to-light-or-air) explains registration and prescriptive claims; the register alone should not be treated as a complete inventory of unregistered rights. A building’s age is only an initial clue. Do not assume that a new window starts a universal 20-year countdown or that replacing a window automatically erases an existing right. Aperture changes and historic enjoyment need fact-specific advice. ## Treat the Waldram method as evidence, not a legal verdict A rights-of-light surveyor may use sky-factor and adequately-lit-area calculations, including the conventional Waldram approach, to evaluate change. The often-mentioned 50/50 convention is not a statutory threshold that conclusively determines infringement. The room’s use, evidence and legal context matter. This guide does not reproduce a numerical litigation test. Request the surveyor’s method, measured inputs, assumptions and interpretation; do not translate a coloured drawing into a categorical legal finding. ## Compare options using a proportionate survey Start with a neighbouring-window and building-history review. Identify inaccessible interiors, uncertain room layouts and survey limitations. Where the potential exposure is material, commission the appropriate measured survey and specialist assessment. Compare massing revisions against the same baseline. Record changes to parapets, plant, screens and rooftop structures as well as storey heights. A modest change in one part of the scheme may be worth testing, but no generic setback or percentage reduction guarantees a satisfactory outcome. ## Agree the legal strategy before approaching neighbours Possible outcomes include redesign, a negotiated release, insurance where available, damages or an injunction. Neither the frequency of settlements nor a fixed compensation multiplier can be assumed for a particular case. Agree responsibilities and communication strategy with the solicitor and surveyor before making admissions or approaching affected owners. A light obstruction notice is a specific mechanism concerning the acquisition of rights, not a general cure for an existing infringement. The [Upper Tribunal guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-certificate-to-register-a-light-obstruction-notice/how-to-apply-for-a-certificate-to-register-a-light-obstruction-notice) explains the certificate process. It should be considered with legal advice on the facts and timing. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team seeks specialist rights-of-light advice alongside its planning work. It does not assume that a daylight assessment or planning permission resolves separate private rights. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does planning permission remove a right of light?** No. Planning permission and private easements are separate. Resolve material private-rights questions with the relevant advisers. **Does replacing a window reset 20 years?** Not automatically. The existence and extent of any right depend on the legal route and evidence, including the effect of changes to apertures. **Is the 50/50 test a legal guarantee?** No. It is a technical convention used in assessment, not a statutory rule deciding every infringement or remedy. **Can Atlasly determine whether a right exists?** No. Desktop context can help scope the investigation. Title analysis, evidence of historic enjoyment and specialist survey advice are needed for a dependable assessment. ## Conclusion Keep rights of light visible in the initial site review and in each material massing revision. Use measured evidence and specialist legal advice to determine the exposure, rather than treating a planning approval or a single technical threshold as clearance. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/daylight-sunlight-analysis-bre-209-architects-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/solar-access-analysis-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [Rights of light, third edition](https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/building-surveying-standards/rights-of-light) · RICS - [Rights of light or air: practice guide 62A](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-to-light-or-air-pg62a/practice-guide-62a-rights-to-light-or-air) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/rights-of-light-london-architects-guide Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Wind Microclimate Studies: Setting a Pedestrian Comfort and Safety Brief" description: "How to agree a site-specific wind assessment brief, distinguish comfort and safety criteria, and review specialist evidence and mitigation without universal height triggers." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/wind-microclimate-pedestrian-comfort-tall-buildings published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "wind microclimate study" target_query: "lawson comfort criteria wind" intent: informational --- # Wind Microclimate Studies: Setting a Pedestrian Comfort and Safety Brief > How to agree a site-specific wind assessment brief, distinguish comfort and safety criteria, and review specialist evidence and mitigation without universal height triggers. ## Quick Answer Wind microclimate assessment examines pedestrian comfort and safety around a proposal using an agreed method, weather assumptions and surrounding context. The need and scope are site- and authority-specific. Use early screening to identify exposed places and design questions, then commission the appropriate specialist assessment where required. ## Introduction A taller building, a narrow passage or an exposed corner can change the questions a team needs to investigate. A single national height trigger or a generic wind-speed table is not an adequate brief for every UK site. ## Agree the authority-specific brief early Identify the proposed height and form, local exposure, nearby buildings and sensitive uses such as entrances, seating and cycle routes. Ask the authority what evidence it expects and appoint a suitably experienced wind consultant where required. The City of London publishes its own microclimate guidance; its criteria should not be presented as universal UK rules. ## Separate comfort from safety Comfort concerns whether wind conditions suit the intended activity and duration of use. Safety addresses a different risk and assessment criterion. Published Lawson variants differ, so state the exact method and definitions used. Do not combine a mean-speed comfort threshold with a gust or safety exceedance rule from another method. ## Define the scenarios and inputs Agree relevant existing, proposed and cumulative context, the weather dataset, seasonal reporting and assessment locations. Include access points and public spaces where people may wait or remain seated as well as routes used for movement. Explain whether temporary or future context changes the result and retain the assumptions with the assessment. ## Choose and validate the assessment method Computational and wind-tunnel studies each require an appropriate setup and specialist judgement. Agree why the chosen method is suitable, how results are checked and what limitations remain. A desktop indication or visually convincing graphic is not equivalent to a validated pedestrian-wind assessment. Obtain a scope-based quotation rather than rely on generic published cost bands. ## Retest mitigation instead of promising a fixed solution Compare changes to massing, setbacks, corners, entrances, canopies and landscape where appropriate. Check that measures are deliverable and effective for the relevant conditions, then reassess the revised proposal. Planting or a canopy of a specified size is not a guaranteed remedy, and some findings may require more substantial changes to height or form. ## Keep the conclusion tied to use and evidence Issue a plan of assessment locations, the method and scenarios, results for comfort and safety, mitigation and remaining requirements. Distinguish specialist findings from an early site-review question. This article does not verify that Atlasly provides a formal CFD or wind-tunnel service. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team asks a wind specialist to assess a tall-building option and test proposed mitigation. An early desktop view does not establish pedestrian comfort or safety compliance. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does every building over a fixed height need the same wind study?** No universal threshold is established here. Confirm local requirements and the site-specific scope. **Are all Lawson criteria interchangeable?** No. Identify the exact variant, wind metric and exceedance definition used. **Will trees or a canopy always solve a wind problem?** No. Proposed mitigation needs suitable assessment and may not resolve the issue. **Can a desktop site review certify pedestrian wind safety?** No. Use the appropriately scoped specialist assessment for that conclusion. ## Conclusion Use early review to set a good specialist brief and allow time for design changes. Keep the agreed method and retested mitigation with the wider site evidence. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/3d-site-context-model-architecture - https://atlasly.app/blog/daylight-sunlight-analysis-bre-209-architects-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/planning-constraints-before-you-design-uk ## Sources - [Microclimate guidelines](https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/planning/planning-application-requirements/microclimate-guidelines) · City of London - [Wind Microclimate Guidelines](https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/assets/Services-Environment/wind-microclimate-guidelines.pdf) · City of London --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/wind-microclimate-pedestrian-comfort-tall-buildings Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "EV Charging Infrastructure: 2026 Planning Requirements for New Developments" description: "Scope electric-vehicle charging for new development: England Part S, separate UK-nation rules, associated parking, electrical capacity and accessible layouts." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/ev-charging-infrastructure-planning-new-developments published: 2026-05-12 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "ev charging building regulations 2026" target_query: "approved document s ev charging" intent: informational --- # EV Charging Infrastructure: 2026 Planning Requirements for New Developments > Scope electric-vehicle charging for new development: England Part S, separate UK-nation rules, associated parking, electrical capacity and accessible layouts. ## Quick Answer EV charging requirements depend on the nation, building and parking arrangement. England’s Part S covers specified new buildings, changes of use and major renovations with associated parking. Establish the applicable charging and cable-route requirements, then coordinate electrical supply, access, maintenance and planning requirements; do not apply a universal one-charger-per-space rule. ## Introduction EV provision affects more than the symbol drawn next to a parking bay. It requires a defined electrical load, an accessible position, safe cable routes and a workable ownership and maintenance arrangement. Resolve those questions alongside the parking layout and servicing strategy. This guide was reviewed on 12 September 2026. England’s building regulations are not automatically the rules for Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. ## Start with the right jurisdiction [Approved Document S](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-for-charging-electric-vehicles-approved-document-s) provides guidance for England. Confirm the applicable edition and transitional arrangements for the works. Scotland has a separate Standard 7.2, introduced from 5 June 2023; use the current Scottish technical handbook for the proposal. The Welsh Government’s [EV consultation page](https://www.gov.wales/electric-vehicle-charging-residential-and-non-residential-buildings), updated 7 August 2026, still identifies the published Part S document as a draft consultation document. Check current Welsh requirements with building control. Check Northern Ireland’s separate rules for a project there. ## Define associated parking before counting charge points The [England Part S FAQs](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/approved-document-s-infrastructure-for-charging-electric-vehicles-frequently-asked-questions) explain associated spaces and communal parking. The charge-point and cable-route calculation depends on the building and its associated spaces, not simply the total estate-wide bay count. A block of flats and a terrace of individual houses can be treated differently. Prepare a schedule assigning spaces to buildings, including shared and visitor spaces. Identify covered parking and whether the works are new construction, material change of use or a major renovation. Apply the relevant section of the guidance rather than copying the new-dwelling rule to every case. ## Check exceptions using the actual cost definition For new residential buildings in England, the £3,600 provision concerns the average additional electricity connection cost, not a blanket cap on buying and installing a charge point. It does not mean an expensive quote eliminates all provision. The number achievable within the applicable rule and any required cable routes still need to be established. Other limitations depend on the building and work. Listed or historic status is not a universal exemption from every requirement. Keep the relevant provision and supporting evidence with the design record and agree the approach with building control. ## Coordinate supply and physical design Obtain a project-specific demand assessment and connection enquiry from the electrical engineer and network operator. Thirty 7 kW points have 210 kW of combined nominal output; that arithmetic is not the diversified demand or a confirmed supply capacity. Do not assume 50% diversity, a fixed connection price or a guaranteed reinforcement programme. A managed system may limit simultaneous load, but its operating rules, performance, future expansion and failure response must be designed. Coordinate cabinets, ducts, meter locations, protection, fire considerations, drainage and service access. Keep equipment and trailing cables out of pedestrian routes and provide suitable accessible use. ## Plan operation as well as installation Agree who owns the equipment, pays electricity costs, manages faults and authorises future additions. Include commissioning, user instructions and maintenance information in the handover. Planning conditions and local transport policy may impose additional requirements, while product, electrical and building regulations address different matters. An Atlasly transport or planning summary can help organise the questions; it does not establish electrical capacity or certify the installation. ## Illustrative example Illustrative scenario: A team checks charging demand and connection capacity with the relevant specialists before fixing the electrical design. It compares management options without assuming that a network upgrade can be avoided. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does England Part S apply to every UK development?** No. Each nation has its own building-control framework. Establish the applicable jurisdiction and commencement provisions. **Is £3,600 a universal installation exemption?** No. The England new-residential provision uses a defined connection-cost calculation and may still require some charge points and cable routes. **Can I assume half the chargers operate at once?** No. Electrical demand and any load management need a project-specific design. **Does a listed building automatically avoid all EV requirements?** No. Check the relevant limitations and the effect of the actual work with building control and the conservation adviser. ## Conclusion Define the regulatory scope, allocate parking to buildings and coordinate the electrical design early. Keep the compliance evidence, capacity assumptions and operating responsibilities visible through handover. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/embodied-carbon-architects-2026-practical-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-due-diligence-for-architects ## Sources - [England Approved Document S](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infrastructure-for-charging-electric-vehicles-approved-document-s) · GOV.UK - [Part S FAQs](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/approved-document-s-infrastructure-for-charging-electric-vehicles-frequently-asked-questions) · GOV.UK - [Scotland Standard 7.2 introduction](https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-standards-technical-handbooks-2022-23/) · Scottish Government - [Welsh EV consultation and outcome](https://www.gov.wales/electric-vehicle-charging-residential-and-non-residential-buildings) · Welsh Government --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/ev-charging-infrastructure-planning-new-developments Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Convert a Scanned Floor Plan to DXF, Free, in Your Browser" description: "A practical walkthrough of converting a scanned floor plan into an editable DXF using Atlasly's free in-browser Image→CAD tool: scan quality, layers, scale calibration with a known dimension, and importing into AutoCAD, Revit, and QCAD." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "convert scanned floor plan to dxf" target_query: "convert scanned floor plan to dxf free" intent: informational --- # How to Convert a Scanned Floor Plan to DXF, Free, in Your Browser > A practical walkthrough of converting a scanned floor plan into an editable DXF using Atlasly's free in-browser Image→CAD tool: scan quality, layers, scale calibration with a known dimension, and importing into AutoCAD, Revit, and QCAD. ## Quick Answer Load a JPG, PNG or PDF into Atlasly Image to CAD, inspect the drawing preview, calibrate with a known dimension and download DXF using a free account. Drawing-mode tracing runs locally; photo-classified inputs use cloud drafting. Expect to review geometry, recognized text and layers in CAD. The result is an editable underlay, not a measured survey. ## Introduction A scanned floor plan contains pixels rather than the original CAD objects. Converting it means reconstructing useful linework and checking what was inferred. This walkthrough uses the current [Image to CAD tool](/tools/image-to-cad), with its account, processing and scale limits made explicit. Keep the original scan beside the result. Missing wall lines, merged hatching and misread dimensions can affect a design even when the preview looks convincing. ## Prepare the scan Use a flat, evenly lit scan with readable dimensions. Around 300 DPI is a practical starting point for paper scanning, not a universal accuracy threshold; inspect whether the smallest relevant line and text survives. Higher resolution cannot restore detail absent from the original. For a photographed plan, reduce skew and shadows before conversion. For PDFs, the current Atlasly import processes the first page into an image; split or select the intended page beforehand. Browser processing also limits decoded image size, so do not assume every source pixel is preserved. ## Check which processing path applies The drawing-mode path processes linework in the browser. Photo-classified inputs automatically receive a cloud drafting pass after the local preview. Classification is automatic, so a photograph of a paper plan must not be assumed to stay local. Check the current tool disclosure and input classification before supplying confidential material. For a facade photograph rather than a plan, use the separate [Vector and Elevation guide](/blog/how-to-use-image-to-cad-vector-vs-elevation). A drawing-mode result and a photo drafting result have different assumptions. ## Review geometry and recognized text Inspect long walls, corners, door swings, stairs and tightly spaced hatching against the scan. Tracing can fragment a line, bridge a gap or convert a annotation into unwanted geometry. Review uncertain fragments rather than accepting every stroke. The current drawing path can recognize text and add CAD TEXT entities. Recognition does not prove that a dimension is correct. Check characters, decimal points, units and placement. Some confirmed repeated-opening groups can export as blocks; the converter does not recreate the original author’s complete block structure or BIM objects. ## Calibrate with evidence Calibrate against a measured dimension or a reliable dimension on the original drawing. Never treat a typical door width or guessed storey height as a known measurement. Check a second, independent dimension after import. One calibration cannot correct perspective, paper stretch or unequal distortion in two directions. Illustrative check: a dimensioned line is 5,000 mm. Calibrate across its actual endpoints, then measure a separate 3,000 mm dimension in the receiving CAD application. If the second check is wrong, investigate distortion or endpoint selection rather than stretching the drawing to make one value look right. These numbers illustrate a check, not a conversion accuracy result. ## Download and check the handover CAD downloads require a free account. The current download path supports DXF, SVG and vector PDF. Confirm the selected output in the receiving application; a successful download is not a compatibility or measurement certificate. Open the DXF in your chosen CAD application. Confirm units, overall extents, a second dimension, layer visibility and representative text. Remove duplicate or stray lines, close boundaries deliberately where needed, and redraw critical details from reliable evidence. Import into a BIM application as an underlay where supported; it does not arrive as native walls, doors or rooms. ## When the scan is not enough An unclear scan, an assumed scale or a changed building can make the reconstructed drawing unsuitable for measurement. Use it to scope the next survey and early options, and retain a visible note of its source and limitations. If the original CAD file is available, inspect that before reconstructing its plotted image. For why ordinary PDF extraction can fail, see [scanned PDF conversion limits](/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings). ## Illustrative example Illustrative handover: retain the scan, calibrated DXF, two independent dimension checks and a short list of uncertain areas. Ask the receiving designer to review that evidence before using the underlay. This is a suggested workflow, not a measured project saving. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is CAD download free and account-free?** CAD download uses a free account. The share-card flow is separate. Check current tool allowances for photo drafting. **Does every uploaded file stay on my device?** The drawing-mode path processes linework in the browser. Photo-classified inputs automatically receive a cloud drafting pass after the local preview. Classification is automatic, so a photograph of a paper plan must not be assumed to stay local. Check the current tool disclosure and input classification before supplying confidential material. **Does it produce editable text?** The drawing path can recognize text as CAD TEXT entities. Review every important dimension and label; recognition can fail. **Can I set scale from a standard door width?** Only if that is the actual verified dimension of this door. Typical widths and guessed sizes are assumptions, not measured calibration. **Will the DXF replace a survey?** No. It is reconstructed linework whose scale, distortion, completeness and relationship to the existing building require checking. ## Conclusion A useful conversion keeps the original visible and makes scale, processing and uncertainty explicit. Review the result in the receiving CAD application before it informs a design decision. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings - https://atlasly.app/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026 - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit ## Sources - [Image to CAD methodology](https://atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad/methodology) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Why PDF-to-DWG Conversion Fails on Scanned Drawings" description: "Diagnose raster, vector and hybrid PDFs, choose the right conversion route, and check the resulting CAD geometry and scale." