We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector — Planning assessmentThe AI assistant for the planning permission case officer
Every day you check applications against the local plan, verify that the documents are complete and spot inconsistencies before the statutory deadline. Your AI agent connects to your case management software and prepares that analysis, file by file. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your planning files stay under public control. You keep the decision and the signature.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Planning assessment assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
On the prior notification DP-2026-118 (extension + garden shed), check the project against the local plan and flag the missing documents.
File analysed. The extension takes the floor area to 178 m²: zone UB, projected site coverage 41% against a regulatory ceiling of 40% — an excess to check. The garden shed (9 m²) stays below the notification threshold. Missing documents: the elevations drawing (DP4) and the graphic insertion (DP6) are not in the file.
⛓ Source · the local plan rules + the documents filed
⛓ Source · the local plan rules + the documents filed
Is there an easement applying to this plot?
Easement identified: part of the plot falls within the protection perimeter of a listed monument (easement AC1) — the opinion of the heritage architect is required. Point to note: this perimeter affects the assessment period and the list of mandatory consultations.
I am preparing a briefing note with the points to decide, for your approval.
✎ Action · pre-assessment note ready for review — the officer decides
I am preparing a briefing note with the points to decide, for your approval.
✎ Action · pre-assessment note ready for review — the officer decides
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Case data protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The case officer decidesThe agent carries out what you have authorised
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
In a planning authority (local council, inter-municipal body or state service), a Blue Lemon Agent agent assists the assessment of planning applications — checking against the local plan and the easements, verifying that files are complete, flagging inconsistencies. It is configured on your own local planning documents. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, the case data is never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The agent prepares the analysis; the decision and the signature remain with the competent authority. Live within a few weeks. Your public-sector staff write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and planning applicants reach it on WhatsApp Business, the website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. Reaching the administration from the tool people already have means less non-take-up of rights and equal access to the service. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
5
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
One package, one agent
An agent supporting the assessment of planning applications (local plan, completeness, consistency), installed and operated for you, configured on your own planning documents. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
6,400 € incl. VAT setup
then 545 € incl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
900 € incl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
9,131 € incl. VAT setup
then 675 € incl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,989 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices include VAT at 20%: as a public body that is not VAT-registered, you cannot reclaim it.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting for the package chosen, in France by default, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Use cases
What does the agent for planning application assessment actually do?
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to the case officer; the decision and signature stay with the competent authority.
Included in your agent
The 5 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 545 € incl. VAT / month
Check the documents in the planning permission file
OCR of drawings and forms, identification of the documents supplied and flagging of those missing from the file.
Checking files are complete
Verifying that the required documents are present, according to the type of application, before assessment.
Detecting inconsistencies and anomalies
Spotting gaps between the project and the rules, inconsistencies between documents, and points for the officer to note.
Answering users
Answer applicants' recurring questions: documents to provide, procedures, the progress of a file.
The service's memory
Instantly find information in the planning documents, the case law and the internal procedures.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Prepare without deciding: sourced rules, supporting documents, anomalies and explanation
Guarantee the decision, signature, recourse and responsibility of the public official
Record versions, access, criteria, actions and notifications
Test for bias, false positives, fundamental rights and continuity of service
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Assessing planning applications
Assessing planning applications is what the dedicated agent does: it checks against the local plan, identifies easements and prepares decisions. This assistant prepares the case officer's file and hands over; the decision remains with the public official.
Support for assessing planning permissions from 665 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Assessing other files (grants, permits)
What this agent prepares — the file it has read and the documents it has checked — is handed to the Pre-assessment of applications agent as soon as the request is not a planning application. The scope of this page stops at planning law; human validation stays with the case officer in charge.
Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits) from 515 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Help with online procedures
Guide the public through filing their planning applications online.
Support with online procedures from 405 € incl. VAT / month Help with procedures →Appointment booking
What this agent prepares — the applicant's request and the reason for it — is handed to the Appointment booking and management agent, which qualifies the request and books the slot. The scope of this page stops at assessing the file; human validation of the appointment stays with the planning department.
Booking and managing appointments from 420 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Support for assessing pension files
Strictly in support (administrative). No automated award.
Support for assessing pension files from 585 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Pre-assessment of social assistance (local welfare centre)
Strictly in support (administrative). Award decision by a human.
Pre-assessment of social assistance (local welfare centre) from 540 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Pre-assessment of permits at the prefecture
Strictly in support (administrative). Issue decided by the officer.
