FOR ARCHITECTS, PLANNING CONSULTANTS & HOMEOWNERS

Catch planning risks before they cost you a refusal.

HanningIQ spots the risks, policy conflicts and missing documents a case officer would flag — before you submit, not after you've paid the application fee.

See an example report →

or see pricing

FOR ARCHITECTS, PLANNING CONSULTANTS & HOMEOWNERS

Catch planning risks before they cost you a refusal.

HanningIQ spots the risks, policy conflicts and missing documents a case officer would flag — before you submit, not after you've paid the application fee.

See an example report →

or see pricing

HOW IT WORKS

Submit. Stress-test. Walk in prepared.

Submit your proposal

Site address, proposal description and drawings.

Stress-test

Checked against local planning policy, site constraints — conservation areas, listed buildings, TPOs, flood zones, Article 4, green belt — and comparable applications.

Walk in prepared

Flagged risks, policy considerations, a document checklist and recommended actions — before you submit.

EXAMPLE REPORT

This isn't a template.

Below is an actual HanningIQ report, run on a fictional application.

Built by Honey, a practising planning officer with 7+ years across London boroughs — someone who reads refusal reasons for a living.

Planning review

22 Foxglove Lane, Bromley

Single-storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear dormer

Example report — illustrative only, based on a fictional application.

Proposal summary

The application seeks planning permission for a single-storey rear extension (4.2m depth, 3.4m eaves height) and a rear-facing dormer loft conversion to a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The property sits within the Foxglove Lane Conservation Area.

Site constraints

Factual — checked against public GIS and constraint data

Conservation area	Yes
Listed building	No
Flood zone	Zone 1 — low risk
Tree preservation order	TPO on adjacent tree, No. 12
Article 4 direction	Yes
Green belt	No

Key planning risks

Judgement-based — flagged for review, not certainty

Window faces directly toward neighbouring garden at approx. 8m distance — below typical local guidance separation for habitable room windows.

Rear dormers are generally accepted in principle in this conservation area, but roof pitch and materials must match the host dwelling — not yet specified.

Proposed excavation falls partly within the TPO tree's root protection area.

Extension depth is within typical permitted development guidance limits, reducing amenity risk.

Relevant policy considerations

Illustrative — a live report would cite the applicable local plan by number

Local plan policy on extensions and alterations to existing dwellings
Local plan policy on development within conservation areas
National Planning Policy Framework guidance on the historic environment
Residential Extensions Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document)

Likely validation and document requirements

Design and Access Statement — required, conservation area
Heritage Statement
Arboricultural Impact Assessment — due to TPO tree
Existing and proposed elevations at 1:100
Site location plan at 1:1250 with red line boundary

Recommended actions before submission

Resolve the side dormer window — obscure glazing or reposition to avoid a likely objection.
Commission an arboricultural method statement for the TPO tree.
Confirm roof materials match the host dwelling in the Design and Access Statement.
Review recently approved similar extensions on this street for design consistency.

Recommended next step

Schemes flagged like this one often benefit from resolving the issue before formal submission, rather than risking delay or refusal after validation.

A pre-application meeting with the council

Discussing the side dormer window and roof design directly with a case officer before submission can resolve the biggest uncertainty in this scheme.

HanningIQ can also help with

Preparing the Design and Access Statement, arranging the arboricultural method statement, or full application support.

Get your proposal reviewed

See the full picture before you commit — before drawings are finalised, before an application fee's been paid on a scheme that gets refused.

WHO IT'S FOR

Built for the people preparing the application.

Not the people deciding on it.

Architects

Stress-test a scheme before it goes to a client, without waiting weeks for a paid pre-app slot.

Small planning consultants

A fast second read across live applications, without adding hours to every file.

Homeowners

Know what could go wrong before you commission full drawings or pay an application fee.

PRICING

Priced to the scope of your scheme.

Householder & minor works from £49. Larger or non-householder schemes from £79. Final price confirmed once I've seen your site address and proposal.

Report

From £49

£79 for larger or non-householder schemes. AI-generated risk report, checked by me before it reaches you. 1–2 working day turnaround.

Report + Review

From £149

£229 for larger or non-householder schemes. Everything in Report, plus my full read-through and annotations, and a short call to talk through what's flagged.

Practice Plan

£175/mo

5 householder-scale reports included — larger schemes billed at the standard rate. For architects and small consultants running multiple schemes. No personal review included — you bring the judgement, I bring the speed.

These bands cover the vast majority of cases. If your scheme sits outside them, send it over — I'll always tell you the price before you commit to anything.

QUESTIONS

Before you get in touch

Is this legal or planning advice?

No. HanningIQ flags likely risks and missing documents based on local policy and precedent — it's there to help you prepare, not to replace a planning professional's sign-off or a decision from the council.

Why not just wait for the case officer to tell me?

By the time a case officer raises an issue, you've already paid the application fee and started the clock on a decision. HanningIQ surfaces the same kind of issues before you submit, while there's still time to fix them.

How sure are you about the risks it flags?

Site constraints (conservation area, listed status, flood zone) are factual, checked against public data. Judgement calls — like whether a design will be seen as compatible — are flagged for review, not stated as certain.

What happens to my site details?

They're used only to put together your report and aren't shared with third parties.

ENQUIRY

Get your proposal reviewed

Send over the details and I'll get back to you within 1–2 working days.