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "pdf to dwg converter scanned drawings" target_query: "convert scanned pdf floor plan to dxf" intent: informational --- # Why PDF-to-DWG Conversion Fails on Scanned Drawings > Diagnose raster, vector and hybrid PDFs, choose the right conversion route, and check the resulting CAD geometry and scale. ## Quick Answer A scanned PDF usually contains an image of the drawing. A PDF importer can place that image without reconstructing editable CAD linework. Check whether the relevant plan content is raster, vector or mixed, then use raster reconstruction where needed. Even a vector PDF import may lose original CAD objects and needs geometry and scale checks. ## Introduction An empty or image-only CAD result does not necessarily mean a converter malfunctioned. The PDF may not contain vector linework for it to extract. Some files combine raster plans with selectable text, which can make this easy to misdiagnose. Before trying another converter, identify the source content and the deliverable you actually need: an image underlay, editable linework or a verified measured drawing. ## Inspect the actual plan content Zoom in on the relevant wall lines and inspect whether they pixelate, but treat appearance as a clue rather than a definitive test. A high-resolution scan can look smooth. Selectable labels do not prove the wall geometry is vector. A PDF inspection or import tool can reveal whether the page contains paths, images, text or a mixture. Ask for the original CAD or vector export if available. A PDF generated from CAD can still contain rasterized areas, and a scanned sheet can gain an OCR text layer without its linework becoming vector. ## Know what PDF import does AutoCAD’s documented PDF import can bring in vector geometry, fills, TrueType text and raster images. Importing raster content does not itself reconstruct those pixels as line geometry. Review the import settings and content types before concluding that the drawing is empty. Vector import is not a lossless restoration of the source CAD file: plotting can split objects and remove information about dimensions, blocks and relationships. Check a representative part of the drawing rather than assuming that a selectable result is correct. ## Use a reconstruction route for scans For a raster plan, choose raster-to-vector reconstruction or trace the required information deliberately. OCR may recover text, and some software can help with repeated objects or curve fitting. Those capabilities need checking; neither universal failure nor automatic perfect recovery is a defensible claim. Autodesk currently includes Raster Design in its AutoCAD toolset offering. Atlasly provides a separate [Image to CAD tool](/tools/image-to-cad) for first-pass reconstructed linework. This guide has not run an equivalent-input accuracy benchmark between products. ## Understand the Atlasly route before uploading The drawing-mode path processes linework in the browser. Photo-classified inputs automatically receive a cloud drafting pass after the local preview. Classification is automatic, so a photograph of a paper plan must not be assumed to stay local. Check the current tool disclosure and input classification before supplying confidential material. The current PDF input path rasterizes the first page, so separate the required page first. It is not a general-purpose lossless vector-PDF extractor. CAD downloads require a free account. The current download path supports DXF, SVG and vector PDF. Confirm the selected output in the receiving application; a successful download is not a compatibility or measurement certificate. Atlasly’s output is DXF rather than a promise of native DWG generation; use your receiving CAD application’s supported save route if DWG is required. ## Fix scale and cleanup after reconstruction Calibrate against a measured dimension or a reliable dimension on the original drawing. Never treat a typical door width or guessed storey height as a known measurement. Check a second, independent dimension after import. One calibration cannot correct perspective, paper stretch or unequal distortion in two directions. Check OCR text, open corners, wall thickness, stairs and hatching against the original. Delete duplicate geometry and reconnect boundaries only when the source supports doing so. If an area calculation matters, confirm that the intended boundary is closed and calibrated rather than measuring whichever outline the converter happened to create. ## Keep the drawing’s evidence with the handover Retain the original file and page number, conversion date, processing path, units, scale basis and unresolved areas. Label a reconstructed underlay as such. An outdated drawing can be faithfully traced and still be wrong for the building as it exists today. For practical steps, use the [scanned-plan DXF walkthrough](/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser). For the concepts behind reconstruction, read the [raster-to-vector CAD guide](/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026). ## Illustrative example Illustrative diagnosis: a PDF has selectable room names but pixelated wall lines. Record it as mixed content, test a small representative area, and check reconstructed walls and text separately. This is a proposed troubleshooting exercise, not a reported customer case. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Why did my PDF import become an image?** The relevant PDF content may be raster. Import can place an image without reconstructing its pixels into editable linework. **Does selectable text mean my PDF is vector?** No. An OCR text layer or vector labels can sit above a scanned plan. Inspect the actual linework you need to edit. **Will converting a vector PDF restore all CAD objects?** No. A plotted PDF may omit or flatten the original block, dimension and object relationships. Check the imported geometry and scale. **Does Atlasly output DWG directly?** The reviewed Image to CAD download path exports DXF, SVG and vector PDF. If DWG is required, verify a supported conversion or save route in your receiving CAD application. ## Conclusion Choose the method after identifying the PDF content. Then verify geometry, text, scale and the building information behind the image before relying on the converted drawing. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser - https://atlasly.app/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026 - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-to-autocad-and-revit-without-redrawing-the-site ## Sources - [PDFIMPORT options](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2026/ENU/AutoCAD-LT/files/GUID-F94D7059-5B4A-4396-97FE-765B1D037D56.htm) · Autodesk (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [AutoCAD Raster Design included toolset](https://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/included-toolsets/autocad-raster-design) · Autodesk (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Image to CAD methodology](https://atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad/methodology) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Raster to Vector CAD: Geometry, Text, Scale and Quality Checks" description: "Understand what raster-to-vector CAD reconstructs, what OCR can recover, and how to check scale, geometry and exports before using a converted drawing." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026 published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "raster to vector cad" target_query: "raster to vector conversion for cad" intent: informational --- # Raster to Vector CAD: Geometry, Text, Scale and Quality Checks > Understand what raster-to-vector CAD reconstructs, what OCR can recover, and how to check scale, geometry and exports before using a converted drawing. ## Quick Answer Raster-to-vector CAD reconstructs editable geometry from image pixels. OCR may recover text and some workflows recognize repeated objects, but neither restores the original drawing’s complete structure automatically. Judge a conversion by checked geometry, dimensions, text and missing detail, not by the preview alone. ## Introduction A raster image records the appearance of a drawing. A vector CAD file records geometric entities that software can select, measure and edit. Reconstructing one from the other is useful for early drawing work, but it does not recover every design decision or object in the source file. This guide explains the distinction and a practical review method. For a step-by-step Atlasly conversion, use the [scanned floor-plan walkthrough](/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser). ## Pixels, vectors and hybrid documents A scan is a grid of sampled pixels. Vector content records geometric instructions such as lines and curves; text may be stored as text, outlines or an image. A PDF can contain several of these together. Selectable text alone does not prove the plan’s linework is vector geometry. A vector PDF is also not the original CAD database. Objects may be clipped, flattened or split, and the original dimensions, blocks and BIM relationships may be absent. Inspect what the file contains before selecting an import or tracing method. ## What reconstruction can and cannot recover Line extraction turns visible strokes into geometric entities. Depending on the software, this can involve thresholding, tracing, curve fitting, cleanup and classification. Thick walls, hatch patterns, touching annotations and broken lines create ambiguity: two nearby pixels do not tell the converter which architectural object the author intended. OCR can recover editable text. Autodesk’s Raster Design toolset provides raster editing and raster-to-vector workflows, so a blanket claim that conversion software cannot recover text or geometry is incorrect. Atlasly’s current drawing path also creates recognized TEXT entities; its DXF exporter supports polylines, curve bulges and eligible repeated-opening blocks. These capabilities still need visual and dimensional checking. ## Choose the route that matches the input If the original CAD file exists, inspect it first. For PDFs with vector geometry, try a supported PDF import and review the result. For scanned linework, use raster reconstruction or deliberate tracing. For a photograph, allow for perspective, lens distortion and occlusion before treating the output as a drawing. Autodesk lists Raster Design among the toolsets included with AutoCAD; do not assume it always requires a separate add-on subscription. Confirm current platform support and licensing for your installation. This guide does not rank the accuracy of competing converters. ## Atlasly’s current processing and download limits The drawing-mode path processes linework in the browser. Photo-classified inputs automatically receive a cloud drafting pass after the local preview. Classification is automatic, so a photograph of a paper plan must not be assumed to stay local. Check the current tool disclosure and input classification before supplying confidential material. CAD downloads require a free account. The current download path supports DXF, SVG and vector PDF. Confirm the selected output in the receiving application; a successful download is not a compatibility or measurement certificate. PDF import currently rasterizes the first page. The drawing path therefore should not be described as lossless extraction of an existing vector PDF. Image decoding also applies a size ceiling; inspect small text and closely spaced lines after import. ## Scale is a separate evidence problem Calibrate against a measured dimension or a reliable dimension on the original drawing. Never treat a typical door width or guessed storey height as a known measurement. Check a second, independent dimension after import. One calibration cannot correct perspective, paper stretch or unequal distortion in two directions. A photograph-based auto-scale is an estimate. Label it accordingly, and obtain measured information before the drawing supports a measurement-critical decision. A clean vector outline can still be the wrong size. ## Use a repeatable conversion review Keep a small acceptance sheet with the input filename, source date, page number, processing path and assumed or verified scale. Check: 1. Overall extents and two independent dimensions. 2. Representative corners, openings, curves and thin lines. 3. Text strings, units and decimal points. 4. Closed boundaries needed for area calculations. 5. Duplicate lines, stray fragments and layer allocation. 6. The exact export opened in the receiving application. Record failures as well as successful areas. A converter can reduce repeated tracing while leaving critical details for manual reconstruction. This guide does not claim a benchmarked time saving or survey-accuracy result. ## Illustrative example Illustrative review: compare a converted wall junction, opening and dimension label with the source at full working scale. Record which items are acceptable and which must be redrawn. This is a quality-control exercise, not a claim about a customer’s conversion result. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Is raster conversion the same as importing a vector PDF?** No. Raster conversion reconstructs geometry from pixels; vector PDF import reads geometric content already in the PDF. A mixed PDF may need both approaches. **Can raster-to-vector software create text and blocks?** Some workflows can recognize text or repeated elements. Atlasly’s drawing path supports OCR text and some eligible repeated-opening blocks, but does not restore all original CAD semantics. **Is 300 DPI always enough?** No. It is a useful starting point for scanning, not a universal threshold. Required detail, source quality, contrast and downscaling affect the result. **Can the result be used for construction?** Only after the information has been verified to the standard required for that use. An automatically reconstructed drawing is not a measured survey or construction sign-off. ## Conclusion Choose the conversion route from the actual source content, then judge the exported drawing against recorded checks. Editable geometry is useful; its reliability must be established separately. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser - https://atlasly.app/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly - https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-data-to-autocad-and-revit ## Sources - [AutoCAD Raster Design included toolset](https://www.autodesk.com/products/autocad/included-toolsets/autocad-raster-design) · Autodesk (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [PDFIMPORT options](https://help.autodesk.com/cloudhelp/2026/ENU/AutoCAD-LT/files/GUID-F94D7059-5B4A-4396-97FE-765B1D037D56.htm) · Autodesk (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Image to CAD methodology](https://atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad/methodology) · Atlasly (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026 Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Site Analysis for Architects: A First-Week Workflow That Tests the Brief" description: "A practical first-week site-analysis workflow for architects: establish the decision, collect the evidence, test constraints together, and turn findings into a brief the team can use." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "site analysis for architects" target_query: "site analysis workflow for architects" intent: informational --- # Site Analysis for Architects: A First-Week Workflow That Tests the Brief > A practical first-week site-analysis workflow for architects: establish the decision, collect the evidence, test constraints together, and turn findings into a brief the team can use. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer A useful first-week site analysis does four things: defines the decision the project needs to make, assembles the evidence that can change that decision, tests constraints together rather than in isolation, and records whether the brief should proceed, change, or pause. The output should be a short decision record with mapped evidence and named next checks, not a folder of screenshots. ## Introduction The first week of a project decides more than most teams admit. A client may arrive with a unit count, a preferred entrance, or a confident view of what can be built. The architect's job is not to make that brief look plausible. It is to find the conditions that make it stronger, weaker, or impossible before design time gathers around it. That does not require a finished survey package or a polished report. It requires a disciplined first pass: ask the right questions, put the evidence in one place, and make a provisional judgement that the whole team can see. ## Start with the decision, not the map Before opening a planning portal or drawing a boundary, write down the decision the project needs to make in the next two weeks. It is usually one of these: - should we pursue this site? - can the current brief survive the site conditions? - which part of the site should carry the building, access, landscape, or servicing? - what must the client commission next? This sounds obvious, but it stops the research stage becoming a collection exercise. A flood layer matters because it changes access, ground-floor use, levels, cost, or all four. A listed building matters because it can change height, setting, and the planning route. The evidence should always be tied to a decision the team can act on. ## Build one evidence board for the brief For an early architectural review, organise the evidence into five groups: 1. **Planning and policy context:** allocation, designations, nearby decisions, and policy triggers. 2. **Physical conditions:** boundary, levels, existing buildings, access, utilities assumptions, and ground conditions that are already known. 3. **Environmental and statutory constraints:** flood, heritage, ecology, trees, contamination, and any other issue that needs specialist confirmation. 4. **Movement and context:** public transport, walking routes, servicing, neighbouring uses, street character, and arrival sequence. 5. **Commercial reality:** likely buildable area, abnormal cost risks, comparable evidence, and the assumptions that need testing before a land decision. Keep the board readable. A client should be able to understand the important evidence in one conversation, while the design team should be able to trace every conclusion back to the map, source, or assumption behind it. ## Test the constraints together The useful findings appear where layers meet. A site can be policy-supportive but still weak because the accessible edge is flood-constrained. It can have a generous apparent footprint but lose usable area to levels, trees, or servicing geometry. It can be close to a station but unpleasant or indirect to reach on foot. Use four labels for each finding: - **supportive**. The condition helps the current brief; - **manageable with change**. The condition is real but can be addressed by a revised layout, programme, or consultant input; - **material risk**. The condition can change whether the current proposal should continue; - **not assessed / insufficient evidence**. The source is missing, unavailable or too uncertain to support a judgement. Record the source date, location and scope beside the label. Missing evidence must not be counted as a supportive finding. This gives the team a way to judge rather than simply describe. It also makes an early review more honest: a material risk is not a failed project, but it is a reason not to spend the next month designing around an untested assumption. ## End the week with a brief test, not a report The first output should be short enough to use in a live project meeting. It needs: - the current brief and the question being tested; - the three or four conditions most likely to change it; - a mapped summary of the site opportunities and constraints; - an explicit recommendation: proceed, proceed with changes, or pause pending a named check; - the next specialist actions, with a clear distinction between early screening and formal sign-off. That last distinction is essential. Early site analysis helps teams decide what to investigate and where to focus design effort. It does not replace a measured survey, planning advice, valuation, or any required specialist assessment. ## Use the review to make the next design move Once the evidence is assembled, the team can make a better first move: position an entrance at the strongest arrival point, keep landscape on the constrained edge, test a smaller footprint, or ask whether the intended programme still fits the site. Atlasly can help bring the early evidence into a shareable site-analysis workflow. For a fuller checklist, see the [site feasibility study checklist](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist). If the review is strong enough to continue, the next question is usually how to test the brief spatially; [turn a site brief into a masterplan test](/blog/site-brief-to-masterplan-test) sets out that step. ## From Practice A common early-stage failure is treating the client brief as a conclusion. Teams spend days gathering planning screenshots and context images, then discover at the first design review that access, levels, or a statutory constraint changes the scheme's basic logic. A short first-week decision record makes that discovery useful while it is still cheap to act on. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What should architects check first in a site analysis?** Start with the decision the brief needs to make, then review planning context, physical conditions, statutory constraints, movement, and the assumptions that affect feasibility. The aim is to identify what can change the brief quickly. **How detailed should a first-week site analysis be?** Detailed enough to identify the main opportunities, risks, and next specialist checks. It should not pretend to replace formal survey, planning, environmental, or valuation work. **What is the difference between site analysis and a feasibility study?** Site analysis assembles and interprets the conditions of a place. A feasibility study uses those findings to judge whether a specific brief, layout, or commercial proposition can proceed. **What should a client receive after an early site review?** A concise decision record: the current brief, key mapped evidence, the main opportunities and risks, a recommendation, and the next checks needed before further commitment. ## Conclusion The first week should not produce a prettier assumption. It should produce a better brief. When teams define the decision, read the evidence together, and record what must change, early site analysis becomes a practical design tool rather than a research detour. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-brief-to-masterplan-test - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis ## Sources - [National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Turn a Site Brief into a Masterplan Test" description: "A practical way for architects to test a site brief before committing to a masterplan: set the non-negotiables, test spatial options, expose trade-offs, and record the preferred direction." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-brief-to-masterplan-test published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-10-01 primary_keyword: "masterplan feasibility workflow" target_query: "how to test a masterplan brief before design" intent: commercial --- # How to Turn a Site Brief into a Masterplan Test > A practical way for architects to test a site brief before committing to a masterplan: set the non-negotiables, test spatial options, expose trade-offs, and record the preferred direction. ## Quick Answer A masterplan test turns a written brief into a small number of spatial options before a preferred layout is drawn in detail. Start with the non-negotiable site conditions, identify the quantities and relationships that matter, then compare options against the same criteria: access, buildable area, daylight, public realm, servicing, movement, and likely planning risk. The output is a preferred direction with explicit trade-offs, not a finished design. ## Introduction A site brief is often written as a list: homes, workspace, landscape, parking, access, public space, and a target area. A masterplan begins when those things have to occupy the same ground. That is where a short spatial test earns its place. It lets the team see what the brief asks of the site before the first preferred drawing acquires the authority of a finished idea. ## Separate the non-negotiables from the preferences Begin by sorting the brief into two lists. **Verified requirements** are conditions the option must respect, supported by the applicable evidence or agreed brief. Keep provisional constraints separate: tree protection, flood response, access, routes, retention and policy limits need proposal-specific interpretation. Do not assume that every mapped designation is an absolute prohibition, or that an unchecked area is unconstrained. **Preferences** are choices that deserve testing: where the principal entrance sits, how much ground floor is active, whether parking is central or peripheral, where communal landscape sits, or how the programme is divided across the site. Record source dates and unresolved checks alongside both options. Mark criteria without sufficient evidence as not assessed; do not award them a favourable score. This distinction keeps an early masterplan honest. A compelling image cannot make a non-negotiable disappear, but it can help the team decide among several credible responses. ## Test three spatial questions first The first pass should answer three questions. **Where can the building sit?