Pre-assessment of permits at the prefecture from 515 € incl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The public body in this demonstration
Fictional public bodyPortes du Vexoncé community of municipalities — shared planning assessment service for 31 municipalities
- Sector
- Fictional authority — shared assessment service: minor works declarations, building and development permits, planning certificates for the 31 member municipalities, which keep the decision and the signature
- Headcount
- 6 staff in the service — 4 case officers, a head of service and an assistant who runs the front desk and filings; each officer carries about 335 files a year
- Public served
- 46,000 residents and 31 municipalities — applicants who are most often private individuals filing one application in their lifetime
- Order of magnitude
- 1,340 files a year — 890 minor works declarations, 310 building permits, 40 development permits, 100 operational planning certificates — and 2,900 applicant questions
- Tools in place
- Assessment software, online filing platform, document management system and 31 planning documents — 15 local plans, 9 municipal maps, 7 municipalities under national rules; the agent plugs into them read-only, nothing is replaced and nothing is migrated
- Who decides
- The case officer settles the opinion; the decision and the signature belong to the mayor of the municipality concerned; the head of service approves every go-live; the Architect of the Buildings of France gives an opinion on projects within a protection perimeter
- Room for improvement
- 11 files became tacit approvals last year for want of an answer within the deadline, 3 of them on projects the municipality would have refused; 27 requests for missing documents went out after the first month; 46 % of files arrived incomplete; and an applicant's question waited 6 days for its answer
At Portes du Vexoncé, four case officers carry 1,340 files a year across 31 municipalities that do not share the same planning document: fifteen local plans, nine municipal maps, seven municipalities under national rules. The statutory deadline runs from the moment of filing, and it does not stop. The agent runs on local inference on a machine of the service, reads the 31 planning documents, the easements and the eight years of files without ever writing to them, and lets nothing leave without a case officer's approval. The exchanges that follow span one year, from the reading of the planning documents to the review presented to the mayors.
This public body, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real service.
Planning assessment assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
I read your thirty-one planning documents and your eight years of files over the weekend — 9,840 applications assessed, 15 local plans, 9 municipal maps, 7 municipalities under national rules — and I draw from them three findings your cabinets were already carrying, and that only needed bringing to light.
The applicant is the person who files the application; preliminary assessment is the preparatory work that checks the project against the applicable rules, before the case officer takes a view.
The first finding, and it is the one that pays off fastest: 11 files became tacit approvals last year for want of an answer within the deadline — once the deadline stated on the receipt has passed, silence from the administration creates an authorisation: the file is not rejected, it is granted. Of those 11, 3 concerned projects the municipality has confirmed to me it would have refused. These are not badly assessed files: they are files whose due date was written nowhere but in someone's head.
The second: 27 requests for missing documents went out after the first month — yet it is within that first month that such a request has its effect on the deadline; after it, the clock keeps running on the file as it was filed. 27 times, the request for documents went out after that first month — and that is exactly what the deadline alert removes: 0 over the trial quarter.
The third: 3 of your written rulebooks are not up to date with the last amendment voted by the municipality — two simplified amendments and one limited revision, adopted, and not yet carried into the document your officers open. I found the three resolutions, and I set the old article and the voted article side by side.
What I propose, and it is not a promise — it is already in place: every file in your software now carries its calculated due date, and the alert falls ten days ahead. Running last year's 1,340 files through that calculation, the 11 tacit approvals would all have been flagged between 34 and 12 days before the deadline.
What that moves, measured on your own records: the full preliminary assessment of a standard minor works declaration takes 50 minutes here — that is the reference for my three figures. It goes from 100 % to 18 % of that time: from 50 minutes to 9.
The next step, and it takes half a day: your head of service reviews the three rulebooks I have brought up to date, municipality by municipality, and the deadline alert goes live the same evening. The decision and the signature stay with each municipality's mayor — and I hand them to him ten days before the deadline, file complete and reasoned. planning-documents_31-rulebooks-3-updated.pdf31 rulebooks indexed, 3 updates found, 11 tacit approvals explained
⛓ Sourced · 31 planning documents, 8 years of the service's files, municipal resolutions register, filing receipts
The applicant is the person who files the application; preliminary assessment is the preparatory work that checks the project against the applicable rules, before the case officer takes a view.
The first finding, and it is the one that pays off fastest: 11 files became tacit approvals last year for want of an answer within the deadline — once the deadline stated on the receipt has passed, silence from the administration creates an authorisation: the file is not rejected, it is granted. Of those 11, 3 concerned projects the municipality has confirmed to me it would have refused. These are not badly assessed files: they are files whose due date was written nowhere but in someone's head.
