How the planning score works

Planning conditions, not permission probability

The planning score summarises six weighted criteria on a 0–100 scale. It can display 50 even when no usable evidence exists, because unknown applicable criteria are neutral. Always read the evidence coverage, confidence and assessment status beside the number. A 50 is not a 50% chance of permission.

Six criteria and their weights

Inputs can come from municipal plan records, planning decisions, comprehensive-plan guidance and extracted or reviewed document fields. Rejected fields are removed before scoring; stale or conflicting decisions do not become a clear right simply because a document exists.

Neutral unknowns and excluded criteria

Score = (sum of known criterion score × weight + 50 × applicable unknown/conflicting weight) ÷ applicable weight, rounded for display. “Not applicable” removes a criterion from both numerator and denominator. Unknown does not. If no applicable weight remains, the fallback is 50. There is no general probability model or universal approval cap behind the total.

Evidence coverage = known weight ÷ applicable weight. Evidence confidence averages each known criterion’s effective confidence across all applicable weight; unknown/conflicting weight contributes zero. Effective confidence reflects source reliability and extraction/review evidence. Confidence labels start at 80% high, 60% medium, 40% low, otherwise very low. Conflicting evidence or required manual review takes priority in status. Without authoritative evidence or below 30% coverage, status is insufficient evidence; then <50% limited, <75% provisional, otherwise confirmed.

Examples of criterion rules

Explicit residential permission scores 100 for permitted use, limited residential types 80, a positive preliminary decision 70; prohibited use or a negative official decision can score 0. General comprehensive-plan support is only 55, conditional guidance 50, significant constraints 20 and discouraged development 0.

Capacity ratios ≥25%, ≥20%, ≥15%, ≥10% and below 10% score 100/90/75/55/30. Other known capacity rules can provide 70 without a usable ratio. Placement considers restrictions, with several restrictions reducing flexibility. Design averages available subrules: one permitted floor gives 60, at least two 90; ridge-height bands below 5 m / below 7 m / higher give 40/70/90, and building-height bands below 3 m / below 4.5 m / higher give 40/70/90. The reason shown for each criterion identifies the applicable path rather than assuming every rule was assessed.

Placement with a no-build area scores 30 when at least three identified restrictions are present, otherwise 60. Other explicit placement/access restrictions score 60, only routine numeric setbacks 80, and reviewed absence of material no-build restrictions 100. No confirmed envelope remains unknown. Design also includes roof-angle span: below 10° gives 45, below 20° gives 70 and wider gives 90; a one-sided limit gives 70. Permitted basement/attic gives 90 each, prohibited gives 70; special roof/facade/design requirements add a 60-point subrule. Zero permitted floors gives 0.

Special restrictions score 45 for significant strategic restrictions, 15 for discouraged development, 75 for routine conditions/cautions and 45 for at least three explicit conditions. Reviewed sources with no special requirement give 100; fully not-applicable fields exclude the criterion. Process certainty scores 100 for a detailed plan with clear residential right, 75 for a plan needing interpretation or positive preliminary decision, 60 for area regulations, 45 for supportive comprehensive guidance, 30 for confirmed outside-plan review, and 0 for a negative official decision. Conflicts take the neutral/uncertain path before these ordinary branches.

Overall labels are Strong ≥85, Generally favourable ≥70, Conditional ≥50, Constrained ≥30 and Unlikely below 30. A neutral 50 can therefore carry “Conditional” while evidence status remains insufficient.

Fictional incomplete planning evidence

With no usable inputs, all applicable weight uses 50: total 50, coverage 0%, confidence 0%, status insufficient evidence. Now suppose only permitted use is known at 100 with effective confidence 0.9, and the other five remain unknown. The arithmetic is (100 × 30 + 50 × 70) ÷ 100 = 65. Coverage is 30%; confidence is 30 × 0.9 ÷ 100 = 27%. The score rose while confidence is still very low.

If a genuinely not-applicable 20-weight criterion is removed in that illustrative component set, (3,000 + 2,500) ÷ 80 = 68.75, displayed 69. Coverage becomes 30/80 = 37.5%. Excluding a criterion must follow its evidence, not a desire for a higher total.

Read restrictions before choosing the house

An unreadable document, absent field or conflicting source is not confirmation of freedom to build. A large permitted area cannot erase a prohibited use. Changing the house colour in the planner does not rewrite the official plan. Use criterion reasons and source documents to confirm setbacks, floor count, heights and required process with the municipality. Planning evidence does not establish soil bearing capacity, utility availability or contractor cost.

Method and review

Method planning_v2 and the listed-plot score/detail surface reviewed 18 October 2026. Bilby defines the criterion weights and neutral defaults. Municipal documents are the evidence for a particular property; Boverket explains the planning system rather than supporting a numerical score. Boverket