** Start with the likely buildable area after boundary, access, level, environmental, and servicing conditions are considered. **How do people and vehicles arrive?** Draw the pedestrian arrival, cycle route, servicing route, emergency access, and the relationship to public transport. A layout that works in plan but forces every visitor through a service yard is not working yet. **What does the scheme give back to the site?** Test daylight, landscape, public space, views, and the relationship to neighbouring buildings. This is where the masterplan begins to answer the place rather than merely fit the programme. ## Compare options against the same evidence Avoid asking which option looks best in isolation. Compare each option against a fixed set of criteria: - buildable area and likely quantum; - access, servicing, and fire movement; - relationship to retained features and neighbours; - daylight, orientation, and usable landscape; - public realm and pedestrian arrival; - flexibility if the brief changes; - risks that need formal checking before the option advances. Even a simple red, amber, and green comparison is useful when it makes trade-offs visible. An option may maximise floorspace but create a poor arrival sequence. Another may protect the best landscape edge but require a different mix of uses. The right choice is the one whose compromises the client understands and accepts. ## Document the preferred direction before detail arrives At the end of the test, record why one direction is preferred. Include the assumptions behind it and the issues that could still change it. This record protects the project from a familiar problem: weeks later, the team cannot remember why an entrance, access route, or building edge was chosen and starts reopening decisions without the original evidence. The preferred direction should be clear enough to brief the next piece of work, but it should remain provisional. Measured survey information, planning advice, environmental assessment, transport review, and cost work can all change the balance. ## Move from test to a defendable brief A masterplan test is the bridge between [early site analysis](/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow) and design development. It takes the evidence gathered in the first review and turns it into a visible response to the site. For a practical feasibility sequence, pair the test with the [site feasibility study checklist](/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist) and [development feasibility analysis](/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis). Atlasly can help teams assemble the site evidence before they start comparing options. When the team needs a quick illustrative image for a workshop or board, the [masterplan diagram tool](/tools/ai/ai-masterplan-generator) can help express a direction. Treat that image as a communication aid, not as evidence that the option works. ## From Practice A masterplan test can make implicit decisions visible: the access sits here, the landscape sits there, the building gets taller on this edge. A brief test makes those choices visible early enough for the client, consultant team, and architect to challenge them with evidence rather than preference. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is a masterplan test?** It is an early comparison of spatial options that checks whether a brief can fit a site while respecting access, constraints, movement, public realm, and the conditions most likely to affect planning or delivery. **How many options should an early masterplan test include?** Usually two or three credible options are enough. The point is to expose meaningful trade-offs, not to create a catalogue of superficial variations. **Does a masterplan test replace detailed design?** No. It sets a preferred direction and identifies what needs further technical work before the project moves into detailed design. **What should be compared between masterplan options?** Compare buildable area, access and servicing, relationship to neighbours, daylight and landscape, public movement, flexibility, and the risks that still need formal confirmation. ## Conclusion A good masterplan test does not make the final design early. It makes the next design decision clearer. By distinguishing site conditions from preferences and comparing options against the same evidence, teams can choose a direction they understand, and change it intelligently when better information arrives. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/pedestrian-flow-analysis-urban-design ## Sources - [Planning Practice Guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance) · GOV.UK - [Planning Portal](https://www.planningportal.co.uk/) · Planning Portal - [RIBA Plan of Work](https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work) · RIBA --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/site-brief-to-masterplan-test Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Residual Land Value: A Practical Early-Stage Check for UK Sites" description: "How architects and development teams can use a residual land value check to test an early UK scheme, understand the inputs, and avoid treating a quick appraisal as a final valuation." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/residual-land-value-early-feasibility-uk published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-09-23 primary_keyword: "residual land value" target_query: "residual land value early feasibility UK" intent: commercial --- # Residual Land Value: A Practical Early-Stage Check for UK Sites > How architects and development teams can use a residual land value check to test an early UK scheme, understand the inputs, and avoid treating a quick appraisal as a final valuation. ## Quick Answer Residual land value is the amount left for land after the expected development value, costs, and an appropriate developer return have been allowed for. At early feasibility stage, it is a screening tool: use it to test whether the current scheme assumptions can support the site, then show how the result changes when value, cost, programme, or policy obligations move. It is not a substitute for a formal valuation or planning viability assessment. ## Introduction An early feasibility appraisal cannot tell a team the exact price to pay for land. It can tell them something equally useful: whether the current idea is carrying enough value to survive its likely costs and risks. Residual land value is one of the clearest ways to make that test visible. It forces the project team to name the assumptions behind a promising scheme before those assumptions become expensive commitments. ## What residual land value actually means In its basic form, the calculation is: **gross development value − development costs (excluding land and the separately stated developer return) − developer return = residual land value** Do not deduct developer return twice. Some appraisals include it within their total development costs; in that convention, subtract that total only once. State how land acquisition costs and taxes are treated. The result is not a magic land price. It is the amount the scheme can notionally support once the expected receipts, costs, and return have been accounted for. Homes England describes this basic residual method as useful for less complex sites and early feasibility work; the current government guidance also stresses that the appraisal is only as robust as its inputs. That makes the method valuable to architects. It connects design assumptions (area, mix, access, specification, and site constraints) to a commercial question before the team has spent weeks proving out a brief that cannot carry its own costs. ## Name the assumptions before relying on the answer A useful early appraisal should make every major input easy to inspect. - **Gross development value:** expected receipts from the proposed homes, workspace, or other uses. - **Build and abnormal costs:** construction, remediation, retaining, flood mitigation, demolition, infrastructure, and any site-specific work that changes the base cost. - **Professional, finance, and marketing costs:** the costs that sit around construction but still affect the scheme. - **Planning obligations and policy requirements:** applicable contributions, affordable housing assumptions, and other obligations that need to be considered. - **Developer return and contingency:** the allowance for risk and the return expected for taking it. - **Programme:** when costs arise and when receipts are likely to arrive. An appraisal becomes dangerous when one of these is hidden behind a single optimistic figure. At first pass, transparency is more useful than false precision. ## Use sensitivity to test the brief, not defend it The most useful residual land value exercise is not one number. It is a set of controlled changes. Test what happens if: - value is lower than expected; - build costs rise; - the usable area falls after a site constraint is confirmed; - an abnormal item is added; - the programme extends; - the proposed mix changes. If a modest change turns the residual from workable to weak, the project is telling the team where it needs better evidence. That may mean testing the brief, commissioning cost advice, checking comparable evidence, or reconsidering the land position. It does not mean adjusting the assumption until the result looks comfortable. ## Keep early screening separate from formal viability work An early residual check helps shape a brief and determine what to investigate next. It does not replace advice from a suitably qualified valuer, cost consultant, planning specialist, or lender. For England, the government's planning guidance explains that viability assessment should be proportionate, evidence-led, and transparent. It also distinguishes a benchmark land value from the price paid for a site. That is important for project teams: a high acquisition price does not make an otherwise weak scheme viable. Use the early exercise to expose the inputs that matter. Use formal advice when the decision, planning process, funding, or legal position requires it. ## Connect the appraisal to the actual site Residual land value is strongest when it is grounded in the site evidence. The buildable area, access geometry, flood response, remediation risk, levels, and policy position should all influence the assumptions, not sit in a separate report. Start with a [first-week site-analysis workflow](/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow), then use the [development feasibility guide](/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis) to connect buildable area and cost to the brief. Atlasly's [residual land value calculator](/tools/residual-land-value-calculator) uses construction cost times gross floor area, percentage professional fees and contingency, a simple finance percentage on those costs, and developer profit as a percentage of GDV. Its sensitivity cases change GDV or base build cost by 10%. It is not a dated cash-flow or discounted cash-flow appraisal. The current calculator has no separate inputs for abnormal works, planning contributions, affordable housing, marketing, acquisition taxes or a loan drawdown programme. These omissions can materially change the residual. Build an expanded appraisal with your advisers instead of treating the simplified result as an offer price. Once the land price is fixed, the same appraisal runs the other way, to the developer's profit. See [what a development appraisal is](/blog/what-is-a-development-appraisal) for profit on cost versus profit on GDV. ## From Practice The value of a quick residual check is often negative information: it reveals that a site only works if every optimistic assumption holds at once. That is not a reason to stop automatically. It is a reason to ask sharper questions before an offer, a planning strategy, or a design programme is committed. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is residual land value?** It is the amount remaining for land after expected development value, development costs, and developer return have been allowed for in an appraisal. **Can an architect use residual land value at feasibility stage?** Yes, as an early screening tool that connects the brief to likely value, cost, and risk. It should not be presented as a formal valuation or relied on where specialist advice is required. **What makes a residual appraisal unreliable?** Hidden or optimistic inputs, missing abnormal costs, an unrealistic programme, weak comparable evidence, and treating a single outcome as certain instead of testing sensitivity. **Is residual land value the same as the price paid for land?** No. Residual land value is an appraisal outcome based on stated assumptions. The price paid is a transaction fact, and it does not by itself prove that a scheme is viable. ## Conclusion Residual land value is useful because it makes a scheme's assumptions visible. Used early and tested honestly, it can improve the brief, reveal the questions that need specialist input, and keep a team from mistaking a hopeful number for a defensible decision. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/development-feasibility-far-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-analysis-first-week-workflow - https://atlasly.app/blog/site-feasibility-study-checklist - https://atlasly.app/blog/section-106-cil-explained-architects-developers ## Sources - [Financial viability for housing-led projects](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/financial-viability-for-housing-led-projects) · Homes England (Reviewed 12 September 2026) - [Viability](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability) · Planning Practice Guidance, GOV.UK (Reviewed 12 September 2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/residual-land-value-early-feasibility-uk Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly Site Analysis: Data Sources, Coverage, and Limits" description: "How Atlasly assembles early-stage site evidence, what its outputs are for, and the checks that still need primary sources, surveys, and specialist advice." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits published: 2026-08-21 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "site analysis data sources and limitations" target_query: "how accurate is AI site analysis for architects" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly Site Analysis: Data Sources, Coverage, and Limits > How Atlasly assembles early-stage site evidence, what its outputs are for, and the checks that still need primary sources, surveys, and specialist advice. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer Atlasly assembles early-stage site evidence from named public and commercial datasets into one workflow for architects and planners. It is decision support for scoping, comparing, and briefing work, not a measured survey, title review, legal opinion, statutory consultation, or substitute for qualified specialist sign-off. ## Introduction Good early decisions depend on knowing both what a source says and what it cannot say. A flood polygon, heritage record, terrain model, or local-plan policy can make a site risk visible early. It cannot, by itself, settle the design response, prove legal title, or replace the work of the relevant professional. Atlasly is built for that early, evidence-led stage: collecting relevant layers, preserving the source context, and making the next question clearer. This page explains how to use that output responsibly. ## What Atlasly is designed to do Atlasly brings together site context that is otherwise spread across planning portals, public mapping services, policy documents, terrain datasets, and export workflows. The goal is to help a project team answer the first practical questions consistently: - what constraints, designations, and physical conditions should be checked before the brief hardens; - which issues deserve a primary-source review or specialist appointment; - how a site compares with another site against the same evidence; and - how to hand an early evidence pack into design, CAD, GIS, or a client conversation. The [site-analysis review sequence](/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) describes the checks to consider. It is not evidence that every source or step has completed successfully for a particular site. A useful result is not a binary "yes" or "no" on development. It is a traceable starting point for better questions. ## How the evidence is assembled A run starts with an address, location, or user-defined site area. Atlasly then combines location and boundary context with the relevant available data layers, such as terrain, buildings, roads, land use, planning context, heritage, ecology, flood information, transport, and policy references. The exact sources and coverage depend on the jurisdiction and the layer. In England, for example, planning flood information should be checked against the Environment Agency's official [Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/); nationally protected heritage assets should be checked against [Historic England's National Heritage List](https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/); and environmental designations may be explored through [MAGIC](https://magic.defra.gov.uk/), the cross-government map service. Atlasly makes these sources easier to assemble and compare. Where a project decision depends on a source, the primary publisher remains the authority to verify. ## Coverage is not the same as certainty A mapped layer can be highly useful and still be incomplete, dated, generalised, or unsuitable for a particular decision. A boundary may be an address-point approximation rather than a surveyed parcel. Building height data can be estimated. A policy search can identify relevant text but cannot determine how a decision-maker will weigh it on a live application. This distinction matters most at transitions: from feasibility to design, from design to submission, and from an early desktop review to construction information. Atlasly does not replace the appropriate measured, statutory, or professional route when the risk, cost, or decision demands it. Use it to identify the questions and organise the supporting evidence. ## Flood, planning, heritage, and ecology checks need their own verification **Flood.** The Environment Agency says its planning map can help identify when a flood risk assessment may be needed, while its displayed material is provided without guarantees as to accuracy. A proposed development may still need a site-specific flood risk assessment, drainage strategy, or advice from the Environment Agency and local planning authority. Start with Atlasly or the [free flood checker](/tools/flood-risk-checker), then verify the current primary source and appoint the right specialist where required. **Planning.** The National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration in England, but planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local policies, allocations, emerging documents, validation requirements, and case-specific evidence matter. Atlasly can surface relevant policy context; it does not give legal advice or guarantee permission. **Heritage and ecology.** Designations are a prompt for careful work, not a conclusion about impact. Check the authoritative record, its date, the mapped geometry, and the relationship to the actual proposal. A formal assessment may require site inspection, specialist survey work, consultation, and a defined scope. ## Terrain, drawings, and CAD exports are early-design inputs Terrain and context models help a team understand levels, slope, drainage implications, surrounding form, access, and broad massing constraints. They are not a replacement for a topographic survey, measured building survey, utility search, ground investigation, or setting-out information. The same applies to exports. The formats available depend on the selected workflow and account. A file extension alone does not establish usable geometry, complete source coverage or an approved handover. Before relying on it for a decision or detailed drawing, verify coordinate system, unit settings, geometry, source date, and the elements that materially affect the proposal. The [site-context DXF guide](/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly) explains the hand-off in more detail. ## A responsible workflow Use the output in four passes: 1. **Screen:** identify the constraints, opportunities, data gaps, and potential showstoppers. 2. **Verify:** open the primary sources for the material findings and check the date, scope, location, and current status. 3. **Commission:** appoint a surveyor, planner, ecologist, heritage consultant, flood consultant, transport consultant, lawyer, or other specialist when the project needs that level of evidence. 4. **Record:** keep the source links, assumptions, boundaries, and questions alongside the option or brief they informed. That sequence lets automation remove repetitive assembly work without confusing an early indication for a professional conclusion. ## From Practice The most useful early analysis does not pretend every uncertainty is resolved. It tells the team which issue could change the brief, where the evidence came from, and what must be checked before the decision becomes expensive to reverse. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does Atlasly replace a measured site survey?** No. Atlasly is for early desk research, scoping, comparison, and briefing. A measured survey, title review, ground investigation, site inspection, and other specialist work remain necessary when the project or decision requires them. **Should I verify Atlasly findings against the original source?** Yes, particularly for a finding that affects site selection, design, planning strategy, cost, safety, legal position, or a formal submission. Atlasly is designed to make the relevant primary source easier to identify and review. **Can Atlasly tell me whether planning permission will be granted?** No. It can surface policy and site context that may shape a planning strategy, but it cannot give legal advice, predict a decision, or replace advice from a qualified planning professional and the relevant authority. **Are CAD exports ready to build from?** They are early-design and coordination inputs. Verify units, coordinates, geometry, source date, and material details before using them in a detailed design, submission, or construction workflow. ## Conclusion Atlasly is most valuable when it makes early evidence faster to collect, easier to compare, and harder to lose. Treat every important result as a prompt to inspect its source and choose the right next level of verification. That is how a fast site-analysis workflow stays useful, defensible, and honest. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/pre-construction-site-analysis-complete-guide - https://atlasly.app/blog/ai-site-analysis-vs-manual-research-where-architecture-firms-actually-save-time - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-for-architects-before-planning-what-to-check-before-you-draw - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly ## Sources - [Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/) · Environment Agency / GOV.UK (2026) - [Flood risk assessments: applying for planning permission](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · Environment Agency / GOV.UK (2026) - [Search the List: National Heritage List for England](https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/) · Historic England (2026) - [MAGIC map service](https://magic.defra.gov.uk/) · Natural England / Defra (2026) - [National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Do I Need a Flood Risk Assessment? An England Feasibility Checklist" description: "An England flood-risk assessment checklist using current NPPF Policy F4, Environment Agency applicant guidance, official mapping and the local strategic flood risk assessment." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/do-i-need-a-flood-risk-assessment-uk-architects published: 2026-08-26 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "do I need a flood risk assessment" target_query: "do I need a flood risk assessment" intent: informational --- # Do I Need a Flood Risk Assessment? An England Feasibility Checklist > An England flood-risk assessment checklist using current NPPF Policy F4, Environment Agency applicant guidance, official mapping and the local strategic flood risk assessment. ## Planning policy source context The NPPF applies to England. GOV.UK published a new framework on 17 August 2026. Check the edition and applicability of any returned policy extract against the [current National Planning Policy Framework](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) and the relevant local plan before using it in a proposal. Source checked 11 September 2026. ## Quick Answer For England, check NPPF Policy F4 and the Environment Agency’s applicant guidance. Flood Zones 2 and 3, larger sites in Zone 1, critical drainage and present or future flood risk can require a site-specific assessment. Zone 1 alone does not establish that no FRA is needed. Confirm the proposal’s requirements with the local planning authority; a desktop screen is not an FRA. ## Introduction Flood evidence can change a site brief before a layout is developed: access, use, drainage, levels and the required specialist work may all need review. This checklist is for early feasibility in England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different policy and mapping arrangements. The sources below were checked on 12 September 2026. Keep the edition and retrieval date with the project record; a recent search answer does not prove that its underlying policy is current. ## Start with the current policy and applicant guidance The [NPPF published on 17 August 2026](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) contains Policy F4, Assessing flood risk for decision-making. It covers proposals in Zones 2, 3a and 3b and identifies Zone 1 categories involving sites of at least one hectare, Environment Agency critical drainage problems, and present or future risk identified in the SFRA or Flood Map for Planning. F4 also addresses proportionality and relevant sequential and exception tests. Read the actual policy alongside the [Environment Agency applicant guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission). Do not infer an authority’s likely interpretation from punctuation in a copied extract. For an uncertain proposal, ask the authority to confirm the assessment scope and record its response. ## Do not use Flood Zone 1 as the sole decision The Environment Agency guidance lists assessment triggers beyond current river and sea flood zones. They include Zone 1 sites of one hectare or more, critical drainage problems, and identified current or future risks such as surface water and climate-change flood extents. Inspect the current guidance and local SFRA for the site. A map covering one flood source cannot clear all other sources. Missing data must stay marked as unknown. Keep the boundary, map date, mapped risk and source coverage together so a reviewer can understand what was actually checked. ## Build a proposal-specific evidence record Use this suggested sequence: 1. Confirm the intended site boundary, area, proposed uses and access routes. 2. Inspect the [Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/) and the local authority’s current SFRA, including relevant future-risk information. 3. Record which policy and guidance triggers apply, which do not appear to apply on the checked evidence, and which remain unresolved. 4. Ask the authority or flood specialist about the FRA, drainage evidence and any sequential or exception-test work needed for this proposal. 5. Name the next action and its owner before treating the brief as settled. This is a suggested review method, not a guaranteed 30-minute assessment or a determination that an application will be valid. ## Brief the assessment rather than inventing its result Keep the early desktop check separate from the commissioned site-specific assessment. Give the specialist the boundary, proposal, source record, known levels and unresolved questions. Ask what additional data and investigation are needed and how they affect the programme. The Environment Agency says it provides requested Product 4 information within 20 working days; that is a data-request lead time, not a promised FRA completion date. Do not choose finished floor levels or claim a safe access strategy solely from an early map screen. ## Use Atlasly to organize the next check Atlasly’s [flood checker](/tools/flood-risk-checker) and site-analysis workflow can support an initial evidence review where the relevant sources are available. Verify material findings against current official mapping and the authority’s documents. A tool result is not a site-specific FRA, professional sign-off or assurance of permission. Keep unknown coverage visible in the [site evidence register workflow](/blog/what-is-a-site-intelligence-package-and-why-does-it-beat-a-folder-full-of-pdfs). Record the next source or specialist appointment needed, rather than presenting an incomplete result as no flood risk. ## Illustrative example Illustrative brief: a site appears outside the mapped river flood extent, but the team has not checked surface water or the current SFRA. The record stays incomplete until those sources are reviewed. This is a suggested decision rule, not a reported project outcome. ## Frequently Asked Questions **Does Flood Zone 1 mean no FRA?** No. Site size, critical drainage and identified current or future flood risks can still require assessment. Check NPPF F4, current Environment Agency guidance and the local SFRA for the proposal. **Is a desktop flood screen the same as an FRA?** No. A screen identifies evidence and further checks. A site-specific assessment must address the proposal and its flood-risk evidence to the required scope. **Does this checklist apply throughout the UK?** The policy and Environment Agency guidance discussed here apply to England. Use the relevant national policy, authority and mapping for other UK nations. ## Conclusion Establish the applicable sources and proposal-specific requirements before relying on the concept. Keep the screening record, unresolved questions and commissioned assessment distinct. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-for-architects-before-planning-what-to-check-before-you-draw - https://atlasly.app/blog/flood-risk-assessment-site-analysis - https://atlasly.app/blog/free-uk-flood-risk-checker-flood-zones-by-postcode ## Sources - [National Planning Policy Framework, Policy F4](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework) · MHCLG (2026) - [Flood risk assessments: applying for planning permission](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-applying-for-planning-permission) · GOV.UK / Environment Agency (2026) - [Flood Map for Planning](https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/) · GOV.UK --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/do-i-need-a-flood-risk-assessment-uk-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Use Image to CAD: Vector vs Elevation from a Facade Photo" description: "How UK architects turn a facade photograph into CAD linework with Atlasly Image to CAD: Vector vs Elevation, photo upload, auto-scale as an estimate, and DXF underlay use." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-image-to-cad-vector-vs-elevation published: 2026-08-27 modified: 2026-09-12 primary_keyword: "how to convert a facade photo to CAD" target_query: "facade photo to elevation CAD" intent: informational --- # How to Use Image to CAD: Vector vs Elevation from a Facade Photo > How UK architects turn a facade photograph into CAD linework with Atlasly Image to CAD: Vector vs Elevation, photo upload, auto-scale as an estimate, and DXF underlay use. ## Quick Answer Open atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad and drop a facade photo. Vector is the default and keeps the photograph's perspective. Elevation is a second, explicit pass that squares the facade. Auto-scale is an estimate from doors or coursing, not a survey. Download DXF, SVG, or PDF with a free account. This is a first-pass drawing underlay, not a measured elevation. ## Introduction You have a street photo of the facade, an early brief, and no survey yet. A reconstructed drawing can help explore the visible building, provided its perspective, scale and missing detail remain explicit. This guide describes Atlasly’s current workflow; it is not an accuracy comparison with other converters. This how-to is for UK architects at Stage 0-2 / as-found documentation: how to use [Image to CAD](/tools/image-to-cad), when to keep Vector versus opt into Elevation, and how photo upload and auto-scale actually work. For scanned floor plans, use [convert a scanned floor plan to DXF](/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser) instead of repeating that workflow here. ## Why a facade photo is not a CAD elevation yet A photograph is pixels with perspective, lens distortion, and whatever sat in front of the building that day. IMAGEATTACH plus manual tracing still works, but it is slow. Atlasly produces first-pass vector linework you can open in CAD as an underlay before you buy survey data. Trees, vans, and street furniture can obscure information that the photograph cannot establish. Heavy occlusion means gaps and dashed inferred lines, not a clean elevation. For raster versus vector theory, see the [raster-to-vector CAD guide](/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026). For scanned PDFs that fail ordinary converters, see [why PDF-to-DWG converters fail on scanned drawings](/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings). ## Photograph the facade so the conversion has a chance Shoot roughly square-on with openings, string courses, and a door leaf visible so scale has something real to estimate from. Clear the elevation plane when you can: vans, scaffolding, and deep tree cover break the drawing where they hide the wall. Google Earth, drone nadir, and other aerial views are unsupported for this elevation path. A phone photo of one facade, taken like a measured-building reference shot, is the intended input. ## Vector vs Elevation: the product split **Vector** is the default for every scene. It keeps the photograph's perspective. The linework is an inferred drawing that needs comparison with the upload. Atlasly does not silently square the photo. **Elevation** is an opt-in second pass. You choose it explicitly. Atlasly runs another drafting pass over the original photograph and squares the facade. The result is squared by drafting, not surveyed. Use it for an orthographic-style first pass. Do not run Elevation on a sketch or photo you wanted to keep in perspective. Scans and sketches belong on the [scanned floor plan walkthrough](/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser), not on the Elevation path. ## The real upload flow The drawing-mode path processes linework in the browser. Input classification is automatic: a photograph of a paper drawing must not be assumed to follow that local path. Check the current disclosure and classification before supplying confidential material. Photographs take a different path. A local result shows first. Atlasly then runs a cloud drafting pass on the photo. If that pass is unavailable, the local result still stands. The cloud drafting pass is automatic for photo-classified inputs; it is not an upload opt-in after the local preview. CAD downloads (DXF, SVG, vector PDF) need a free account. The share card stays ungated. Methodology notes: [/tools/image-to-cad/methodology](/tools/image-to-cad/methodology). ## Scale: estimate, then two-point refine On photo results, auto-scale estimates from on-building elements such as a door leaf, brick coursing, or storey height. Treat every auto-scale figure as an estimate. Never claim survey accuracy. Refine with two-point calibration against a known dimension. After import, check a second known dimension before you draw. OCR or dimension-string scale suggestions belong to the scan path (you must confirm them); see the [scanned floor plan guide](/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser). ## What to do with the DXF Open the file in AutoCAD, Rhino, or QCAD as an underlay. Lock the imported layers and draw over them. Eligible repeated-opening groups with at least two confirmed members can export as DXF BLOCKs on A-OPENING. Shared strokes (string courses) are not collapsed. The photo pass does not produce native Revit walls or the scan path’s recognized text. It supplies an underlay to review. The separate drawing path can produce OCR text, which also needs checking. Site-context DXF from Atlasly's site tools: [how to export site context DXF](/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly). ## What Atlasly Image to CAD is not Not a measured survey. Not an FRA. Not planning advice. Not a substitute for a laser or total-station elevation survey. Use it as a Stage 0-2 underlay to brief concept and compare options early, then commission measured work when the project needs survey-grade elevations or when a planning submission requires them. ## From Practice Silently squaring a street photo throws away the composition the architect shot. That is why Vector is the default: keep the perspective you framed, and only opt into Elevation when you explicitly want a squared facade pass. ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is the difference between Vector and Elevation?** Vector is the default and keeps the photograph's perspective. Elevation is an explicit second pass that squares the facade by drafting, not by survey. **Is Atlasly Image to CAD a measured survey?** No. It is a Stage 0-2 / as-found underlay, not a measured survey, FRA, planning advice, or laser/total-station substitute. **Are scans uploaded to a server?** Drawing-mode linework is processed locally. Photo-classified inputs automatically receive cloud drafting after the local preview. Classification is automatic, so a photograph of a paper plan is not guaranteed to stay local. **Is auto-scale accurate?** No. Photo auto-scale is an estimate from on-building elements. Refine with two-point calibration and check a second known dimension after import. **Do I need an account to download?** Yes for CAD downloads (DXF, SVG, vector PDF): free-account gated. The share card stays ungated. ## Conclusion Drop a facade photo into [Image to CAD](/tools/image-to-cad). Keep Vector when perspective matters. Opt into Elevation only for a squared facade pass. Treat auto-scale as an estimate, refine with two points, and use the DXF as an underlay. When you need survey accuracy, commission a measured elevation. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/convert-scanned-floor-plan-to-dxf-free-browser - https://atlasly.app/blog/raster-to-vector-cad-complete-guide-2026 - https://atlasly.app/blog/why-pdf-to-dwg-converters-fail-on-scanned-drawings - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-export-site-context-dxf-autocad-atlasly ## Sources - [Atlasly Image to CAD](https://atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad) · Atlasly (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-image-to-cad-vector-vs-elevation Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "Atlasly Vision: AI Rendering Built for Architects, Urban Designers and Planners" description: "What Atlasly Vision does, who it is for, and how its renders, edits, diagrams and flythroughs fit a real design workflow, from first massing to a client-ready report." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vision-ai-rendering-for-architects published: 2026-09-22 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "AI rendering for architects" target_query: "AI rendering tool for architects urban designers and planners" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly Vision: AI Rendering Built for Architects, Urban Designers and Planners > What Atlasly Vision does, who it is for, and how its renders, edits, diagrams and flythroughs fit a real design workflow, from first massing to a client-ready report. ## Quick Answer Atlasly Vision is the image and video workspace inside Atlasly that turns a written brief, a sketch, or a massing model screenshot into architectural renders, diagrams, maps and short flythrough videos. It ships with fourteen purpose-built tools for architects, urban designers and planners, curated starting points for each discipline, a choice of leading rendering engines, and an iteration loop that carries a result forward: refine it, reroll it, upscale it to print quality, and drop it straight into a site report. ## Introduction Most image tools are built for everyone, which means they are tuned for no one. Ask a general tool for a dusk exterior and you get atmosphere without architecture: beautiful light, implausible structure, a site that does not exist. Atlasly Vision starts from the opposite position. It assumes you are working on a real site, with a real brief, for a client or a planning authority who will ask awkward questions. The tools, the starting points and the defaults are all shaped around architectural and planning work, and because Vision sits inside Atlasly, it can draw on the same site context as the rest of your analysis. ## What is Atlasly Vision? Vision is the visualisation surface of Atlasly, available at /vision inside the app. It combines four kinds of capability in one place: - **Renders**. Photoreal exteriors and interiors from a written brief or a reference image - **Edits**. Change a render or photo with an instruction, remove objects cleanly, or apply a curated architectural style - **Diagrams and maps**. Masterplan diagrams, schematic floor plans, site analysis diagrams, figure-ground and sun path studies, and custom map styling - **Output**. Variations grids for comparing directions, print-quality upscaling, and short cinematic flythrough videos Everything runs in the browser. There is nothing to install, and no render farm to configure. ## What can architects, urban designers and planners each use it for? The Explore tab organises starting points by discipline, so the first click is already close to your workflow. **Architects** typically start with dusk or golden-hour exteriors from a massing model, material studies of a courtyard elevation, or biophilic interiors for client moodboards. Attach a screenshot of the model, describe the atmosphere, and iterate on the same image until the materiality reads right. **Urban designers** lean on the aerial masterplan, street-section and map styling tools for illustrative plans that communicate structure, landscape and movement without a day in Illustrator. **Planners** use the computed diagrams: figure-ground and sun path studies are generated from real site data rather than imagined, so they are accurate enough to sit in a pre-application document. Site analysis diagrams label sun, wind, views and access for committee-ready context. ## How do you write a brief that produces a good render? Vision rewards the way architects already describe buildings. A short, specific brief beats a long vague one, and the composer helps you build it: - **Refinement chips** add camera angle, light, season, atmosphere, materials and entourage with one tap, aerial view, golden hour, board-marked concrete, people on the pavement - **Exclusions** let you state what to leave out, no cars, no scaffolding, no people - **Framing and batch** controls set the aspect ratio (including 21:9 for presentation boards) and how many options to generate at once Every tool remembers its own settings, so your interior renders stay portrait and your exteriors stay widescreen without re-setting anything. ## Which rendering engines does Vision use? Vision routes each tool to a chain of leading engines, including Flux 2 Pro, Nano Banana 2, GPT Image, Gemini, Recraft, Imagen, SeedVR and Kling, and falls back automatically if one is unavailable, so a run succeeds rather than erroring. You can leave the picker on **Recommended** and never think about it. If you do want control, the picker groups engines into **Best quality** and **Fast & lighter** tiers, with a simple $ to $$$ symbol showing how heavy each one is. Expensive does not always mean better for a given task. A fast engine is often the right choice for early iteration, with a quality engine reserved for the image that goes in front of the client. ## How does the iteration loop work? A render is rarely right first time, so every result in Vision carries its own next steps: - **Use as source** feeds the image back into the editor, so you refine the same view instead of starting over - **Reroll** runs the same brief with fresh variation when the composition is right but the detail is not - **Upscale** takes a chosen result to print quality at 2x or 4x - **Copy description** lifts the exact brief for reuse across a set of images The workspace view goes further: brush over a region to change only that area, hold the geometry with a preservation dial, compare two directions with a slider, and see exactly how each image was made: brief, settings and lineage included. ## How does Vision connect to the rest of Atlasly? This is where Vision differs from a standalone image tool. When you work inside a project, Vision knows the site you are analysing. The composer's site chip shows the address and local authority it is working from, and that context shapes the output. Finished images do not sit in a downloads folder. **Add to Report** and **Add to Pack** place them into the same evidence pack as your constraints mapping, flood risk and planning analysis, so the visual and the argument travel together. A figure-ground study, a massing render and a constraints map can all come from one workspace, about one site. ## How do you get started? Open [Atlasly Vision](/vision), pick a starting point from the gallery that is close to what you need, adjust the brief, and generate. You can try it free without an account: one render a day at no cost, and a free account unlocks the full studio. The whole loop (brief, generate, refine, upscale, file into a report) takes minutes rather than days. ## Illustrative example A small practice preparing for a client meeting on a tight infill site needed a credible dusk exterior from an untextured massing model, a figure-ground diagram for context, and a streetscape view with the parked cars removed. Using Vision, the team attached the massing screenshot, worked from the dusk-exterior starting point, and refined the same view through three instruction edits rather than three re-renders. The figure-ground came from site data rather than a traced approximation, and the finished images were added to the pre-application pack the same afternoon. (Illustrative scenario.) ## Frequently Asked Questions **What is Atlasly Vision?** Atlasly Vision is the image and video workspace inside Atlasly. It turns a written brief, sketch or massing model screenshot into architectural renders, diagrams, maps and short flythrough videos, with tools designed for architects, urban designers and planners. **Is there a free AI rendering tool for architects?** Yes. Atlasly Vision gives every visitor one free render a day at atlasly.app/vision, with no account and no watermark. Creating a free account unlocks the full studio, including print-quality upscaling, saved history and filing results into reports. **Can I use my own images, sketches or model screenshots?** Yes. Attach a reference image or paste a link and Vision works from it, editing with instructions, applying a style, removing objects or upscaling. A preservation dial controls how closely the output keeps your original geometry. **Which rendering engines can I choose from?