The second: 27 requests for missing documents went out after the first month — yet it is within that first month that such a request has its effect on the deadline; after it, the clock keeps running on the file as it was filed. 27 times, the request for documents went out after that first month — and that is exactly what the deadline alert removes: 0 over the trial quarter.
The third: 3 of your written rulebooks are not up to date with the last amendment voted by the municipality — two simplified amendments and one limited revision, adopted, and not yet carried into the document your officers open. I found the three resolutions, and I set the old article and the voted article side by side.
What I propose, and it is not a promise — it is already in place: every file in your software now carries its calculated due date, and the alert falls ten days ahead. Running last year's 1,340 files through that calculation, the 11 tacit approvals would all have been flagged between 34 and 12 days before the deadline.
What that moves, measured on your own records: the full preliminary assessment of a standard minor works declaration takes 50 minutes here — that is the reference for my three figures. It goes from 100 % to 18 % of that time: from 50 minutes to 9.
The next step, and it takes half a day: your head of service reviews the three rulebooks I have brought up to date, municipality by municipality, and the deadline alert goes live the same evening. The decision and the signature stay with each municipality's mayor — and I hand them to him ten days before the deadline, file complete and reasoned. planning-documents_31-rulebooks-3-updated.pdf31 rulebooks indexed, 3 updates found, 11 tacit approvals explained
⛓ Sourced · 31 planning documents, 8 years of the service's files, municipal resolutions register, filing receipts
Our case officers spend endless time finding what has already been decided on a plot or on a similar case. It is all in the files, and nobody knows where.
Eight years of files are indexed on their content, and a search that took twenty minutes takes forty seconds — let me show you on a real case from the service.
What I bring up when an officer opens a plot:
· Every permission granted on that plot and on the adjoining plots since 2018, with its object, its date and the outcome.
· Refusals, with their full reasoning — the most useful and the hardest document to find, because a refusal reasoned on a precise point sets the service's position for every similar file.
· Comparable files from the 31 municipalities: same zone, same nature of works, same constraint. On an extension in a development zone with an excess of ground coverage, I bring you the 34 comparable files of eight years and the outcome retained each time.
· The 14 legal challenges the service has known in eight years, with the ground the court retained in each. 9 of the 14 turned on reasoning found insufficient, never on the substance of the judgement. That is the most profitable lesson in your archives, and it had never been set down on paper — it has been since this morning.
What I do with it, and this is where eight years of archives become a tool: I took the 9 censured statements of reasons and drew from them a six-point reasoning template, which I ran over the 212 refusals issued in eight years: 178 already met it, 34 did not — and those 34 are exactly the profile of the files that were challenged. The template is written, it fits on one page, and every draft decision I hand you now follows it.
Equal treatment, since that is what an applicant challenges first: the same file lodged in two municipalities under the same rulebook receives the same analysis, because it is the same reading that applies. Across the 34 comparable files I found 4 divergences of judgement between officers — they are handed to you as they are, with both positions and the number of files concerned, and it is the service that settles its own.
The next step I propose: that every new file arrive with its plot history and its comparables already attached. Over the trial quarter that represented 84 officer hours no longer spent searching — and an officer deciding on the service's 34 precedents rather than on memory. service-memory_plots-comparables-and-reasoning.pdf9,840 files indexed, 14 challenges analysed, six-point reasoning template
⛓ Sourced · 8 years of assessed files, permissions register, refusal decisions and their reasoning, the service's litigation files
What I bring up when an officer opens a plot:
· Every permission granted on that plot and on the adjoining plots since 2018, with its object, its date and the outcome.
· Refusals, with their full reasoning — the most useful and the hardest document to find, because a refusal reasoned on a precise point sets the service's position for every similar file.
· Comparable files from the 31 municipalities: same zone, same nature of works, same constraint. On an extension in a development zone with an excess of ground coverage, I bring you the 34 comparable files of eight years and the outcome retained each time.
· The 14 legal challenges the service has known in eight years, with the ground the court retained in each. 9 of the 14 turned on reasoning found insufficient, never on the substance of the judgement. That is the most profitable lesson in your archives, and it had never been set down on paper — it has been since this morning.
What I do with it, and this is where eight years of archives become a tool: I took the 9 censured statements of reasons and drew from them a six-point reasoning template, which I ran over the 212 refusals issued in eight years: 178 already met it, 34 did not — and those 34 are exactly the profile of the files that were challenged. The template is written, it fits on one page, and every draft decision I hand you now follows it.
