Other

Planning permission risk assessment for homeowners

Groundwork · Check planning odds for your extension before you pay an architect

WatchingDraft scoreNew market · no product yet · AI estimate

27PWAS score

Confidence

Based on 8 of 9 factors

Overview

AIThis description was written by a model from public signals. The facts behind it are listed under Evidence.

Problem: Homeowners planning extensions or renovations lack early visibility into planning permission likelihood and constraints, forcing them to either guess at feasibility or pay planning consultants £500+ upfront, risking wasted architect fees (£2-5k) if their design proves unfeasible.
Solution concept: A product that analyzes historical council planning decisions for a property and area, giving homeowners a pre-design feasibility assessment at lower cost (£19-500 depending on depth) so they can validate extension viability before investing in architect fees or identify risks early enough to adjust plans.
Who has it: UK homeowners planning extensions or significant renovations; prospective homebuyers assessing extension potential of properties.
How they handle it today: Currently, homeowners either make assumptions about planning feasibility based on local knowledge, or pay planning consultants £500+ for informal advice before commissioning architect drawings worth £2-5k.
How it could charge: Tiered pricing: low-cost automated reports (£19) for basic feasibility checks, and higher-value professional pre-submission reviews (£100-500) for homeowners commissioning significant work like architect drawings.

Verdict

Computed from the factor scores below, never written by a model. It decides nothing on its own: only the gate makes an opportunity a build candidate.

Keep watching

Score breakdown

A model sorted each factor into a rubric bucket; code turned buckets into numbers. Unknown factors are left out of the score and lower confidence instead.

Market validation

Confidence 70 · 1 evidence · Evidence shows theoretical willingness to pay and unmet demand (homeowners avoid paying £500+ consultants), but the product has zero paying customers, indicating scattered interest without established products.

Revenue evidence

Confidence 70 · 2 evidence · Evidence shows people claim they would pay (prospective homebuyers and homeowners commissioning architects), and tiered pricing model exists, but no actual paying customers have been acquired.

Growth

Unknown

No evidence provided about momentum in planning tech, homeowner extension interest, or product launch velocity.

Problem severity

Confidence 30 · Judged from the description · The problem causes measurable financial friction: homeowners risk wasting £2-5k on architect fees if designs prove unfeasible, and £500+ on consultant advice, creating costly recurring pain for those planning extensions.

Economic proximity

Confidence 70 · 1 evidence · The product sits directly between two money-changing moments: preventing wasted spend (architect fees, consultant costs) and enabling purchase decisions that depend on extension feasibility.

Distribution

Confidence 30 · Judged from the description · The product generates reports that homeowners share with architects, contractors, or partners to guide renovation decisions, giving some visibility to non-users but not embedded in workflows others see.

Buildability

Confidence 30 · Judged from the description · Requires integrating multiple local council planning datasets (which vary by region), building historical case law analysis, and navigating data access complexity; more than commodity APIs but not requiring research-grade technology.

Differentiation

Confidence 30 · Judged from the description · A clear gap exists: planning consultants charge £500+ for unscalable manual advice, but homeowners repeatedly request cheaper, faster feasibility checks before investing in architects—a gap incumbents structurally cannot serve at lower price points.

Retention and timing

Confidence 30 · Judged from the description · Usage is occasional and project-specific (once per extension/renovation cycle, years apart for most homeowners), though timing aligns with property purchase or renovation planning windows.

Risk penalties

Heavy regulationPlanning law in the UK is complex and jurisdiction-specific; the product advises on regulatory feasibility, meaning inaccurate assessments could expose homeowners to legal or financial harm and create liability for the product.−15
Questionable data accessThe product depends on historical council planning data and decisions; access rights and terms for bulk analysis may be unclear, and councils may restrict or charge for data use.−9

Score history

27 · confidence 44 · config v1First score · 15 Oct 2026

Planning permission risk assessment for homeowners

Overview

Verdict

Build this business

Score breakdown

Risk penalties

Score history

Validation gate

Evidence · 4 items

Market validation

Revenue evidence

Economic proximity

Market

Existing products

Build

Legal reconstruction check

Community