** The picker offers a Recommended default plus a choice of leading engines grouped into Best quality and Fast & lighter tiers, including Flux 2 Pro, Nano Banana 2, GPT Image, Gemini, Recraft V4 Pro, Imagen 4 Ultra, SeedVR 2 and Kling 3 Pro. Expense is shown with a simple $ to $$$ symbol. **Can Vision output go into planning documents?** Yes. Results upscale to print quality and can be added directly to an Atlasly report or evidence pack. The computed tools (figure-ground and sun path studies) are generated from real site data, which makes them suitable for planning conversations. **How is Vision different from a general image generator?** Vision is built around design work: discipline-specific tools and starting points, camera and material language architects actually use, site context from the wider Atlasly analysis, and an iteration loop that refines one image rather than generating endless disconnected ones. ## Conclusion Good visualisation is not about producing more images. It is about producing the right image early enough to improve a decision, and being able to stand behind it when the client or the case officer asks where it came from. Atlasly Vision keeps that loop inside the same workspace as your site analysis, so the picture and the evidence never drift apart. Open /vision, start from a template, and see how far one well-briefed image can go. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-architectural-concept-renders-that-still-respect-the-site - https://atlasly.app/blog/best-ai-tools-uk-architects-2026 ## Sources - [Image & Video capabilities](https://elevenlabs.io/docs/overview/capabilities/image-video) · ElevenLabs Docs (2026) - [Best AI image generator models](https://fal.ai/explore/best-ai-image-generators) · fal (2026) - [AI rendering for architecture](https://gendo.ai/) · Gendo (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vision-ai-rendering-for-architects Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "How to Create AI Architectural Renders: From Sketch or Massing Model to Client-Ready Image" description: "A practical, step-by-step guide to AI architectural rendering with Atlasly Vision: starting points, brief writing, editing without re-rendering, consistent sets, print-ready upscaling and flythrough video." canonical: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-ai-architectural-renders published: 2026-09-24 modified: 2026-10-02 primary_keyword: "AI architectural renders" target_query: "how to create ai architectural renders from a sketch or model" intent: informational --- # How to Create AI Architectural Renders: From Sketch or Massing Model to Client-Ready Image > A practical, step-by-step guide to AI architectural rendering with Atlasly Vision: starting points, brief writing, editing without re-rendering, consistent sets, print-ready upscaling and flythrough video. ## Quick Answer To create an AI architectural render, open Atlasly Vision, choose a starting point from the gallery (or pick a tool such as Exterior render), attach a sketch, photo or massing model screenshot if you have one, write a short specific brief, and generate. Refine the same image with instruction edits rather than re-rendering, keep a set consistent by reusing the brief and style, then upscale to print quality or turn the result into a short flythrough video. The whole loop takes minutes, and your first render of the day is free at atlasly.app/vision with no account. ## Introduction AI rendering has crossed the line from curiosity to daily tool. The practices getting value from it are not the ones chasing perfect single images. They are the ones with a repeatable loop: a clear brief, fast iterations, and output that survives contact with a client meeting. This guide walks that loop end to end using Atlasly Vision, from the first click to a print-ready board or a flythrough video. No rendering expertise, no plug-ins, no render farm. ## What do you need to start rendering with AI? A browser and a rough idea. Vision works from any of these starting points: - **Words only**: a written brief such as "six-storey mass timber residential block, leafy street, golden hour" - **A screenshot of your model**: SketchUp, Revit, Rhino or any massing tool. A flat clay screenshot is enough - **A sketch or photo**: hand sketches, site photos, or an earlier render you want to push further You do not need materials, lighting rigs or entourage set up in the model. Those arrive through the brief. What the reference image contributes is composition and geometry; what you write contributes everything else. You can try the whole loop free at [atlasly.app/vision](/vision): your first render of the day needs no account. ## How do you turn a sketch or massing model into a render? 1. Open Vision and choose **Exterior render** or **Interior render**, or pick a matching starting point from the gallery, which seeds the tool and brief for you. 2. Attach your screenshot or sketch with **Image refs**. 3. Set the **preservation** level: strict keeps your geometry almost untouched, balanced allows the image to breathe, free lets the render reinterpret more freely. For client-facing work, strict or balanced keeps the design honest. 4. Generate. The first result is a direction, not a verdict. If the geometry is right but the mood is wrong, that is a brief problem, not a model problem. Adjust words, not the model. ## How do you write a brief that produces a convincing building? Architects already know the vocabulary; the skill is ordering it. A reliable structure is **subject, context, light, material, life**: - **Subject**: what the building is and its massing ("courtyard block of twelve flats") - **Context**: where it sits ("conservation area street of London stock brick terraces") - **Light**: time and weather ("overcast morning, soft shadows") - **Material**: the palette that carries the design ("handmade red brick piers, charred timber upper storey") - **Life**: entourage ("people on the pavement, a cyclist passing") Vision's **Add detail** chips cover each of these families, so you can assemble a professional brief with taps instead of typing. Add **exclusions** for anything you do not want: no cars, no scaffolding, no lens flare. Keep it specific and short; thirty well-chosen words outperform two hundred vague ones. ## How do you refine a render without starting from scratch? This is where most time is saved. Every result in Vision carries its own next steps: - **Edit with instruction**: "swap the facade to red brick", "change to dusk", "add street trees". The rest of the image stays put - **Region editing** in the workspace: brush over the part you want changed and describe the change; everything outside the brush stays pixel-identical - **Remove object**: parked cars, signage, scaffolding, gone cleanly - **Reroll**: same brief, fresh variation, for when the composition is right but the detail is not - **Use as source**: promote any result to be the reference for the next iteration Work on one image until it is right. A render you recognise your own design in is worth more than twenty loosely related ones. ## How do you keep a set of images consistent? Client presentations fall apart when every image looks like a different project. Consistency comes from reusing three things across the set: 1. **The same core brief**: copy it and change only what varies (the view, the time of day) 2. **The same style preset**: Apply style carries a look across renders from different sources 3. **The same seed and engine**: the seed is recorded with every result, so a look you like can be reproduced deliberately The result is a board of images that read as one project, one atmosphere, one argument. ## How do you get print-ready images and video? For boards and reports, resolution and framing matter as much as the image itself: - **Aspect ratios** from 1:1 to 21:9 cover everything from an Instagram square to a full-bleed presentation spread - **Upscale 2x or 4x** takes the chosen image to print quality - **Variations grid** produces four directions at once when you want options to discuss - **Flythrough video** turns a still or a brief into a short cinematic clip for consultations, bids and social channels When the image is final, **Add to Report** files it into the same evidence pack as the rest of your site analysis, so the visual and the argument stay together. ## What can you generate beyond renders? Vision is not only photoreal images. The same workspace produces the diagrams a planning conversation needs: - **Masterplan diagrams**: illustrative site plans with landscape and movement structure - **Schematic floor plans**: early test-fit thinking in plan form - **Site analysis diagrams**: labelled sun, wind, views and access - **Figure-ground and sun path studies**: computed from real site data, accurate enough for pre-application documents - **Custom map styling**: illustrated maps in your presentation's visual language Because the computed tools draw on the same site data as the rest of Atlasly, the diagram you show is the site you analysed, not an artist's impression of a generic one. ## Illustrative example A five-person practice used this loop before a community consultation for a small housing scheme. They rendered the massing model screenshot as a dusk street view, produced a consistent second view at eye level by reusing the brief and style, removed two parked cars from a site photo for the 'existing' slide, and generated a figure-ground diagram from site data for context. The consultation boards went from a week of outsourced visualisation to one afternoon in-house. (Illustrative scenario.) ## Frequently Asked Questions **Can AI render a SketchUp or Revit model?** Yes. Take a screenshot of the model, even untextured, and attach it in Atlasly Vision. The render keeps your composition and geometry while the brief supplies materials, light and atmosphere. A preservation control sets how strictly the output follows the model. **Do I need to be good at writing AI briefs?** No. Start from a gallery template and the brief is written for you; adjust the words that matter. The refinement chips add professional camera, light, season and material language with one tap. **How long does an AI architectural render take?** Images arrive in seconds. A short flythrough video takes a few minutes and renders in the background while you keep working. **What resolution can I get for print?** Any result can be upscaled 2x or 4x for presentation boards and printed documents, with aspect ratios up to 21:9 for wide spreads. **Can I use AI renders with clients and planning authorities?** Yes, with normal professional judgement: label them as concept visuals, keep the geometry honest to the design, and use the computed tools (figure-ground, sun path) where accuracy matters, since those are generated from real site data. **Is Atlasly Vision free to try?** Yes. Open atlasly.app/vision and create your first render of the day free, with no account and no watermark. A free account unlocks the full studio, including print-quality upscaling, saved history and filing results into reports. ## Conclusion The practices winning time back with AI rendering share one habit: they treat the image as a working document, not a lottery ticket. Brief it properly, iterate on it directly, keep the set consistent, and finish at the resolution the audience needs. Atlasly Vision is built around exactly that loop, inside the same workspace as your site analysis. Open it, render something you are actually working on, and judge it by whether the client meeting gets easier. ## Related Reading - https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-vision-ai-rendering-for-architects - https://atlasly.app/blog/architectural-concept-renders-from-site-context - https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-architectural-concept-renders-that-still-respect-the-site ## Sources - [Best AI image generator models](https://fal.ai/explore/best-ai-image-generators) · fal (2026) - [Image & Video capabilities](https://elevenlabs.io/docs/overview/capabilities/image-video) · ElevenLabs Docs (2026) - [AI rendering for architecture](https://gendo.ai/) · Gendo (2026) --- Source: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-create-ai-architectural-renders Platform: Atlasly, AI site intelligence for architects, engineers, and urban planners. https://atlasly.app --- --- title: "About Atlas AI — Atlasly" description: "Learn how to use Atlas AI for site-analysis questions, evidence review, and early project decisions." canonical: https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai/about primary_keyword: "Atlas AI specialist AEC chatbot" target_query: "what is Atlas AI and how does it differ from ChatGPT" intent: commercial --- # About Atlas AI Atlas AI brings a conversational interface to Atlasly site-analysis work. Architects, planners, and project teams can use it to explore planning questions, site context, and the issues that shape an early brief. ## Give the question a site context Include the location, the relevant jurisdiction, the proposed use, and the project stage. Where site evidence is available, review it alongside the response. Keep the source references, assumptions, and unanswered questions with the option or brief they inform. ## Review before relying on an answer Planning documents change, datasets have limits, and a generated answer can be incomplete or incorrect. Verify the applicable version and status of a policy against its original publisher. Atlas AI does not guarantee planning permission, complete coverage, or error-free references. Use it to organise the next question and the evidence to inspect. A measured survey, title review, specialist assessment, or formal submission needs the appropriate professional process. Atlas AI chat is included in Starter. Saved site analyses and exports have separate allowances described on the pricing page. - [Open Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Site-analysis methodology and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Atlas AI: Site Analysis and Planning Questions" description: "Explore site evidence, planning questions, and early design context with Atlas AI." canonical: https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai primary_keyword: "AI chatbot for architects" target_query: "free AI chatbot architecture planning NPPF" intent: commercial --- # Atlas AI Atlas AI is Atlasly's conversational interface for architects, planners, and site-analysis work. Use it to explore project questions, review available site context, and organise the evidence and issues that need attention. ## Questions to start with - What site constraints should I investigate before developing this brief? - Which planning sources apply to this location and proposal? - What information is missing from this site comparison? - Which assumptions should I verify before using this result in design work? Provide the location, jurisdiction, and project stage so the answer can address the relevant context. Check material policy references against the applicable published documents. Answers can contain errors or incomplete information, and a reference alone does not establish that a proposal complies with policy. ## Access and outputs Atlas AI chat is included in Starter. Saved web analyses and paid exports have separate plan allowances. Site context and drawings should be reviewed before use; detailed design and formal assessment still require the appropriate evidence and professional work. - [Open Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [About Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai/about) - [Sources, coverage, and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Atlasly Developer Resources — MCP and REST Publication Status" description: "Review Atlasly hosted MCP access, authentication guidance and the publication status of the separate REST contract." canonical: https://atlasly.app/developers primary_keyword: "Atlasly developer resources" target_query: "Atlasly API developer documentation OpenAPI MCP" intent: navigational --- # Atlasly Developer Resources > Connect to Atlasly's hosted MCP interface and review its coverage and permissions. The separate REST contract is pending production verification. ## Quick Answer **Where are the Atlasly developer resources?** Everything is at `https://atlasly.app/developers` or at predictable `.well-known` URLs. OpenAPI publication status at `/openapi.json`. Hosted MCP server at `mcp.atlasly.app/mcp`. OAuth discovery at `/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server` and `/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource`. MCP server card at `/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json`. Agent-skills index at `/.well-known/agent-skills/index.json`. ## Which Atlasly is this, and does it cover US sites? Atlasly at **atlasly.app** is the site-analysis and early-feasibility platform for architects and planners. These resources describe that product and its hosted connection at **mcp.atlasly.app**. Its site-review guidance focuses on UK workflows; source coverage varies by jurisdiction and layer. For a US site, verify the local zoning map, current code and official parcel records. A US guide or a returned layer does not establish comprehensive zoning or permitting coverage. Read the [data sources and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) before relying on a result. ## Resources Directory ### Machine-Readable - **REST publication status (OpenAPI 3.1)** — https://atlasly.app/openapi.json — publication status only; no callable REST operations are published - **API Catalog (RFC 9727)** — https://atlasly.app/.well-known/api-catalog - **MCP Server Card (SEP-1649)** — https://atlasly.app/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json - **Agent Skills Discovery (v0.2.0)** — https://atlasly.app/.well-known/agent-skills/index.json - **OAuth Authorization Server (RFC 8414)** — https://atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server - **OAuth Protected Resource (RFC 9728)** — https://atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource - **llms.txt (AI content index)** — https://atlasly.app/llms.txt - **llms-full.txt (full corpus)** — https://atlasly.app/llms-full.txt ### Human-Readable - **API Reference** — https://atlasly.app/resources/api - **MCP Setup Guide (Claude, ChatGPT)** — https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - **MCP Tools Reference** — https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis - **Agent Authentication Guide** — https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp - **CAD Export Workflow (AI Chat)** — https://atlasly.app/blog/export-dxf-dwg-site-analysis-from-ai-chat - **System Status** — https://atlasly.app/resources/status ### Live Endpoints - **Hosted MCP Server** — https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp - **MCP Health** — https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp/health - **MCP OAuth Discovery** — https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server - **MCP Protected Resource Metadata** — https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp ## Quickstart ### Install the MCP in Claude Desktop 1. Open Claude Desktop → Settings → Connectors → Add custom connector 2. URL: `https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp` 3. Save and inspect the tools advertised by the server. Public tools can be used without an Atlasly account, subject to request limits. 4. Account-linked operations require the appropriate authentication and permissions. ### Verify the REST API contract before integration The earlier REST specification has been withdrawn. Its advertised api.atlasly.app hostname did not resolve during our 12 September 2026 review, and its route, authentication and completion claims were not verified. The OpenAPI document publishes no callable operations. Obtain a confirmed deployment contract before generating a client or sending credentials. The hosted MCP interface is separate. Review the [integration checklist](https://atlasly.app/solutions/api-integration), [published specification](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) and [current account allowances](https://atlasly.app/pricing). Validate authentication, request fields, acceptance versus completion, status lookup and error handling against the confirmed contract before building an integration. A generated client is only as reliable as that contract. ## Authentication Review authentication separately for each interface: ### 1. Anonymous (public MCP tools only) Public tools can be used without account credentials. Request limits still apply; public access does not mean unlimited throughput. ### 2. OAuth 2.1 with PKCE (recommended for MCP clients) Discovery at https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server. Flow: 1. Client registers dynamically via `POST /register` (or uses a pre-registered client_id) 2. User is redirected to `/authorize` with PKCE code_challenge 3. User approves the consent screen at `atlasly.app/mcp/oauth/authorize` 4. Client exchanges the authorization code at `/token` for an access token (and optional refresh token with `offline_access` scope) Scopes: - `atlasly.mcp` — call public MCP tools - `atlasly.projects.write` — create / modify Atlasly projects - `atlasly.site_package.run` — run the full site intelligence pipeline - `atlasly.site_watch.write` — configure Site Watch monitoring - `offline_access` — receive a refresh token for long-lived agent access ### 3. API key access for REST Confirm your integration's deployed authentication header and key permissions with developer support. The withdrawn specification advertised bearer authentication, while repository gateway source reads `X-API-Key`; this does not establish an available production REST service. Do not reuse one interface's credentials or header convention for another without verifying the contract. ## Completion notifications Confirm whether the deployed integration offers polling, completion notifications or both. Before relying on notifications, verify the event schema, signing method, secret management, retries and duplicate handling with developer support. This page does not provide a verified production webhook contract. ## Rate limits and quotas Check [current plans and allowances](https://atlasly.app/pricing) and the account's actual usage limits. Web analyses, REST requests and public-tool requests are different operations; do not assume the same quota or concurrency limit applies to all of them. Handle rate-limit and unavailable responses explicitly. ## Support - Email: hello@atlasly.io - Status: https://atlasly.app/resources/status - Enterprise / pilot: https://atlasly.app/pilot ## Links - Pricing: https://atlasly.app/pricing - MCP installation: https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt - Full MCP tools reference: https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis - Agent authentication guide: https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp --- --- title: "Atlasly — Site Analysis & Feasibility for Architects" description: "Bring planning, environmental, terrain, and site context into an early-stage evidence pack. Explore site analysis tools, CAD exports, and source-linked guides." canonical: https://atlasly.app/ primary_keyword: "site analysis for architects" target_query: "site analysis tool for architects" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly — Site Analysis & Feasibility for Architects Atlasly brings early-stage site information into a shared workflow for architects, planners, and development teams. Use it to explore site context, compare options, identify issues, and prepare an evidence pack for the next project decision. ## What can I use Atlasly for? - Review available planning, flood, heritage, ecology, terrain, and transport information. - Explore site context and prepare drawings or maps for early design work. - Compare sites and retain the evidence and questions behind a recommendation. - Ask planning and site-analysis questions through Atlas AI or a compatible assistant connected to Atlasly. - Export site context in supported CAD, BIM, and geospatial formats on an eligible plan. The available information depends on the site's location, the source dataset, and the selected workflow. Check the source date, coverage, and boundary assumptions before relying on a finding. An early site screen does not replace a measured survey, formal assessment, or specialist advice. Read the [data sources, coverage, and limits guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits). ## Who is it for? Architects can assemble early site context before developing an option. Planners can organise policy and constraint evidence. Developers and investors can compare sites and record issues that need investigation. Students can explore the same methods when preparing a site analysis. ## Plans - **Starter — Free:** 5 saved web analyses per month, up to 2 km radius, PDF and image exports, and Atlas AI chat. - **Professional — £49/month:** unlimited saved analyses, supported CAD/BIM exports, financial calculators, and 100 API calls per month. - **Teams — £199/month:** Professional features, 5 seats, collaboration, and 1,000 API calls per month. CAD/BIM exports require Professional or above. Public MCP access and paid export entitlements are separate. See [current pricing and allowances](https://atlasly.app/pricing) for annual billing, Enterprise, and reviewed student access. ## Common questions **Does Atlasly work outside the UK?