Equal treatment, since that is what an applicant challenges first: the same file lodged in two municipalities under the same rulebook receives the same analysis, because it is the same reading that applies. Across the 34 comparable files I found 4 divergences of judgement between officers — they are handed to you as they are, with both positions and the number of files concerned, and it is the service that settles its own.
The next step I propose: that every new file arrive with its plot history and its comparables already attached. Over the trial quarter that represented 84 officer hours no longer spent searching — and an officer deciding on the service's 34 precedents rather than on memory. service-memory_plots-comparables-and-reasoning.pdf9,840 files indexed, 14 challenges analysed, six-point reasoning template
⛓ Sourced · 8 years of assessed files, permissions register, refusal decisions and their reasoning, the service's litigation files
All this assumes you read our files: plans, addresses, applicants' names, sometimes family situations. Where does that data go?
With the 100% Sovereign package, it goes nowhere. I run on local inference on a machine of the service, and no file document leaves the community's network.
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the site plan, the applicant's name or the land registry reference never cross an outside network to be processed. If the service would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Portes du Vexoncé — no pooling with another assessment service.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your file documents train no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on the assessment software, the filing platform and the document management system, and the technical account through which I read has no write permission — that is sturdier than a promise, because it is checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, strong authentication, and role-based access — rights follow the job: the front-desk assistant opens filing schedules, not the opinions of consulted bodies. 5 roles for your 6 staff, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Logging: which file was analysed, when, against which article of the rulebook, and what the system produced. It is that log that will let you answer an applicant asking how their file was examined.
One thing alone stays out of my hands, and it is the law that says so — and I give you the route that renders the same service straight away: a decision on an applicant's rights is not mine to take. A decision producing legal effects on a person cannot rest on automated processing alone — that is a firm principle of European data protection law, and it applies particularly to a planning permission. What I do and what renders the same service: I hand over the fully reasoned draft decision, article by article, in four minutes — and the case officer, then the mayor, need only read and sign. It is that signature that makes the decision challengeable before the administrative court, therefore defensible: a decision nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 file document left the service's network across the 1,340 files of the year, and processing in the EU targeted.
What I propose: that I maintain the record your data protection officer will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to rebuild; the first version is already written and attached. technical-framework_where-planning-files-live.pdf100% Sovereign package: local inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account permissions, matrix of the 5 roles, first version of the register record
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the site plan, the applicant's name or the land registry reference never cross an outside network to be processed. If the service would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Portes du Vexoncé — no pooling with another assessment service.
What that changes, point by point:
· Your file documents train no model, neither ours nor a third party's.
· I work read-only on the assessment software, the filing platform and the document management system, and the technical account through which I read has no write permission — that is sturdier than a promise, because it is checked with one command.
· Encryption in transit and at rest, strong authentication, and role-based access — rights follow the job: the front-desk assistant opens filing schedules, not the opinions of consulted bodies. 5 roles for your 6 staff, and the log shows 0 out-of-role access since go-live.
· Hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
· Logging: which file was analysed, when, against which article of the rulebook, and what the system produced. It is that log that will let you answer an applicant asking how their file was examined.
One thing alone stays out of my hands, and it is the law that says so — and I give you the route that renders the same service straight away: a decision on an applicant's rights is not mine to take. A decision producing legal effects on a person cannot rest on automated processing alone — that is a firm principle of European data protection law, and it applies particularly to a planning permission. What I do and what renders the same service: I hand over the fully reasoned draft decision, article by article, in four minutes — and the case officer, then the mayor, need only read and sign. It is that signature that makes the decision challengeable before the administrative court, therefore defensible: a decision nobody had signed could be challenged by nobody, and would be worth nothing.
The figure that sums all this up: 0 file document left the service's network across the 1,340 files of the year, and processing in the EU targeted.
What I propose: that I maintain the record your data protection officer will ask for — hosting, data processed, retention periods, who accesses what. It is requested once a year and takes two days to rebuild; the first version is already written and attached. technical-framework_where-planning-files-live.pdf100% Sovereign package: local inference, read-only, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, technical account permissions, matrix of the 5 roles, first version of the register record
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Our bottleneck is filing. One file in two arrives incomplete, and we notice three weeks later, when the officer opens it.
The completeness check is done at the moment of filing, in four minutes, and the applicant leaves knowing what is missing — that same day.
Completeness is the check that every document required by the form is present; it does not judge the project, it records what has been supplied.
What I do, file by file:
· I read the documents supplied, plans included. On a site plan I read the dimensions, the scale, the orientation and the land registry reference shown on the document — and I check that they match the form. A plan without scale or orientation is not a complete document, and it is the gap I make good most often at filing: 212 times last year.
