A promoted site does not move directly from “submitted” to “allocated”. Under the new local-plan guidance, it passes through four distinct stages: identification, assessment, draft selection and confirmation.

The mistake is to treat every appearance in an authority spreadsheet as progress. A site can be visible and still be heading towards rejection.

The four stages in plain English

The government’s site-selection overview sets out a recommended four-stage process for local planning authorities:

  1. identify sites;
  2. assess sites;
  3. determine draft allocations; and
  4. confirm draft allocations and record decisions.

The guidance is directed mainly at authorities and remains capable of being updated. It is still commercially useful because it shows the decision trail a promoter’s evidence needs to meet.

Stage 1: identification is an entry, not an endorsement

At Stage 1, the authority builds a broad pool of potential sites. Sources can include existing allocations, brownfield registers, planning applications, previous land-availability work, public land, redevelopment opportunities and a Call for Sites.

The Stage 1 guidance says constraints do not need to be fully considered at this point. The output is a list of sites to assess at Stage 2.

For a promoter, the minimum record is:

Do not write “SHELAA site” as though it carries policy weight. Identification means the site has entered the evidence process.

Stage 2: assessment tests suitability, availability and achievability

Stage 2 is where the authority categorises sites, filters out obviously unsuitable options and applies its assessment method. The Stage 2 guidance describes the intended output as a set of suitable, available and achievable sites to take forward.

This is the point at which vague evidence begins to cost a site.

A promoter’s evidence register should track:

The important discipline is source-to-issue matching. A new transport note is useful only if the record says which access objection it answers and whether the authority has accepted the update.

Stage 3: a suitable site can still lose on strategy

At Stage 3, the authority decides which assessed sites best fit its proposed vision and spatial strategy. The Stage 3 guidance lists factors such as settlement role, connectivity, efficient land use, delivery timing, strategic scale, environmental considerations and viability evidence.

That creates a different risk. A site can be individually suitable but not selected because another option fits the emerging strategy better.

The promoter’s record should therefore add:

This is not a reason to manufacture a comparison table that favours your site. It is a reason to understand the authority’s actual decision framework and address it honestly.

Stage 4: the rationale becomes the asset

Stage 4 confirms which sites become draft allocations and records why other sites were rejected. The Stage 4 guidance recommends a clear summary table covering the site reference, location, category, capacity, phasing, suitability, availability, achievability and justification.

For a land team, the key output is not merely “selected” or “rejected”. It is the current rationale with its source.

That rationale determines the next commercial action:

The evidence table to keep across all four stages

A practical rule for every update

Whenever the authority publishes a new site assessment, ask three questions:

  1. What changed in the authority’s reasoning?
  2. What evidence caused, or should cause, that change?
  3. What decision does the land team now need to make?

If the update cannot answer those questions, it is filing, not site promotion.

For the status distinctions around this process, see SHELAA, Allocation or Permission?. For strengthening the initial evidence, read Call for Sites Is Not a Filing Exercise.

Sam Sykes