** Coverage varies by jurisdiction and by data layer. Check the available sources for the actual location; a mapped layer in one region does not establish equivalent coverage elsewhere. **Do I need to install anything?** The web application runs in your browser. Downloaded exports can be opened in compatible design software; check units, coordinates, and geometry as part of the handover. **Does it replace a flood risk assessment?** No. It can help organise early flood information and questions to investigate. A project that needs a formal assessment still needs the appropriate professional work. **Can students use it?** Starter is available for initial work. Enrolled students can request reviewed Professional access; the free Starter tier does not include every paid export or portfolio feature. ## Start exploring - [Create an account](https://atlasly.app/auth) - [Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Site analysis tools](https://atlasly.app/tools) - [Guides](https://atlasly.app/blog) - [Use Atlasly in a compatible assistant](https://atlasly.app/mcp) - [Developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) ## Integration availability Published API allowances do not establish an available public REST endpoint. The REST contract is pending production verification and currently publishes no callable operations. Review [developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) for the separate hosted MCP interface and current publication status. --- --- title: "Atlasly MCP — Site analysis in compatible assistants" description: "Connect a compatible assistant to Atlasly's hosted MCP interface. Review tool discovery, account permissions, source coverage and current integration limits." canonical: https://atlasly.app/mcp primary_keyword: "Atlasly MCP" target_query: "how to use atlasly in claude chatgpt MCP" intent: transactional --- # Atlasly MCP — Site analysis inside your chat Connect a compatible remote MCP client to `https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp`. Atlasly at **atlasly.app** is the site-analysis service for architects and planners. It is distinct from Atlas at atlas.co, AtlasMapping, MongoDB Atlas and Atlassian. Public initialization and `tools/list` were verified without credentials on 12 September 2026. The response contained 27 public tool definitions. That verifies discovery; this review did not run site assessments or private account-linked actions. ## Connect and inspect the available checks 1. Open your client's current remote MCP or custom-connector setup. Connection support, menus and plan access vary by client; use its current documentation. 2. Add `https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp` and let the client initialize the connection. 3. Inspect the available checks and ask a site-specific question, such as “Review the available flood evidence for this address and identify missing checks.” 4. Review the returned sources, coverage and errors before relying on the answer. 5. Authorize through the client flow when you need an account-linked operation, then inspect the tool list and permissions again. No Atlasly API key was needed for public discovery. Public access does not establish unlimited request throughput or complete source coverage. Keep service-limit and unavailable-source responses visible. ## Discovery and permissions - Endpoint: https://mcp.atlasly.app/mcp - Transport: Streamable HTTP; negotiate the protocol through the client. The reviewed session negotiated 2025-03-26. - Authorization metadata: https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server - Protected-resource metadata: https://mcp.atlasly.app/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp - [Authentication guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp) The live metadata advertises authorization-code access with S256 proof-key support and account permission scopes. Source defines five additional account-linked operations: project creation, site-package jobs, job status, saved briefs and Site Watch. They were absent from unauthenticated discovery. Their private live execution and account entitlements remain unverified in this review. Do not assume that requesting an unavailable operation automatically signs a user in. ## What to use the evidence for The public catalog includes site screening, comparison, boundary checks, flood and heritage research, planning sources, transport and briefing aids. Use the [dated tools reference](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis) for the observed names and live `tools/list` for current input schemas. Atlasly focuses on UK site research. Many planning and environmental sources are England-specific; confirm the correct nation, authority, source edition and location for each operation. This connection does not establish complete UK coverage or US permitting support. `get_site_topography` provides point elevation in the reviewed implementation, not surveyed contours, slope profiles or a full terrain surface. Flood, biodiversity, permitted-development and planning-likelihood outputs remain screening aids. They do not establish an FRA, statutory metric assessment, lawful-development certificate or permission. When a tool returns `site_ref`, keep it with supported follow-up checks and inspect its boundary confidence. An address point is not a surveyed parcel. Keep unavailable data marked as unknown rather than interpreting it as no constraint. ## Optional installed workflow The [Atlasly skill](https://atlasly.app/skills/atlasly/SKILL.md) and [installer](https://atlasly.app/install) support an optional guided workflow in compatible clients. Inspect the current installation instructions before changing client configuration. The hosted MCP URL can be used separately from that optional installation. A suggested first question is “Appraise [address] for [use] at [stage].” Use the result to identify evidence and next checks, then verify findings against their primary sources. [Methodology and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits). ## Exports, plans and REST status Required exports depend on the selected workflow, account and available output. Check the actual file in the receiving application for units, coordinates, layers and geometry. This guide does not promise cleanup-free exports or survey accuracy. Use [current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) and your account's actual entitlements. Public MCP requests, saved analyses and other account-linked operations are different allowances. The separate REST contract is withdrawn pending production verification. The previously advertised `api.atlasly.app` hostname did not resolve during the 12 September 2026 check. The [OpenAPI document](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) publishes no callable operations. Do not generate a production client or send credentials using that withdrawn contract. [Developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) explain current publication status. ## Related - [MCP tools and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-mcp-tools-reference-site-analysis) - [Authentication and permissions](https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp) - [Source coverage and methodology](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Starter plan and standalone-tool differences](https://atlasly.app/blog/free-ai-site-analysis-tool-for-architects) Source: https://atlasly.app/mcp --- --- title: "Atlasly Pricing — Free Starter, £49/mo Professional" description: "Starter includes 5 saved site analyses. Professional is £49/mo with CAD/BIM exports; Teams is £199/mo for 5 seats; Enterprise pricing is custom." canonical: https://atlasly.app/pricing primary_keyword: "Atlasly pricing" target_query: "how much does Atlasly cost" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly Pricing > Start free with five saved site analyses each month. Professional is £49/month for individual practitioners. Teams is £199/month for five seats. Annual billing saves 20%. ## Quick Answer - **Starter — Free:** 5 saved web analyses/month, 2 km radius, public MCP access, PDF/PNG exports - **Professional — £49/month or £39/month billed annually:** unlimited saved analyses, 10 km radius, one seat, CAD/BIM and geospatial exports, concept renders, financial calculators, and 100 API calls - **Teams — £199/month or £159/month billed annually:** Professional features, 5 seats, shared projects and comments, 1,000 API calls, and onboarding - **Enterprise — Custom pricing:** custom seats, API capacity, data integrations, security review, SLA, and support - **Student — Free after review:** Professional access while enrolled Prices exclude VAT where applicable. Starter does not require a credit card. ## Which Plan Fits? ### Starter For students, trials, and occasional site screening. - 5 saved site analyses per month - 2 km analysis radius - Atlas AI chat - Public MCP tools for Claude, ChatGPT, and compatible clients - PDF and PNG exports - Community support ### Professional For architects, planners, and development professionals working independently. - Unlimited saved site analyses - Up to 10 km analysis radius - One professional seat - DXF, DWG, SKP, GLB, IFC, OBJ, KMZ, PDF, GeoJSON, Shapefile, and SVG exports - Concept renders, financial calculators, scoring, and viewshed tools - 100 API calls per month - Priority email support ### Teams For practices and land teams that need a shared workspace. - Everything in Professional - 5 team seats - Shared projects, comments, and revision history - 1,000 API calls per month - Dedicated onboarding ### Enterprise For portfolio workflows, larger firms, and organisations with data, procurement, or security requirements. - Everything in Teams - Custom seat, API, and research allowances - Internal GIS and workflow integrations - Security review, DPA, SLA, and dedicated support - Regional hosting and volume-licensing discussion Contact parallellabscorp@gmail.com. ### Student Enrolled architecture, planning, and engineering students can request reviewed Professional access. Email your Atlasly account email, institution, course, and expected graduation date to parallellabscorp@gmail.com. Do not send an identity card unless requested. ## Paid Pilots Pilots are scoped around live sites and agreed success measures, not feature demonstrations. - **Practice Pilot — £1,500 for 30 days:** up to 5 users, 10 live sites, onboarding workshop, baseline measurement, and ROI readout - **Land Team Pilot — £3,500 for 30 days:** up to 10 users, 25 live sites, workflow configuration, and ROI readout - **Enterprise Pilot — Custom:** scoped users and live sites, security and data review, integration workshop, and executive readout The pilot fee is credited against an annual agreement signed within 30 days of the final readout. Pilot pricing does not set the later commercial price. ## Annual Billing Annual Professional and Teams subscriptions save 20% against monthly billing. ## Market Context Public list prices checked on 7 September 2026: | Provider | Published paid entry point | Team or advanced point | |---|---:|---:| | Atlasly | £49/month | £199/month for 5 seats | | Aino | $50/month, billed annually | $300/month, billed annually | | Giraffe | $45/month | $1,500/user/year | | LandTech | £150/month, excluding VAT | Contact sales | | Searchland | From £195/licence/month, billed annually | Contact sales | | TestFit | From $195/month for Parking Solver | Site Solver from $15,000/year | Products differ in geography, data rights, workflow, and included capacity, so published prices are directional rather than like-for-like quotes. ## Common Questions **Can I use Atlasly for free?** Yes. Starter includes five saved web analyses each month, public MCP access, and PDF/PNG exports. **Can Starter export CAD or BIM files?** No. DXF, DWG, SKP, IFC, GLB, and KMZ exports require Professional or above. **Are analyses metered on Professional?** Saved site analyses are unlimited. API access has a separate monthly allowance: 100 calls on Professional and 1,000 on Teams. **What does Teams add?** Five seats, shared projects and comments, revision history, 1,000 API calls, a larger research allowance, and onboarding. **Can I cancel?** Monthly billing can be cancelled from account settings. Annual plans are refundable pro-rata within 14 days. **Is VAT included?** Prices are shown in GBP excluding VAT. VAT is added at checkout where applicable. ## Start - Free account: https://atlasly.app/auth - Use Atlasly through MCP: https://atlasly.app/mcp - Upgrade: https://atlasly.app/pricing - Pilot or Enterprise enquiry: parallellabscorp@gmail.com ## Integration availability Published API allowances do not establish an available public REST endpoint. The REST contract is pending production verification and currently publishes no callable operations. Review [developer resources](https://atlasly.app/developers) for the separate hosted MCP interface and current publication status. --- --- title: "Automated Site Reports — Atlasly" description: "Bring site maps, constraints, source references, and a summary into an early-stage report for review and sharing." canonical: https://atlasly.app/product/automated-reports primary_keyword: "automated site analysis report" target_query: "automated site report architecture PDF" intent: commercial --- # Automated Site Reports Atlasly brings available site evidence into an exportable report for architects, planners, and project teams. The report can combine maps, a site summary, planning context, flood and heritage information, terrain, and transport evidence, depending on the location and completed checks. ## Preparing a useful report 1. Confirm the site location and the boundary used for the analysis. 2. Review material findings alongside their source references. 3. Record missing information, assumptions, and issues that need further investigation. 4. Export the report and review it before sharing it with the project team. A generated report is an early-stage evidence pack. It does not establish planning permission, replace a measured survey, or complete a specialist flood, heritage, ecology, or transport assessment. Generation time depends on the workflow, data sources, and site; no fixed completion time is promised here. ## Next steps - [Start a site analysis](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Read the sources and limits guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Review current plans and export access](https://atlasly.app/pricing) - [Guide to shareable site reports](https://atlasly.app/blog/shareable-site-intelligence-reports) --- --- title: "Property & Real Estate Development Software | Atlasly" description: "Track every development site in one record: parcels (title no., APN), versioned documents with page citations, options, appraisal, actions and lender packs." canonical: https://atlasly.app/product/developments primary_keyword: "property development software" target_query: "property and real estate development project management software" intent: commercial --- # Property and real estate development software: one record for every site Atlasly Developments is development project software for property and real estate developers running several sites at once. Each site gets one record, from first look to investment committee, with the source of every figure in view. - Parcels with title numbers, folios or APNs - Due diligence documents with page citations - Development options compared side by side - Appraisal with profit on cost and on GDV - Owned actions, milestones and reviews - Project packs for committees and lenders It uses your Atlasly account. You can upload PDFs and email files today. Google and Microsoft connections are not available yet. - Start: https://atlasly.app/developments - Getting-started guide: https://atlasly.app/resources/docs/developments ## Built for development teams that carry sites from appraisal to delivery - **Developers and development managers.** See the whole portfolio, what is overdue and what changed since you last looked, then open any project exactly where you left off. - **Acquisitions and land teams.** Record parcels with their title numbers or APNs, run site due diligence, compare options and test the numbers before an offer or investment committee. - **Consultants and colleagues.** Architects, planning and cost consultants join a project as viewers or editors and work from the same versions. ## Why development teams lose track of a site - **Evidence is scattered.** Surveys in one drive, the pre-application reply in someone's inbox, the vendor's terms in another. Developments keeps each document and email with its version, sender and date, against the project and parcel it concerns. - **Nobody is sure which version is current.** Replacing a document keeps the earlier version readable. Options keep every revision. Packs record the exact versions they used and never change afterwards. - **The numbers drift from the scheme.** An appraisal prices one exact option revision. When the selected revision changes, the project says the appraisal is out of date instead of quietly mixing figures. - **Assumptions look like facts.** Findings are kept apart as facts cited to a page, assumptions, calculations and open questions. Appraisal inputs carry a source tag. Missing information is shown as not known. ## Track every development site in one record Each project opens on what to do next and how complete its record is: established, in progress, needing attention or not started. 1. **Site: parcels with title numbers, folios and APNs.** Record each parcel with its title number, folio or APN and draw or import its outline. A boundary stays unconfirmed until someone checks it against a source. 2. **Evidence: due diligence documents with page citations.** Upload PDFs and email files. Each document shows whether it could be read, keeps its versions and can be cited by page. Record facts, assumptions and open questions as you go. 3. **Options: development options compared side by side.** Compare alternatives on the same figures (homes, footprint, floorspace, storeys, coverage) with the assumption behind each. Bring in saved Canvas options with their exact version. 4. **Appraisal: profit on cost and on GDV.** Test land, build, finance and sales figures for the selected revision. Profit, profit on cost, profit on GDV, the cost breakdown and sensitivity stay in view. 5. **Work: actions, milestones and reviews.** Owned, dated actions that can wait on each other, milestones for the project stage, and reviews of the exact versions your team relies on. 6. **Pack: project packs for committees and lenders.** Generate a readable pack of the current record with the versions it used. Print it or save it as a PDF for a committee, lender or consultant. ## Your first project Start with what you already have: - **A site.** Name the project, add the address and parcel references, then draw the boundary. - **Documents.** Upload the survey, reports and correspondence you hold, or start a project from a saved listing email and its PDF attachments. Scanned pages you upload are read by OCR and labelled OCR wherever they are cited. Reading a document proposes values, such as each tree in an arborist report, with the page they came from; nothing is recorded until someone accepts them. - **An Atlas AI project.** Add an existing project. Its documents, findings and appraisals come with it. Within the first session you can have the site recorded, the evidence organised with what is missing made explicit, the next actions assigned and a first pack ready to share. ## Developments or Atlas AI? Ask Atlas AI about a site. Run the project in Developments. They share the same projects and evidence. Start in Atlas AI when you want answers about a place; add the project to Developments when it becomes something you are taking forward. | Task | Atlas AI | Developments | |---|---|---| | Ask about any site: constraints, planning context, policy | Yes | In each project's side panel | | Portfolio of projects by stage, owner and what needs attention | No | Yes | | Parcels with separate references and boundary status | No | Yes | | Document versions, readable status and page citations | Yes | Yes | | Options with immutable revisions and comparison | No | Yes | | Appraisal pinned to an exact option revision | Project appraisal | Yes | | Actions, milestones, reviews and members | Actions and members | Yes | | Project packs with a print view | Reports | Yes | ## What Developments does not do - **Not a valuation.** Appraisal outputs follow from your inputs by fixed formulas. They are not a Red Book or other formal valuation and say nothing about planning approval. - **Not a cash-flow model.** No dated cash flow or IRR. The appraisal solves a residual land value from your figures; keep your full cash-flow model with your advisers. - **Not construction management.