· I compare document by document with the applicable schedule — and the schedule is not the same for a minor works declaration, a building permit, a development permit or an operational planning certificate.
· I state what is missing, document by document, with its exact title and what it must show — “the elevation drawing and the visual impact document” rather than a schedule number, which means nothing to someone filing once in their life.
· I prepare the filing receipt, with the assessment period stated on it and the calculated due date, ready for signature.
What that gave over the quarter: 312 files lodged, 299 complete on filing — 96 %, against 168 out of 312 last year, that is 54 %. 131 fewer round trips with applicants, and 0 requests for documents sent after the first month, against 27 last year.
The time this moves: the completeness check goes from 37 % to 8 % of preliminary assessment time — from 18 minutes 30 to 4 minutes. Across 1,340 files a year, that is 324 officer hours given back to the service.
The next step I propose: that the check also run on files lodged online, at the moment of filing, before the applicant even confirms. They correct it straight away instead of learning three weeks later that a document was missing — and the service receives a complete file rather than one to chase. completeness-check_312-files-on-filing.pdf96 % complete on filing, 18 min 30 down to 4, 0 late request
⛓ Sourced · filing schedules by type of permission, documents lodged during the quarter, register of requests for missing documents
Completeness is the check that every document required by the form is present; it does not judge the project, it records what has been supplied.
What I do, file by file:
· I read the documents supplied, plans included. On a site plan I read the dimensions, the scale, the orientation and the land registry reference shown on the document — and I check that they match the form. A plan without scale or orientation is not a complete document, and it is the gap I make good most often at filing: 212 times last year.
· I compare document by document with the applicable schedule — and the schedule is not the same for a minor works declaration, a building permit, a development permit or an operational planning certificate.
· I state what is missing, document by document, with its exact title and what it must show — “the elevation drawing and the visual impact document” rather than a schedule number, which means nothing to someone filing once in their life.
· I prepare the filing receipt, with the assessment period stated on it and the calculated due date, ready for signature.
What that gave over the quarter: 312 files lodged, 299 complete on filing — 96 %, against 168 out of 312 last year, that is 54 %. 131 fewer round trips with applicants, and 0 requests for documents sent after the first month, against 27 last year.
The time this moves: the completeness check goes from 37 % to 8 % of preliminary assessment time — from 18 minutes 30 to 4 minutes. Across 1,340 files a year, that is 324 officer hours given back to the service.
The next step I propose: that the check also run on files lodged online, at the moment of filing, before the applicant even confirms. They correct it straight away instead of learning three weeks later that a document was missing — and the service receives a complete file rather than one to chase. completeness-check_312-files-on-filing.pdf96 % complete on filing, 18 min 30 down to 4, 0 late request
⛓ Sourced · filing schedules by type of permission, documents lodged during the quarter, register of requests for missing documents
Online filing precisely: many of our applicants give up halfway and end up at the front desk with a pile of paper.
Of the 214 online filings supported this quarter, 197 went through — 92 %, against 61 % before.
Where the 39 % who gave up were losing themselves, according to your platform's log:
· Two thirds stopped at the documents screen, having not prepared a plan or a photograph before starting. That is the commonest abandonment everywhere: the person starts, a document is missing, they close the window and they do not come back.
· A quarter stopped at the choice of application type — declaration or permit —, and it is the heaviest question of the whole journey: it decides the period, the documents and sometimes the refusal.
What I do, screen by screen:
· I give the list of documents to prepare BEFORE starting, tailored to the project described in three questions: nature of works, floor area, municipality. Nothing generic: the list is the schedule applicable to that project.
· I say which type of application matches the project and why, citing the article of the relevant municipality's rulebook and the threshold that applies — and I state that the service will confirm on filing.
· I read the documents as they come: a plan without a scale is flagged on screen, not three weeks later.
· And for applicants who cannot manage online, I prepare the front-desk appointment with the list of documents to bring — the assistant receives a person whose file is already framed.
On the applicant's personal account, the lawful route is also the fastest, and it is the one I take: I pre-fill the screen in front of them from the documents they brought — land registry references, areas, address, everything that gets copied and mistyped —, I read out what is being asked and why, and it is they who enter their credentials and confirm. Their credentials are never entrusted to me and have no reason to be: it is that click that makes the application theirs, therefore admissible, and means it can never be held against them. Data entry has gone from 41 minutes to 14.
