site-analysis-report

Site Analysis Report

Every expensive design change traces back to something about the site that was known but not looked at. Ground conditions, a right of way, a sewer easement, the neighbour's window. This is the systematic sweep before a line is drawn: what is there, what is allowed, what the site can hold, and which unknowns are worth paying to resolve now rather than at foundation stage.

What This Skill Produces

• Physical survey summary — topography, boundaries, existing structures, trees, ground conditions, and services
• A constraints and opportunities read — each constraint with its design consequence, and the aspects worth exploiting
• The statutory and legal position — planning designations, rights of way, easements, covenants, and party wall exposure
• Developable-capacity estimate — what the site could plausibly take, with the assumptions stated
• Orientation and environmental analysis — sun path, prevailing wind, noise sources, flood and drainage
• The risk register — the unknowns, what each could cost, and which are worth investigating before design

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:

• The site — address, boundaries, area, and current use
• What surveys exist — topographical, measured building, arboricultural, ground investigation, drainage, asbestos
• The title information — registered title, easements, covenants, and rights of way if known
• The proposal, if there is one — what the client hopes to build, so capacity can be tested against it
• Local context — planning designations, neighbouring uses, access, and known local sensitivities

Framework: What Is There, What Is Allowed, What It Can Hold

1. Separate the physical from the legal. A site can be perfectly buildable and legally constrained, or the reverse. Confusing the two produces schemes that die late.
2. Walk the boundaries against the title plan. Fences and titles disagree more often than anyone expects, and the discrepancy is cheapest to find now.
3. Find the buried constraints. Sewers, easements, and services crossing the site remove development area without appearing on any drawing.
4. Convert every constraint into a design consequence. 'Protected tree' is a note; 'no foundations within 8 m of the northern boundary' is a constraint that shapes the plan.
5. Test capacity with stated assumptions. A capacity figure without its assumptions is a number that will be quoted back at you.
6. Price the unknowns. For each, what it might cost to be wrong, and what an investigation costs. Some are worth resolving now; say which.

Output Format

Site analysis: [address] · [date] · [prepared by]

Site: [address, area, current use, boundaries] · Surveys relied on: [list with dates, and what is missing]

Physical

| Aspect | Finding | Design consequence |

|---|---|---|

| Topography | [levels, falls] | [implication] |

| Ground conditions | [what is known/assumed] | [foundation implication] |

| Trees | [species, protection status] | [root protection area, exclusion zone] |

| Existing structures | [condition, retention or demolition] | [implication] |

| Services | [what crosses the site, capacity] | [diversion or easement implication] |

| Drainage | [existing, outfall, flood zone] | [strategy implication] |

Environmental: orientation and sun path [summary] · prevailing wind [direction] · noise sources [what and where] · overlooking [from where]

Statutory & legal: planning designations [list] · rights of way [where] · easements [what and where] · covenants [effect] · party wall exposure [which boundaries] · verification needed: [what a solicitor must confirm]

Developable capacity: [estimate] — assuming [the assumptions: setbacks, height, parking, amenity space]

Opportunities: [aspects worth exploiting — aspect, level change, existing structure, frontage]

Risk register

| Unknown | If wrong, could cost | Investigation cost | Resolve before design? |

|---|---|---|---|

> An appraisal framework, not a substitute for professional surveys or legal advice. Title, easements, covenants and rights of way must be confirmed by a solicitor; ground conditions, trees, drainage, and contamination require qualified survey. Planning designations must be checked against the authority's current records.

Quality Checks

• [ ] Physical and legal constraints are assessed separately
• [ ] Boundaries were checked against the title plan, and discrepancies noted
• [ ] Buried services and easements are identified or flagged as unverified
• [ ] Every constraint states its design consequence, not just its existence
• [ ] The capacity estimate lists the assumptions behind it
• [ ] Unknowns are priced against the cost of investigating them
• [ ] Missing surveys are named rather than silently assumed away

Anti-Patterns

• Analysing from drawings alone. The site does not match the drawing, and the difference is the finding.
• Listing constraints without consequences. A list nobody can design from.
• Assuming the title matches the fence. A common and expensive error.
• A capacity figure with no assumptions. It will be quoted as a promise.
• Ignoring what has not been surveyed. Silence reads as 'no issue' and becomes a claim.
• Treating trees as a planning formality. Root protection areas remove real, unbuildable area.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Carry out a site analysis for this plot"
• "Can this site take a four-unit scheme?"
• "What should I check before designing on this site?"
• "Write a feasibility appraisal for a backland site"
• "What are the constraints on this site?"