** No construction budgets, draws, invoices or cost control. Developments covers the site before and around the decision to build. Preparing to exchange? Work through the [site due diligence checklist for developers](https://atlasly.app/blog/site-due-diligence-developer-checklist-30-questions). ## What is available today Available: - Development pipeline by stage, owner and work due, in table, board and map views, with land price against residual land value on every board card - Parcels with title numbers, folios, APNs or UPRNs, outlines and boundary confirmation - PDF upload with versions, readable status and page citations - Email file (.eml) import with its PDF attachments, or a new project started from a listing email - Options, revisions and comparison; Canvas option import - Development appraisal with profit on cost, profit on GDV, source tags and sensitivity - Residual land value at a target margin and a keep-and-rent case for existing homes - A screening verdict on every project (go, go with conditions, pass or not known) with a max offer against the asking price and a before-you-offer checklist, each reason with its source - Actions, milestones, reviews, comments and member roles - Project packs with a print view and Markdown download, in standard, investment committee and lender layouts - Read-only link for sellers, buyers or lenders, with sources and open questions, that you can turn off and the reader can save as a PDF - GBP or USD, metric or imperial units Not available yet: - Google Drive, Gmail, Microsoft 365 and Outlook connections (built; awaiting provider registration) - Parcel lookup by address or folio, public-record checks, tree rules with buildable area after protective radii, nearby sales, rent benchmarks, impact-fee estimates, options drafted from the zoning rules, a similar-sites search and an opt-in public-record watch for City of Tampa parcels (built; being switched on) - Invitation emails: you share the project link yourself Status labels, risk bands and appraisal outputs come from fixed rules and formulas, never from the chat. Plans and usage are on the [pricing page](https://atlasly.app/pricing). ## Questions ### What software do property developers use to track multiple sites? Many teams track sites across spreadsheets, shared drives and email. Atlasly Developments gives each site one record instead: its stage and owner, parcels, due diligence documents with page citations, development options, appraisal, actions and project packs, with a portfolio view of what needs attention and what is due across every site. ### Does it calculate residual land value, IRR or a cash flow? Residual land value, yes; IRR and a dated cash flow, no. The Developments appraisal works out profit, profit on cost and profit on GDV from the land price and costs you enter, with sensitivity to sales, build cost, land price and programme. Set a target margin and it solves for the residual land value, the most the land can cost for profit to meet that margin, and shows it against the land price. A keep-and-rent case values existing homes on their rent at a cap rate. It has no dated cash flow or IRR, so keep a full cash-flow model with your advisers. ### Can I track UK title numbers and US APNs in one portfolio? Yes. Each parcel keeps its own reference (title number, folio, APN or UPRN) and boundary status, and each project records its currency (GBP or USD) and units (metric or imperial), so UK, Irish and US sites sit in the same portfolio. ### Can it produce a pack for an investment committee or lender? Yes. A project pack fixes the current record with the exact document versions, option revisions and appraisal versions it used, and states gaps rather than hiding them. Print it or save it as a PDF, or download it as Markdown. ### Does it replace Northspyre, Procore or ARGUS Developer? No. Budget, draw and construction management tools such as Northspyre and Procore, and cash-flow appraisal tools such as ARGUS Developer, do different jobs. Developments is the pre-construction record of a site — evidence, options, a profit-based appraisal, decisions and packs — and can sit alongside them. ### Who is Atlasly Developments for? Property developers and development teams who manage several sites at once: acquisitions, development managers and land and planning leads. Architects, planning consultants and cost consultants can be invited to a project as viewers or editors. ### How is it different from Atlas AI? Atlas AI answers questions about a site: constraints, planning context, policy and feasibility. Developments is where you manage a project over time: its parcels, documents, options, appraisal, actions, team and packs. They share the same projects, so an Atlas AI project can be added to Developments without starting again. ### Can it connect to Google Drive, Gmail, Microsoft 365 or Outlook? Not yet. Those connections are built but are not available until Atlasly completes each provider's registration. Today you can upload PDFs and import email files (.eml) exported from any mail app. ### Does the appraisal give a valuation? No. It is a deterministic development appraisal: every output follows from the figures you enter by fixed formulas, each figure is tagged as supplied, an estimate or an assumption, and missing inputs stay unknown rather than being filled in. It is not a valuation and says nothing about planning approval. ### How do colleagues get access? An owner or admin adds a colleague by the email they sign in with, as a viewer, editor or admin. The colleague needs to have signed in to Atlasly once. Atlasly does not send invitation emails; you share the project link yourself. ### Can it read scanned documents? Yes, for PDFs you upload. Scanned pages without a text layer are read by OCR in your browser at upload (English, up to 40 pages per document); files imported from Drive or email attachments are not read by OCR yet. OCR text is labelled OCR wherever it is cited, the document is marked as needing review, and a page OCR cannot read is flagged rather than guessed. --- --- title: "Atlasly Site Intelligence" description: "Explore how Atlasly brings planning, environmental, terrain, and transport context into site analysis." canonical: https://atlasly.app/product/intelligence-engine primary_keyword: "site intelligence engine" target_query: "AI site intelligence engine for architects" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly Site Intelligence Atlasly brings planning, environmental, physical, and movement information into a site-analysis workflow. The purpose is to make relevant evidence easier to inspect, compare, and retain alongside a project decision. ## Working with site evidence Available information can include planning context, flood mapping, heritage and ecology designations, terrain, buildings, transport, and amenities. Availability and resolution vary by location and source. A reference to a dataset does not establish complete coverage for every site. Atlas AI provides a conversational way to explore site information and planning questions. Review the source, date, jurisdiction, and assumptions behind a material answer. Policy references are a starting point for checking the applicable national and local documents. ## Taking information into design Site context can support early options, comparisons, and briefs. Supported exports provide inputs for CAD, BIM, or GIS work on an eligible plan. Check geometry, coordinates, and units before using an export for a detailed design decision. - [Site-analysis workflow](https://atlasly.app/product/site-intelligence-pipeline) - [Data sources, coverage, and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Review Site Evidence in 17 Steps — Atlasly" description: "Review available site evidence: location, source coverage, constraints, exports and checks for your next design decision." canonical: https://atlasly.app/product/site-intelligence-pipeline primary_keyword: "site intelligence pipeline" target_query: "automated site intelligence pipeline for architects" intent: commercial --- # Review Site Evidence in 17 Steps Atlasly helps bring available site context into a single review. Check the location and boundary, inspect the returned evidence, record missing information and verify material findings before preparing an option or handover. These 17 checks describe a review method. Coverage and available outputs vary by site and source. ## 1. Location & Boundary Review Check the selected address, coordinates, study radius and any supplied boundary. An address point or drawn study area is not automatically a legal site boundary. A clear record of the location and boundary assumptions used by the analysis. Compare the study area with the brief and the best available boundary information. Record any uncertainty before using area-dependent calculations or interpreting a nearby constraint. ## 2. Building Footprints & Heights Review available surrounding footprints, height attributes and other building information. Distinguish measured, recorded and estimated values where the source identifies them. Context for considering scale, massing and neighbouring development. Check whether important neighbouring structures are missing and whether heights are known or estimated. Use the context to frame a design study; confirm material dimensions before relying on them for a detailed assessment. ## 3. Topography & Terrain Analysis Review the elevation source, coverage, resolution and any contours or profiles available for the site. An initial view of levels and slopes, with the source limitations recorded. Dataset resolution, vertical accuracy and contour spacing are different properties. Check them separately. A terrain view can help frame questions about levels and access, but it does not establish survey accuracy. ## 4. Land Use & Zoning Compare available mapped land use with the planning designation and policy references relevant to the site. A record of existing context and the planning questions to investigate. An observed land-use category does not establish a zoning entitlement or permission for a new use. Check the responsible authority, current policy, parcel designation and relevant exceptions before drawing a regulatory conclusion. ## 5. Green & Blue Infrastructure Review available mapped vegetation, open space and water features within the study area. Context for considering landscape, drainage and ecological questions. Confirm important features on site and check source dates. Use the initial mapping to identify further landscape, drainage or ecological investigation rather than to certify the condition or value of a habitat. ## 6. Street Network & Access Review available roads, pedestrian routes, cycle links and mapped access restrictions around the site. A starting point for discussing movement, servicing and access options. Check the continuity of routes and the assumptions behind a mapped connection. A road or path shown on a map does not establish a legal right of access or the suitability of a proposed vehicle entrance. ## 7. Heritage Designations Review available heritage designations and their published boundaries, dates and source references. A list of heritage questions that may affect the brief or design approach. Check the primary designation record and relevant local information. Consider the site and its surroundings, and seek the appropriate heritage input where a proposal could affect a protected asset or its setting. ## 8. Ecology & Biodiversity Inspect available ecological designations and records, noting the coverage and observation dates. Issues to discuss with an ecologist and consider in the project programme. Missing mapped records do not establish an absence of habitats or species. Confirm the need for surveys, seasonal work and the applicable assessment method with a suitably qualified specialist. ## 9. Physical Features & Utilities Review mapped or supplied information about water features, visible structures and recorded infrastructure. A checklist of physical features requiring confirmation before layout or servicing decisions. Do not treat a general context map as a complete utilities search. Identify what needs a site inspection, utility record, survey or operator confirmation and keep the unresolved items with the brief. ## 10. Planning History Inspect available nearby applications, decisions and supporting documents, checking the address and proposal to which each record relates. A starting point for understanding previous proposals and questions raised by the authority. Read the decision notice, reasons and relevant documents rather than relying on a map marker or summary. An earlier approval or refusal is context for a new proposal, not a guarantee of its outcome. ## 11. Planning Policy Review Review returned policy references, their jurisdiction, edition, adoption status and applicability to the site. An initial reading list for the planning review, with items that need current-source checks. Verify a cited paragraph in the original publication and check relevant amendments and local policy. Distinguish a source quotation from the interpretation of its effect on a particular proposal. ## 12. Land Registry & Ownership Check any available land or ownership references against the exact site and the relevant official record. Questions about boundaries, interests and access that require further due diligence. A map reference or general ownership layer does not replace a title review. Record what information is unavailable and obtain the appropriate documents and professional advice before relying on ownership or rights. ## 13. Microclimate Analysis Review available climate, orientation and site-context information together with the assumptions used in a study. A starting point for questions about solar exposure, weather and design response. Distinguish regional data from site observations and a detailed assessment. Confirm inputs, dates and study method before using a result to support decisions about comfort, energy or environmental performance. ## 14. Transport Connectivity Inspect available transport stops, access measures and travel-time catchments, checking their geographic coverage and travel assumptions. Context for discussing connectivity and investigating access options. Check the modes, walking speed, service data and study date used by a measure. Apply location-specific methods only where they are relevant. A screening result does not establish parking requirements or development capacity. ## 15. CAD & GIS Export Generation Choose an available export in the workflow and check the actual file extension, included layers and plan access. A design or evidence handover whose contents and limitations can be inspected. Available export workflows include DXF, GLB, IFC and COLLADA. The SketchUp-oriented export can produce a COLLADA (.dae) file rather than a native .skp file. Check the actual format, then open a representative file and review units, coordinates, orientation, geometry and attribution before using it in production work. ## 16. PDF Report Generation Review the findings, maps, sources and incomplete checks included in the available report. A structured record for discussing the site with the project team. Check the report against the actual analysis and brief. Correct errors and record assumptions before sharing. A generated report does not establish that every data layer was available or that a formal submission requirement has been met. ## 17. Findings Summary Compare the written summary with the underlying findings and source references. A concise list of issues, opportunities and next actions to review. Retain uncertainty when summarising evidence. Separate observed information, interpretation and a proposed next step, and check that each material statement is supported by the source rather than inferred from missing data. ## A practical review method Use one known site to evaluate the workflow. Record the location and boundary used, sources returned, one finding you can verify independently and any information missing. Keep that review log with the brief so another team member can see which conclusions are supported and what needs checking next. ## Handover and further checks Runtime varies with requested checks and source availability. Available outputs do not replace a measured survey, title review, site inspection or appropriate professional assessment. Check source dates, geography and actual site boundaries before a material decision. - [Start a site analysis](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Methodology, coverage and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [CAD handover guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/export-site-analysis-to-autocad-and-revit-without-redrawing-the-site) - [Plans and export access](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Walkability AI — 15-Minute City Analysis" description: "Explore walking catchments, nearby amenities, and site comparisons with Atlasly walkability analysis." canonical: https://atlasly.app/product/walkability-ai primary_keyword: "15-minute city walkability tool" target_query: "15-minute city walkability analysis tool for urban planners" intent: commercial --- # Walkability AI — 15-Minute City Analysis Atlasly supports walkability analysis for planners, architects, and development teams exploring access to everyday services. Use walking catchments and amenity context to identify strengths, gaps, and questions for a site or neighbourhood. ## What can the analysis help examine? - Access to food, education, health, green space, culture, services, and transport. - How different walking assumptions affect the catchment. - Differences between sites when using the same assumptions and data sources. - Maps and supported GIS exports that can inform further design work. The product includes standard, family, elderly, and commuter persona presets. A catchment or score reflects the selected method and source data; it is not proof that every route is accessible, safe, or open. Verify important connections and amenities through local sources and site observation. ## Coverage and interpretation Coverage depends on the available network and amenity information. Missing or outdated data can change the result. Record the walking assumptions and the source context when presenting a comparison, and check current plan access before exporting. - [Walkability analysis on a real site](https://atlasly.app/blog/how-a-15-minute-city-analysis-works-on-a-real-development-site) - [Start a site analysis](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Sources and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Current plans](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Atlasly API Reference and Integration Guides" description: "Find the API specification, developer documentation, authentication guide, and integration examples." canonical: https://atlasly.app/resources/api primary_keyword: "Atlasly API reference" target_query: "Atlasly API documentation endpoints" intent: navigational --- # Atlasly API Reference Reference material for connecting Atlasly site information to your applications. Atlasly does not currently publish an official JavaScript, TypeScript, or Python SDK. The REST API contract is pending production verification. The [OpenAPI document](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) records this status and publishes no callable operations; do not generate a production client from it. Use the separately documented hosted MCP interface where it fits your workflow. Use the developer documentation for supported interfaces and examples. Check the authentication guide before choosing an access method, and review current usage limits for the account or integration you plan to use. - [Developer documentation and examples](https://atlasly.app/developers) - [OpenAPI specification](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) - [API and MCP authentication guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp) - [Integration overview](https://atlasly.app/solutions/api-integration) - [Current plans and usage](https://atlasly.app/pricing) --- --- title: "Getting Started with Atlasly Developments — Guide" description: "How to set up a development project in Atlasly: parcels and boundaries, documents and versions, options, appraisal, actions, team roles and project packs." canonical: https://atlasly.app/resources/docs/developments primary_keyword: "Atlasly Developments guide" target_query: "how to set up a development project in Atlasly" intent: informational --- # Getting started with Developments How to set up a project, bring in your evidence and get to a first useful result. For what Developments is and who it is for, see the [product overview](https://atlasly.app/product/developments). Last updated 23 September 2026. ## Your first project Developments uses your Atlasly account. Open **Developments** from the Atlas AI sidebar or go to https://atlasly.app/developments. With no projects yet, you can start from a site, from documents, or from an existing Atlas AI project. 1. **Create the project.** Choose New development. Only a name is required. Add an address if you have one; it places the project on the portfolio map but is never treated as a boundary. 2. **Choose the starting point.** Choose a site you may buy (milestones run from parcel checks to purchase terms) or land you already own (surveys to a pre-application pack). Choose currency and units. 3. **Add parcels if you have them.** Optionally add parcels with their title number, folio, APN or UPRN, an owner and the team's next action. All of this can be added later. 4. **Start from the overview.** The project opens on its Overview: a suggested next step, the project record showing what is established, in progress, needing attention or not started, and what needs attention. To bring in an existing Atlas AI project instead, choose **Add existing project** on the portfolio. Only projects you own or administer are offered. The project keeps its documents, findings, actions and appraisals and gains a stage, parcels and milestones. Nothing is moved automatically. A first useful result usually means: the site recorded, the documents you hold uploaded with anything unreadable flagged, open questions written down, the next actions assigned, and a first pack you can share. ## Site and boundaries Each parcel keeps its own reference even when studied together; combining parcels in one project never implies a legal merger. On **Site**, choose **Add parcel**, then **Boundary** beside it to draw an outline or import a boundary file. A saved or edited outline is always **unconfirmed**. Mark it **confirmed** only once someone has checked it against a source such as a title plan or measured survey. The outline preview shows confirmed parcels as solid lines and unconfirmed parcels as dashed lines. Parcel areas feed site coverage in option comparisons. For spatial design, **Open in Canvas** uses the shared project and returns you to the project's options. **Address or folio** (Hillsborough County, Florida, where switched on): when you add a parcel to a US project, type the listing address, such as 114 S Bungalow Park Ave, Tampa FL 33609, or a folio, and choose **Look up**. Atlasly lists up to ten parcels from the county parcel record with their folio, site address and land-use code. Each one is marked as an exact or partial match, with how it differs from what you typed, and Atlasly never picks one for you. Choosing a parcel fills in its folio, address and label and adds the source to the parcel's notes. When exactly one parcel matches exactly, **Add and check public records** adds it and runs the check in one step. Owner details are never looked up. **Public records** (City of Tampa and Hillsborough County, Florida, where switched on): for parcels recorded with a Hillsborough County folio, **Check public records** reads the county parcel record, City zoning, overlays and historic districts, future land use, the FEMA flood zone and panel, and state cleanup-site and subsidence records. Each result is saved as a finding with its dataset and retrieval date; zoning yield, use routes and yards come from the Tampa Code rules with the section cited; anything the records cannot establish is saved as an open question. Enter existing units to compare them with what current zoning allows. Checking again replaces the earlier results. Missing parcel details (address, area, an unconfirmed outline) are filled from the county record; what your team entered is never overwritten. **Find similar sites** (same area, where switched on) searches City of Tampa parcels from the county and City public records for lots like the one checked: same zoning and land-use group, a similar lot area, last sold more than a set number of years ago and within a chosen distance, all adjustable. Lot area, zoning share and distance are measured from the parcel outlines. Results are screening candidates from public records, not recommendations: owner details are never fetched, and whether an owner would sell is not known. **Start a development** on a row creates a project with that folio as its parcel. **Watch public records** is off until an editor turns it on, weekly or monthly. Each re-check records changes to zoning, overlays, historic districts, future land use, the FEMA flood zone and panel, and new state cleanup sites, and notes when the City's zoning code rewrite page changes. Changes appear in the Public records panel and the project activity only; nothing is emailed. A fact that either check could not establish is never reported as a change. **Trees**: record each tree from the arborist report, including off-site trees whose protective radius reaches the lot. Enter what the arborist recorded (species, trunk diameter, condition rating, protective radius); protection status and the removal route are worked out from the local code, and only for parcels a public-record check confirmed inside the City of Tampa. Place trees by hand from the survey on the site map (satellite imagery, where canopies help, or a drawn plan where the map is unavailable) to see how much of each lot lies inside protective radii. For City of Tampa lots the panel also gives the buildable area after tree radii, in sq ft and m² and drawn on the map: the zoning yards set in from the county outline, less the protective radii. Record which side of the lot faces the street (and, for a corner lot, the second street) from the survey or plat: the front yard goes on the outline edge facing that side, the rear yard on the opposite edge and side yards on the rest, with a corner lot's second street taking the corner-side yard. Where the street side is not recorded, both ends take the larger of the front and rear yards (every edge takes the largest yard when the outline does not match the recorded width and depth), and the panel says which placement it used; a lot turned diagonally to the recorded side, or a side that contradicts the recorded width, reads as Not known. Area that a Tree Removal Zone permit could release is shown separately and never added to the by-right figure. Lot width, depth, corner status and street side, from the survey or plat, feed the zoning and tree rules. **Nearby sales, rents and fees** (same area, where switched on): once a public-record check has read a parcel, **Check nearby sales and rents** lists the last recorded sales around it from the county property appraiser, with distance, date, price and price per square foot, and the census tract's median rent from the latest five-year American Community Survey. Sales are last recorded sales with no arm's-length flag, not an appraisal; the rent is an area benchmark, not this property's rent. In **Appraisal**, **Suggest fees from local rules** estimates the City of Tampa multi-modal impact fee and the Hillsborough County school impact fee for the option you choose, citing the code section, and fills **Fees and planning obligations** only when you apply it. Water and wastewater connection fees, credits for existing homes and affordable-housing relief are not included. ## Documents, correspondence and findings **Evidence** has four views. **Documents** lists every PDF with its readable status, current version, parcel and page count. Drop PDFs onto the list or choose **Upload PDFs**. Open a document to read its text by page, switch between versions, replace it with a new version or record a finding from a page. 1. **Ready**: the text was read and can be cited by page. 2. **Needs review**: some or all pages were read by OCR, or have no readable text at all. OCR text is labelled OCR wherever it is cited, with a reminder to check figures against the page image; pages OCR could not read cannot support findings or answers until checked. OCR runs in your browser when you upload a PDF, in English, on up to 40 scanned pages per document; files imported from Drive or from email attachments are not read by OCR yet. 3. **Failed**: the file could not be processed; the reason is shown and you can retry or upload again. 