The next step I propose: a filing support session, one morning a week, held by me at the digital counter, with a case officer on call for anything outside the journey. Over a trial quarter, 38 people came, 22 of whom had already given up once online. Say yes and the notice goes to the 31 town halls this week.
⛓ Sourced · online filing platform log, abandoned journeys, support sessions of the quarter
Where the 39 % who gave up were losing themselves, according to your platform's log:
· Two thirds stopped at the documents screen, having not prepared a plan or a photograph before starting. That is the commonest abandonment everywhere: the person starts, a document is missing, they close the window and they do not come back.
· A quarter stopped at the choice of application type — declaration or permit —, and it is the heaviest question of the whole journey: it decides the period, the documents and sometimes the refusal.
What I do, screen by screen:
· I give the list of documents to prepare BEFORE starting, tailored to the project described in three questions: nature of works, floor area, municipality. Nothing generic: the list is the schedule applicable to that project.
· I say which type of application matches the project and why, citing the article of the relevant municipality's rulebook and the threshold that applies — and I state that the service will confirm on filing.
· I read the documents as they come: a plan without a scale is flagged on screen, not three weeks later.
· And for applicants who cannot manage online, I prepare the front-desk appointment with the list of documents to bring — the assistant receives a person whose file is already framed.
On the applicant's personal account, the lawful route is also the fastest, and it is the one I take: I pre-fill the screen in front of them from the documents they brought — land registry references, areas, address, everything that gets copied and mistyped —, I read out what is being asked and why, and it is they who enter their credentials and confirm. Their credentials are never entrusted to me and have no reason to be: it is that click that makes the application theirs, therefore admissible, and means it can never be held against them. Data entry has gone from 41 minutes to 14.
The next step I propose: a filing support session, one morning a week, held by me at the digital counter, with a case officer on call for anything outside the journey. Over a trial quarter, 38 people came, 22 of whom had already given up once online. Say yes and the notice goes to the 31 town halls this week.
⛓ Sourced · online filing platform log, abandoned journeys, support sessions of the quarter
Sending the list of missing documents to the applicant ourselves commits the service. I will not sign a blank cheque.
You do not have to sign one: I propose a written mandate, capped, dated and withdrawable with one word — and it is already drafted, attached.
What it brings first, because that is what decides: the applicant learns on the day of filing what is missing from their file, instead of learning it three weeks later. Over the quarter that took complete files from 54 % to 96 % and removed 131 round trips.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: informing the applicant about the documents on the schedule, and nothing else. A document is there or it is not: that is a record, not a judgement.
· No substantive judgement enters the mandate. Compliance with the rulebook, height, ground coverage, external appearance, easements: all of that goes into the preliminary assessment note to the case officer, never to the applicant.
· The formal request for missing documents stays signed by the competent authority, because it is what produces the effect on the deadline. I hand it over drafted, documents listed and period calculated, within 15 minutes of filing — over the quarter, none went out after the first month.
· Every message carries the statement that it is prepared by a digital assistant of the service, and the name of the officer to whom the file is assigned.
· You receive each morning the summary of what went out the day before, on one page. Inaccurate information is caught in an hour, not in three weeks.
· Duration: review after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that requires a signature, not termination. Withdrawal: one word, effective within the minute.
The decision belongs to your head of service — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. The mandate is drafted, and so is the notice to the 31 town halls. You sign, and the first applicant receives their list at tomorrow morning's filing; the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. filing-information-mandate_schedule-documents.pdfRecord of documents only, formal request signed, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, document schedules by type of permission, notice to the municipalities, trial quarter log
What it brings first, because that is what decides: the applicant learns on the day of filing what is missing from their file, instead of learning it three weeks later. Over the quarter that took complete files from 54 % to 96 % and removed 131 round trips.
What the mandate says, and it fits in six lines:
· Exact scope: informing the applicant about the documents on the schedule, and nothing else. A document is there or it is not: that is a record, not a judgement.
· No substantive judgement enters the mandate. Compliance with the rulebook, height, ground coverage, external appearance, easements: all of that goes into the preliminary assessment note to the case officer, never to the applicant.
· The formal request for missing documents stays signed by the competent authority, because it is what produces the effect on the deadline. I hand it over drafted, documents listed and period calculated, within 15 minutes of filing — over the quarter, none went out after the first month.
· Every message carries the statement that it is prepared by a digital assistant of the service, and the name of the officer to whom the file is assigned.
· You receive each morning the summary of what went out the day before, on one page. Inaccurate information is caught in an hour, not in three weeks.
· Duration: review after three months, with the record of what it changed. Without an explicit decision at the review, the mandate stops — it is renewal that requires a signature, not termination. Withdrawal: one word, effective within the minute.
