Opportunities › Planning permission risk assessment for homeowners › Proposed app
Groundwork
Check planning odds for your extension before you pay an architect
- Score
- 27
- confidence 44
- Evidence
- 4
- items on the page
- Rivals
- 1
- named in sources
- First version
- 30 d
- estimate
- Type
- Mobile app
- PWA: installs on iPhone and Android
- Market since
- no product yet
- New market · AI estimate
ScreensConcept
Mobile app: Homeowners check planning odds for a specific address during site visits or property browsing, then optionally upgrade to deeper analysis later. Sample screens on a phone, in the proposed brand. Their numbers are sample data.
New check
- Address14 Elm Road
- ProjectRear extension
- Depth4.0 m
- StoreysSingle
- ReportBasic
About this appAI proposal
Groundwork gives UK homeowners an early read on whether an extension or renovation is likely to get planning permission. Enter an address and the work you have in mind. It looks at past council decisions for similar projects nearby and lists the constraints to check.
It is for people about to spend money on architect drawings, and for buyers weighing a property's extension potential. You see the risks first, adjust the plan, and decide whether to go ahead.
The basic report is automated and low cost. For higher stakes, you can request a professional pre-submission review. It is a guide to likelihood, not a planning decision.
- Tagline
- Know your planning odds before you pay for drawings.
- Voice
- PlainCalmHonest
- Why this name
- Groundwork is the early work done before building starts. It suits a product that checks feasibility first.
In the first version
Members say which features they would use. It tells PWAS what people want; it changes no score.
Address-based feasibility report
Enter a property and project type. Get a clear likelihood band with the reasons behind it, in plain English.
No member yet
Nearby decision history
See approved and refused similar projects around you, with the council's stated reasons.
No member yet
Constraint checklist
Flags to check, such as conservation areas, listed status or article 4 directions, with next steps.
No member yet
Adjust-the-plan hints
See which changes to size or position tend to help, before drawings are commissioned.
No member yet
Brand identityAI proposal
Check the name against trademark registers before using it.
Palette
#25483ADeep Moss · primary#F6F3ECChalk · surface#1D2420Ink · text#C4562FBrick · accent#9DB5A2Sage · data
Typography
Aa
Groundwork
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 0123456789
Know your planning odds before you pay for drawings.
PricingAI proposal
The material gives only the planning consultant baseline of £500+ and a proposed range of £19-500 (£19 basic, £100-500 reviews). USD figures are rough conversions to test, not validated prices.
Basic report
$24 once
- Automated feasibility report
- Nearby decision history
- Constraint checklist
Plan check
$130 once
- Everything in Basic
- Professional review of your report
- Written summary of risks
Full pre-submission
$630 once
- Everything in Plan check
- Review of your draft drawings
- Follow-up call
Would you pay Basic report · $24 once?
Your answer tells PWAS which prices people accept. It changes no score.
No answers yet.
What it could be worthEstimate
What a software business making this much sells for today, from real deals. Pick a monthly revenue.
If it makes
Worth about
$194,000
Sale range $132,000 to $263,000
$120,000 a year in revenue
From 87 software businesses listed and sold on Empire Flippers in the last year, revenue vetted by the broker: they sell for about 19× their monthly revenue, most between 13× and 26×.
Measured on profit, the middle deal is 32× monthly net profit: about 2.7 years of profit.
An estimate, not an offer or financial advice. A real price depends on profit, growth, churn, how much of the work is the owner's, and the buyer.
How it would growAI proposal
How the product would reach new customers through its own use, and how the first ones would be found. A plan to test, not a result.
- Built-in loop
- Shared outputs. Users share the report or architect brief with their architect, builder, partner or estate agent. Each carries the product name and a link to run a check.
- Do they become customers?
- Architects and builders who see the brief could become users or partners, but homeowners rarely repeat. Test whether architects send clients back to run checks.
- First customers
- Homeowners in one or two councils who are about to brief an architect for a rear or loft extension, plus buyers viewing houses with extension potential.
- Where to reach them
- Home improvement forums: Answer planning questions on UK renovation communities and offer a free sample report.
- Small architect practices: Offer the report as a pre-engagement step they send to enquiring clients.
- Search content: Publish council-specific guides on extension approval patterns, linking to a check.
- First milestone
- Twenty paid basic reports in one council area, and five buying a professional review.
Why people already pay for this
- Public claimProspective homebuyers would pay for planning permission risk assessment before purchase
- Public claimHomeowners commissioning architect drawings would pay for feasibility validation to avoid wasted design costs
- Public claimProfessional pre-submission reviews could command £100-500, higher than basic report pricing
- Public claimCurrent product has zero paying customers; business model remains unvalidated
Tech stack
Every proposal builds on the same PWA base, installable from the browser on any phone or computer. Dashed boxes are what this app adds.
- AppNext.js and TypeScript
- PWAManifest and service worker
- UITailwind CSS
- Data and authSupabase Postgres
- PaymentsStripe
- EmailResend
- HostingVercel
- This app · Planning dataCouncil planning decision data source or aggregatorNeeded to read past council decisions and constraints for any UK address.
- This app · Address and map lookupUK address and geocoding serviceResolves addresses and boundaries to find nearby similar applications.
RisksAI inference
- DataCouncil planning data is scattered across many portals and formats. Coverage may be patchy at the start.
- AIA wrong likelihood band could lead users to skip advice or abandon workable plans. Reports need clear limits and a confidence note.
- CommercialThe material says the current product has zero paying customers. Willingness to pay at any tier is unproven.
- RegulatoryReports could be read as professional advice. Wording, terms and reviewer qualifications need legal checking.
- CommercialProfessional reviews need qualified people. Supply and margin at £100-500 are uncertain.
Everything marked AI proposal or AI inference was written by a model from the evidence on the opportunity page. The proposed name must be checked against trademark registers before it is used.