4. Replacing a document keeps earlier versions readable. A newer upload that fails does not replace the working version. Opening a later version shows **What changed from version N**: pages inserted, removed, moved or changed, with changed figures (trunk diameters, dimensions, dates and dollar amounts) named, and findings that cite the earlier version listed as possibly needing a re-check. **Read this document** (editors, on a document whose text was read) proposes values from it for you to check: each tree row of an arborist report, the folio, land area, buildings and sales of a property record, a survey's lot dimensions, rights-of-way, encroachments and flood note, or up to 20 key facts from anything else. Each proposal shows the page and the passage it came from; anything that cannot be matched to the page text is left out and counted. Nothing is recorded until you accept it. Accepted items become facts cited to the document, version and page; accepted trees can go straight into the tree register, where the local rules (not the report) decide their status on parcels a public-record check placed in the City of Tampa, and a survey's lot width and depth can be set on the parcel the document belongs to. An old flood note is recorded as what the survey said on its date, not as today's flood position. Rejected proposals are kept as a record. **Correspondence** holds saved email. Choose **Choose .eml file**, check the sender, date and attachments shown, then **Copy email to project**; nothing is saved until you copy it. The sender and date come from the file and are not verified. PDF attachments are ticked by default and become documents that record which email they came from; untick any you do not want. Images and other files are listed with the reason they were not imported. A file already in Documents is not copied twice: the email is linked to the existing document. To import another attachment later, choose the same .eml file again. To start a project from a listing or broker email, choose **Start from an email** on the portfolio and drop the .eml. The project name comes from the subject line, and parcels are proposed only from folio numbers (such as 116905-0000) and street addresses that appear in the email, each marked **Found in the email** until you edit it. Other addresses, such as a signature, are offered unticked. Creating the project saves the email and imports the attachments you ticked. When the email gives addresses but no folio, each proposed parcel offers the same **Look up**; nothing is looked up until you press it. **Findings** keeps what the project knows apart by how it is known: **facts** cited to a document page, **assumptions** taken as given, **calculations** and **open questions**. Resolve a finding with a note naming the source; resolved and superseded findings stay in the record. ## Options and revisions Record each scheme as an option with use, homes, footprint, floorspace, storeys and the assumptions behind the figures. Leave a figure blank if it is not known; it shows as not known, never as zero. **Revise** creates a new revision and keeps the earlier ones; **Revisions** shows the history. When every parcel has a public-record check that confirmed the City of Tampa, **Start from zoning** drafts options from the Tampa Code rules: keep the existing units, the by-right units on each lot, and the lots combined as one zoning lot (which, at three or more units in RM-16, needs a special use permit). The preview shows each rule statement with its code section. The options you create keep those statements in their assumptions, each marked as a public-record fact, an estimate or an assumption; the buildable area is an estimate from the required yards only, footprint and floorspace are left not known, and any right-of-way between the lots is recorded as an open question rather than answered. In Canvas, US projects enter and show lengths in feet, and Tampa projects offer the RM-16 yards as a setback preset. With two or more options, the **Comparison** table sets them side by side, including floorspace per home and site coverage from parcel areas. Choose **Select for appraisal** on the option to take forward, or select an earlier revision from its history. **Use a Canvas option** creates an option from a saved Canvas design with its exact version recorded; later Canvas edits do not change it. ## Appraisal The appraisal prices one exact option revision and starts from its homes and floorspace. Enter land, build, finance and sales figures; tag each as **supplied**, an **estimate** or an **assumption** and note where it came from. Rates are entered as percentages. Enter **Fees and planning obligations** as one amount: impact, school and connection fees in the US, or CIL and Section 106 in the UK. Set a **target margin**, on cost or on revenue, and the appraisal solves for the **residual land value**: the most the land can cost, with its acquisition costs and finance, for profit to meet that margin. It is shown against the land price you entered, and a negative value is shown rather than hidden. For sites with existing homes, **Keep and rent** values the current rent at a cap rate and gives the yield on the land price plus acquisition costs. The result, cost breakdown and the mix of supplied, estimated and assumed inputs stay in view. Missing inputs are listed as not known and results that depend on them are not calculated. Sensitivity shows profit if sales revenue, build cost or land price move by 5% or 10%, or the programme runs 3 or 6 months longer. **Save scenario** keeps a version. Each later save is a new version; **Save as new scenario** starts another. If the selected option revision changes, the appraisal shows that it prices an earlier revision and offers to switch. **The answer.** Once an appraisal has a target margin, the project overview opens with a screening verdict (**Go**, **Go, with conditions**, **Pass** or **Not known yet**) and a max offer: the residual land value of your best option at your target margin, set against the asking price. Each reason names its source, such as the county record, the zoning code section, the arborist report page or your appraisal. Below it, a **Before you offer** checklist is worked out from what the records show: a survey when lot-area figures disagree, the status of a right-of-way between lots, a special use route, protected trees, title, an asbestos survey for older buildings and the rent roll. Add any item to your actions and choose the owner; nothing is created or sent until you do. When a checklist action is marked done, that item stops blocking and its note is shown, not interpreted. The verdict comes from fixed rules applied to the records and assumptions you entered; it is not advice, a valuation or a planning determination. Outputs follow from the inputs by fixed formulas shared with Atlasly's servers. They are not a valuation and say nothing about planning approval. New to appraisals? Read [what a development appraisal is](https://atlasly.app/blog/what-is-a-development-appraisal), including profit on cost versus profit on GDV. ## Actions, milestones and reviews On **Work**, choose **New action** and give it an owner and due date; an action can wait for another. Overdue actions appear on the project overview and the portfolio. Marking an action done asks how it was resolved. Proposed actions must be accepted before they count. Milestones come from the project's starting point; add your own, set due dates or mark them not applicable. **Reviews** record a decision on an exact document version, option revision or appraisal version. A completed milestone or internal review records your team's work; it is never an approval from any authority. ## Team and permissions Choose **Share** on a project. Owners and admins add colleagues by the email they sign in with: - **Viewer**: reads everything, including documents and packs. - **Editor**: adds evidence, options, appraisals, actions and packs. - **Admin**: everything an editor can do, plus managing members. The colleague must have signed in to Atlasly once before they can be added. Atlasly does not send invitation emails: copy the project link from the Share dialog and send it yourself. If they open the link before being added, they see which account they are signed in with and what to ask for. Removing a member takes effect immediately. Archived projects are read-only for everyone. **Read-only link for people outside the project**: owners and admins can publish a page a seller, buyer or lender opens without signing in. It shows the findings with their sources, the open questions, parcels, trees, options, appraisals and the documents held, with your reply-to email. Saved messages, comments, activity and member details are never included. Publish again to refresh it behind the same link; turning it off stops the link for good. The screening verdict and max offer are included unless you untick them, for example before sending the link to a seller. The reader can choose **Download PDF** to save the page on A4 or US Letter with its sources, open questions and a footer showing the date and link. ## Project packs On **Packs**, the panel shows what the next pack will include. **Generate pack** fixes the current record, with the exact document versions, option revisions and appraisal versions it used, and states gaps rather than hiding them. Existing packs never change. Open **Print view** to print or save as a PDF, or download Markdown. Choose a **layout** for the reader: the **investment committee** layout opens with the decision you are asking for (in your words), the key appraisal figures and the open questions; the **lender** layout opens with the parcels, the scheme figures with their sensitivity range, and the documents held. The records are the same in every layout. ## Connections Uploading PDFs and importing email files work today and need no connection. Google Drive, Microsoft 365 (OneDrive and SharePoint), Gmail and Outlook connections are built but are **not available yet**: each needs Atlasly to complete the provider's registration first. Until then they are shown as not available on **Evidence › Sources**. When available, you choose each file or message; nothing is copied in the background. A connection belongs to the person who made it and is never shared with project members, and the same signed-in Atlasly account that started a connection must finish it. Disconnecting stops future access without removing evidence already saved to the project. ## Coming back to a project On the portfolio, **Board** shows every project in a column for its stage. Each card shows the parcels, the land price and the residual land value at your target margin from the latest saved appraisal, the next action and who owns it, and how long the project has been in its stage. Editors drag a card to another stage, or use **Move to…** on the card from the keyboard. The portfolio shows what needs attention across projects, work due in the next 14 days, which projects changed since your last visit and a link to continue where you left off. A project's overview lists what changed since you last opened it. Visit history is kept in your browser, so a new device or private window starts without it. ## Glossary - **Parcel**: A piece of land with its own reference (title number, folio, APN or UPRN). - **Confirmed boundary**: An outline someone has checked against a source. Not a legal determination. - **Option / revision**: A scheme you are considering; each change to its figures is a new, permanent revision. - **Scenario / version**: A saved appraisal; each save is a new version pinned to an option revision. - **Finding**: A recorded fact, assumption, calculation or open question, with its source. - **Pack**: A fixed, readable record of the project at the time it was generated. Something unclear or not working as described? [Contact us](https://atlasly.app/contact). --- --- title: "Atlasly Documentation and Getting Started" description: "Find setup guides, developer documentation, site analysis methods, and current plans." canonical: https://atlasly.app/resources/docs primary_keyword: "Atlasly documentation" target_query: "Atlasly how to use documentation" intent: navigational --- # Atlasly Documentation Find the right guide for your site-analysis workflow. Start with the sources and limits guide to understand what the evidence can support, then choose the connection or integration guide that fits your work. - [Site-analysis methods, data sources, and coverage](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) — review evidence and identify further checks. - [Connect Atlasly to a compatible assistant](https://atlasly.app/blog/how-to-use-atlasly-in-claude-chatgpt) — setup and first-use walkthrough. - [Developer documentation](https://atlasly.app/developers) — interfaces, reference material, and integration examples. - [Current plans and usage](https://atlasly.app/pricing) — choose the access that fits your project. --- --- title: "Atlasly API Integration" description: "Plan an Atlasly integration: verify the operation, access, response coverage, completion and export handover." canonical: https://atlasly.app/solutions/api-integration primary_keyword: "site analysis API" target_query: "site analysis API for architecture software" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly API Integration The separate REST contract is pending production verification. The published OpenAPI document contains no callable operations. Review the hosted MCP interface and confirm the access and coverage your workflow needs. ## Start with one operation and a representative site A site analysis request, a status check and a design export are different operations. Do not assume one successful request has completed every stage or returned every layer. 1. Review the [developer documentation](https://atlasly.app/developers), [published OpenAPI reference](https://atlasly.app/openapi.json) and [authentication guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/agent-authentication-guide-atlasly-api-mcp). 2. Confirm the available operation, access method, request limits and expected response before implementing against it. 3. Test a representative request and inspect its completion status, source coverage, missing fields and errors. 4. Handle asynchronous completion and failed or partial results before scaling the workflow. 5. Check the format, coordinates, units and access conditions of any returned export. ## Usage and integration choices A published plan allowance does not establish a verified production REST endpoint. Review [current plans and usage](https://atlasly.app/pricing) for account access and operation-specific limits. Public MCP checks and account-linked API operations are different access paths. Atlasly does not currently publish an official JavaScript, TypeScript, or Python SDK. Obtain a confirmed REST deployment contract before generating a client or sending credentials. The hosted MCP interface is separate; inspect current tool discovery and verify the permissions, source coverage and completion behaviour of the operation you need. ## Keep evidence with the result Carry source references, observation dates, boundary assumptions and incomplete checks into your application's review flow. The [methodology and limits guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) explains why a missing result must not be interpreted as an absence of constraints. --- --- title: "Architectural Feasibility Starts with Site Evidence" description: "Frame an architectural feasibility study with available site evidence, design assumptions and further checks." canonical: https://atlasly.app/solutions/architectural-feasibility primary_keyword: "architectural feasibility study" target_query: "architectural feasibility study tool" intent: commercial --- # Architectural Feasibility Starts with Site Evidence Atlasly helps assemble the available site context for an early feasibility review. Use it to frame planning and design questions, record assumptions, compare options and identify the further work needed before a decision. ## What the first review should establish Start with four questions: what is the site and study boundary, what constraints may affect the proposal, what design assumptions need testing, and what information is still missing? Keep a source and a next action alongside each finding. An initial screen does not determine permission or development capacity. Review the available planning context and policy edition, environmental constraints and coverage gaps, physical context, transport assumptions and the sources behind each finding. Distinguish a design assumption about height, access or capacity from an entitlement established by the authority. ## From site analysis to an option An [architectural site analysis](https://atlasly.app/solutions/architectural-site-analysis) provides context for testing an option. Begin with observations that could change the design, such as a boundary assumption or environmental constraint. Record what each option assumes and what evidence would confirm or change it. Use the same sources and study area when comparing options. ## A practical first review 1. Confirm the address, study boundary and project question. 2. Review returned sources and identify missing or uncertain information. 3. List the issues that could change the brief, programme or design approach. 4. Prepare an option with explicit assumptions and checks still required. 5. Assign the next investigation, site visit, authority discussion or specialist review. The time required depends on the site, available information and decision being made. A preliminary evidence pack does not replace a measured survey, title review, cost appraisal or specialist assessment. Read the [methodology and limits guide](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) before choosing which findings can support the next step. ## Prepare the design handover Choose an export supported by the available workflow and your plan. Open a sample in the receiving application and check coordinates, units, layer structure, geometry and level of detail. Import or conversion steps differ between applications; an application name is not a promise of a native file format. Check [current plans and export access](https://atlasly.app/pricing). Teams integrating results into an application can use the [integration publication guide](https://atlasly.app/solutions/api-integration) to review hosted MCP access and the separate REST contract’s pending verification. A plan allowance does not establish an available production REST operation. ## Useful applications of the review - Establish the questions for an initial client discussion. - Prepare a site brief with sources and open issues. - Compare options using consistent study assumptions. - Prepare for an authority or specialist discussion. - Assemble context for a competition or concept study. - Identify further due diligence for a developer client. --- --- title: "Site Analysis for Architecture Students — Atlasly" description: "Explore site evidence for studio briefs and portfolio work, with clear Starter and reviewed student access." canonical: https://atlasly.app/solutions/student-portfolio primary_keyword: "site analysis for architecture students" target_query: "architecture student site analysis tool" intent: commercial --- # Site Analysis for Architecture Students Atlasly can help students explore site context for studio briefs, urban-design research, and early feasibility work. Use available maps, terrain, planning context, and walkability information as evidence to examine and explain in your own analysis. ## Getting started Choose a site, confirm the location, and record the sources and assumptions behind the information you use. Explain how the evidence affects your design response. Cite the underlying data publishers alongside Atlasly where appropriate, and check your institution's rules for assisted work. ## Free and student access Starter includes 5 saved web analyses per month, a radius up to 2 km, PDF and image exports, and Atlas AI chat. Main site-workflow CAD/BIM exports and the portfolio feature require eligible Professional access; they are not included in the standard free Starter allowance. The separate [Image to CAD tool](https://atlasly.app/tools/image-to-cad) supports CAD download with a free account and reconstructs a supplied image rather than exporting the site-analysis package. Enrolled students can request reviewed Professional access through the [pricing page](https://atlasly.app/pricing). That page describes the request process and current terms. Coverage depends on the site and source datasets, so check availability for your studio location before planning your output around a particular layer. - [Start with Atlas AI](https://atlasly.app/atlas-ai) - [Site analysis sources and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Plans and student access](https://atlasly.app/pricing) - [Site-analysis guides](https://atlasly.app/blog) --- --- title: "Urban Planning Site Analysis — Atlasly" description: "Explore policy context, walkability, density, transport, and environmental evidence for planning work." canonical: https://atlasly.app/solutions/urban-planning primary_keyword: "urban planning analysis tool" target_query: "AI tool for urban planners" intent: commercial --- # Atlasly for Urban Planning Atlasly helps planners organise early site and neighbourhood evidence. Explore available policy context, walkability, density, transport, and environmental information when comparing sites or developing a brief. ## Planning workflows - Review relevant planning and environmental constraints alongside their sources. - Examine access to everyday amenities and identify gaps for further investigation. - Compare sites using consistent assumptions and record the reasons behind a recommendation. - Prepare maps and an evidence pack for project-team discussion. Policy applicability varies by jurisdiction. Check the current national and local documents and their status before relying on a reference. An early screen cannot settle how an authority will determine a proposal. ## Using outputs Supported GIS exports can help transfer available context into further analysis. Verify the source date, coverage, coordinate system, and selected assumptions. Formal submissions, consultations, and specialist assessments require the appropriate professional and statutory processes. - [Walkability analysis](https://atlasly.app/product/walkability-ai) - [Data sources, coverage, and limits](https://atlasly.app/blog/atlasly-site-analysis-methodology-and-limits) - [Integration overview](https://atlasly.app/solutions/api-integration) - [Plans and usage](https://atlasly.app/pricing)