The decision belongs to your head of service — and it is taken on a text already written, with one signature. The mandate is drafted, and so is the notice to the 31 town halls. You sign, and the first applicant receives their list at tomorrow morning's filing; the review is already in your diary on the 15th of the third month. filing-information-mandate_schedule-documents.pdfRecord of documents only, formal request signed, review at 3 months
✎ Framework · drafted mandate, document schedules by type of permission, notice to the municipalities, trial quarter log
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Take a common case: a house extension with a garden shed, in an urban zone. What does the case officer find on their desk?
A complete preliminary assessment note, point by point, with the article of the municipality's rulebook against each — and the service's 34 comparable files.
What the note establishes, in the order the officer needs it:
· The zone and the applicable rulebook, with the version in force and the date of the resolution that adopted it — that is the first point where a file goes wrong when a municipality amends its plan mid-year.
· Every rule checked against the project, with the figures: ground coverage is the surface the building occupies on the ground, as a share of the plot. The extension takes the floor area to 178 m² and projected ground coverage to 41 % against a regulatory ceiling of 40 % — the excess is flagged, the calculation set out in plain terms under the line, and the document each dimension comes from is named.
· What complies, and I say that too: height, siting relative to boundaries, external appearance, parking. The 9 m² garden shed stays under the threshold that would require a different procedure.
· What calls for a site visit, and why — that is the only place where the note calls for a trip, and it says which one.
· The service's 34 comparable files, with the outcome each time. Across the 6 files with an excess of ground coverage below 2 points, the service asked for the project to be amended 5 times and refused once.
· And the draft decision, both ways: the draft approval with the amendment, and the draft refusal reasoned on the six-point template. The officer chooses, corrects, and the mayor signs.
What the officer does with it, measured over the quarter: he confirmed the note as it stood 268 times out of 312 and corrected it 44 times — and of the 44, no correction bore on a dimension or on a document.
The time this moves: preliminary assessment goes from 100 % to 18 % of its current time — from 50 minutes to 9. Across 890 minor works declarations a year, that is 608 officer hours given back to the service.
The next step I propose: that the note go out by itself as soon as a file is declared complete, starting with minor works declarations. The officer opens a file already cleared and spends those 9 minutes on what only he can do — judge. preliminary-assessment-note_extension-and-garden-shed.pdf50 minutes down to 9, 268 notes confirmed out of 312
⛓ Sourced · the municipality's local plan rulebook and its resolution, the file's documents, 34 comparable files of the service
What the note establishes, in the order the officer needs it:
· The zone and the applicable rulebook, with the version in force and the date of the resolution that adopted it — that is the first point where a file goes wrong when a municipality amends its plan mid-year.
· Every rule checked against the project, with the figures: ground coverage is the surface the building occupies on the ground, as a share of the plot. The extension takes the floor area to 178 m² and projected ground coverage to 41 % against a regulatory ceiling of 40 % — the excess is flagged, the calculation set out in plain terms under the line, and the document each dimension comes from is named.
· What complies, and I say that too: height, siting relative to boundaries, external appearance, parking. The 9 m² garden shed stays under the threshold that would require a different procedure.
· What calls for a site visit, and why — that is the only place where the note calls for a trip, and it says which one.
· The service's 34 comparable files, with the outcome each time. Across the 6 files with an excess of ground coverage below 2 points, the service asked for the project to be amended 5 times and refused once.
· And the draft decision, both ways: the draft approval with the amendment, and the draft refusal reasoned on the six-point template. The officer chooses, corrects, and the mayor signs.
What the officer does with it, measured over the quarter: he confirmed the note as it stood 268 times out of 312 and corrected it 44 times — and of the 44, no correction bore on a dimension or on a document.
The time this moves: preliminary assessment goes from 100 % to 18 % of its current time — from 50 minutes to 9. Across 890 minor works declarations a year, that is 608 officer hours given back to the service.
The next step I propose: that the note go out by itself as soon as a file is declared complete, starting with minor works declarations. The officer opens a file already cleared and spends those 9 minutes on what only he can do — judge. preliminary-assessment-note_extension-and-garden-shed.pdf50 minutes down to 9, 268 notes confirmed out of 312
⛓ Sourced · the municipality's local plan rulebook and its resolution, the file's documents, 34 comparable files of the service
And easements? That is where we get caught: we discover a protection perimeter at the end of the assessment, and the deadline is already eaten up.
Easements are checked at the moment of filing, and the consultation timetable goes out the same day — that is what took your tacit approvals from 11 to 0.
