V-Score is an actuarial planning risk engine. Every penalty, every credit, every correlation adjustment is documented. If someone asks why the scheme scores 46 rather than 52, the answer is in the report.
V-Score is a forensic planning risk intelligence tool. It reads across planning application documents to find the specific vulnerabilities a hostile planning officer, GLA reviewer, statutory consultee, or planning inspector would exploit — before the decision is made.
It is not a summariser. It does not index documents or produce generic overviews. It assesses risk. It does not advocate for or against development. It does not make legal determinations.
The central question V-Score answers is: on the evidence in these documents, where would a well-resourced and motivated officer find grounds to refuse, defer, or challenge this application?
Every finding is grounded in a specific document reference. Every score is explainable. Every recommended fix names who does it, when, and at what cost.
V-Score analyses applications in eight structured steps. The scoring stage does not begin until the cross-reference audit is complete. This is by design: most planning applications are defeated by internal inconsistencies, not by a single fatal policy breach.
Risk is assessed across five dimensions. Risks confirmed by independent or statutory bodies carry more weight than risks raised by the applicant alone.
FVA forensics: the Parkhurst Road residual-on-residual test, finance assumption reliability (RICS PS1 para 4.7), developer's profit rate applied to affordable tenures, GDV structural independence, the affordable housing derivation pattern (answer assumed as input versus derived), and the correction impact analysis that quantifies what rebasing each input does to the residual land value.
Affordable housing thresholds, PBSA tenure-blind access covenants, nominations agreements, tall buildings zone compliance, LVMF protected views, space standards, fire strategy, inclusive design, children's play space, Urban Greening Factor, Biodiversity Net Gain, whole life carbon, circular economy.
Designation audit, harm grading (less-than-substantial versus substantial, and position on the spectrum), public benefit test, independent consultee positions versus applicant's own assessment, and visual evidence forensics: lens equivalence (the 50mm standard), camera position verification, omitted view vectors, and digital-to-paper scaling.
On-site carbon reduction versus policy minimum, Be Lean/Be Green/Be Seen hierarchy, overheating under DSY1–DSY3 scenarios, ecology survey adequacy (in-season surveys, records centre data, the GCN district licensing zone), biodiversity net gain as designed outcome versus by-product, air quality in AQMAs, ammonia and in-combination assessments.
EIA adequacy under the 2017 Regulations (particularly where the LPA's own specialist contradicts the applicant's conclusions), S106 enforceability versus aspirational heads of terms, JR exposure, Mayoral direction risk, and programme risk from emerging policy changes.
The score runs from 0 to 100. Base penalties are applied for each identified risk, credits are applied for genuine strengths, and a correlation adjustment is made where multiple penalties share a single root cause.
Green (70–100): likely approved with standard conditions. Amber (50–69): material risks requiring changes. Orange (40–49): multiple policy failures with at least one Critical risk; refusal probable without redesign. Red (20–39): significant probability of refusal; major redesign required. Black (0–19): refusal probable on current evidence.
The most common error in planning risk assessment is mechanical penalty stacking. Where a single design decision produces multiple failures — an over-tall tower causing both WHS harm and a viability gap, because the extra floorspace the FVA needs for revenue is the same height the heritage consultees want removed — summing the penalties as independent would double-count a single cause.
V-Score identifies correlation clusters, applies the highest single penalty in full, and applies 30–50% of each secondary penalty, with the adjustment documented and explained.
Every score is defensible. If a planning partner or funder asks why the scheme scores 46 rather than 52, the answer is in the report: the specific findings that drove each penalty, the specific credits that offset them, and the specific reasons the mechanical score was or was not adjusted.
Every V-Score report contains eight sections in a fixed structure. The structure is the same across all scheme types: residential, PBSA, mixed-use, rural, industrial, EIA major.
One page. Score and band, three-line verdict, Critical risks only in a clearly marked panel, recommended client decision, and five immediate actions.
All risks in a single table: risk factor, tier, type, penalty, curability, status. Mitigating factors credited in a footnote.
The score build, the correlation adjustment, the calibration note, and the specific reasons the score is not five points higher or lower.
Every risk in tier order. For each finding: what was found (evidence, sources, figures), why it matters (policy basis, consultee positions), what the officer will say (written in first-person officer voice with real policy citations), and the recommended fix (named consultant type, timing, consequence).
Remediation roadmap with estimated costs, cost and consequence analysis (remediation versus contested refusal), documents to obtain before reliance, and methodology note with mandatory disclosures.
| Standard | Application |
|---|---|
| RICS PS 2019 | Financial viability methodology, benchmark land value, profit rates, finance assumptions |
| London Plan 2021 | Affordable housing, tall buildings, heritage, carbon, urban greening, PBSA |
| NPPF Dec 2024 | Heritage balance, EIA, biodiversity, viability, presumption in favour |
| LI TGN 06/19 | Visual representation methodology, lens standards, camera position verification |
| GLA PBSA LPG | PBSA amenity benchmarks, tenure-blind access, nominations |
| CIBSE TM59 | Overheating assessment under DSY1, DSY2, DSY3 climate scenarios |
| BS 4142 | Noise assessment methodology and acceptable impact thresholds |
| EIA Regulations 2017 | EIA adequacy, scoping, baseline surveys, cumulative impacts |
| Parkhurst Road [2018] | Residual-on-residual circularity test for FVA benchmark land value |
V-Score is as complete as the document set supplied. Missing appendices, image-only PDFs, and incomplete submissions limit the analysis. Every data void is explicitly flagged in Section 7 of the report — documents to obtain before reliance.
V-Score identifies and quantifies planning risk. It does not predict planning outcomes with certainty. Planning committees can and do reach decisions that are not predicted by the policy framework. Local political factors, community objections, and committee dynamics are assessed where relevant but cannot be modelled with precision.
V-Score reports are planning-intelligence tools produced by Construct Media. They do not constitute legal advice, planning counsel's opinion, or a substitute for site-specific professional assessment by qualified architects, planning consultants, heritage specialists, viability surveyors or sustainability engineers. No assertion is made that any decision was or will be wrong. Every finding is expressed as an assessment of planning risk, not a legal determination.