Policy sandbox
Awaiting input
Start with question 1.
The gateway policy depends entirely on where the site sits.
Based on very little so far. Answer more and this gets sharper.
04Constraint screen
None engaged. Re-run once technical work is in: density and transport catch schemes late.
05Weight ledger
Only weights the Framework directs, at the strength the answers support.
| Consideration | Policy | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Any development plan policy materially inconsistent with this FrameworkcheckA prompt rather than a finding. Identify the specific policies and the specific inconsistency: the tool cannot read your development plan. Most restrictive rural housing policies now sit here. | Introduction / Annex A | Very limited |
06Interpretation register
Undefined language this case would turn on.
- “substantially outweighed”S4, S5, GB7
- Undefined, and the whole balance turns on it. Materially higher than the old significantly and demonstrably formulation, with nothing in the Framework saying how much higher.
- “very limited weight”Introduction / Annex A
- What a materially inconsistent development plan policy now gets. Not zero, and the quantum is for the decision-maker case by case, which is where most restrictive rural housing policies now sit.
Assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (2026), published 17 August 2026, using ruleset 1.0.0 and interpretation revision 2026-08-18.
This is a sandbox, not an assessment
Everything above comes from the answers on the left. It has not looked at a map, a local plan, or the planning history of any particular site. If you have a real piece of land, the assessment starts from its boundary instead, and fills in what it can from the data.
Assess an actual site