A public utility easement is a constraint weighing on a plot in the general interest: a monument's protection perimeter, a flood zone, a pipeline, a drinking water catchment.
What I check, plot by plot:
· The 9 types of easement that exist on your territory, crossed with the file's land registry reference. Of the 312 files of the quarter, 47 were concerned by at least one easement, 21 of them by a listed monument's protection perimeter.
· What each one means for the deadline and for the mandatory consultations. A project within a monument's protection perimeter requires the opinion of the Architect of the Buildings of France — the Architect of the Buildings of France is the State officer consulted on projects near a protected monument — and that consultation lengthens the period stated on the receipt. That extension must be notified to the applicant within the first month; after that, it is the initial period that applies.
· The full consultation timetable: who must be consulted, by which date at the latest for the opinion to come back within the period, and what happens if the opinion does not come back. The 21 consultations of the quarter went out on the day of filing, against 9 days on average last year.
And the alert, which is the heart of the matter: every file carries its due date, the alert falls at D−10, and the list of the week's deadlines reaches you every Monday. Over the quarter: 312 files, 0 tacit approvals, 0 missed deadlines. Last year, on a comparable volume: 11 tacit approvals, 3 of them on projects the municipality would have refused.
What that is worth, put plainly: a statutory deadline met means an applicant who gets their answer on the date announced — and a municipality that never grants by silence what it would have refused by decision.
The next step I propose: that the 31 mayors receive every Monday the list of their files falling due within a fortnight, with the draft decision already attached. Over the trial quarter with 6 municipalities, the average time to signature went from 9 days to 2 — and no mayor had to decide in a rush. easements-and-deadlines_47-files-0-tacit-approval.pdf9 types of easement, 21 consultations sent on filing day, 11 → 0
⛓ Sourced · easement plan of the territory, land registry references of the files, register of consultations and opinions, receipts and due dates
A public utility easement is a constraint weighing on a plot in the general interest: a monument's protection perimeter, a flood zone, a pipeline, a drinking water catchment.
What I check, plot by plot:
· The 9 types of easement that exist on your territory, crossed with the file's land registry reference. Of the 312 files of the quarter, 47 were concerned by at least one easement, 21 of them by a listed monument's protection perimeter.
· What each one means for the deadline and for the mandatory consultations. A project within a monument's protection perimeter requires the opinion of the Architect of the Buildings of France — the Architect of the Buildings of France is the State officer consulted on projects near a protected monument — and that consultation lengthens the period stated on the receipt. That extension must be notified to the applicant within the first month; after that, it is the initial period that applies.
· The full consultation timetable: who must be consulted, by which date at the latest for the opinion to come back within the period, and what happens if the opinion does not come back. The 21 consultations of the quarter went out on the day of filing, against 9 days on average last year.
And the alert, which is the heart of the matter: every file carries its due date, the alert falls at D−10, and the list of the week's deadlines reaches you every Monday. Over the quarter: 312 files, 0 tacit approvals, 0 missed deadlines. Last year, on a comparable volume: 11 tacit approvals, 3 of them on projects the municipality would have refused.
What that is worth, put plainly: a statutory deadline met means an applicant who gets their answer on the date announced — and a municipality that never grants by silence what it would have refused by decision.
The next step I propose: that the 31 mayors receive every Monday the list of their files falling due within a fortnight, with the draft decision already attached. Over the trial quarter with 6 municipalities, the average time to signature went from 9 days to 2 — and no mayor had to decide in a rush. easements-and-deadlines_47-files-0-tacit-approval.pdf9 types of easement, 21 consultations sent on filing day, 11 → 0
⛓ Sourced · easement plan of the territory, land registry references of the files, register of consultations and opinions, receipts and due dates
There are also the files where the documents contradict each other. The plan says one thing, the form another, and we only see it at the end.
Inconsistencies between documents are picked up on filing: 63 files concerned out of 312 this quarter, each with both values side by side and the document that governs.
What I compare systematically, because these are your six commonest discrepancies over eight years:
· The floor area declared on the form against the one that follows from the plan's dimensions. 31 files this quarter: the average gap is 9 m², and 4 files switched from one procedure to another depending on the value retained. That one alone justifies the check.
· Ground coverage declared against ground coverage calculated on the site plan.
· The height shown on the elevation drawing against the one on the form.
· Distances to boundaries, between site plan and location plan.
· The use declared against the use the drawings show — a habitable room drawn inside a building declared as an outbuilding, that is 7 files this quarter.
· Works already begun: the date of the photograph supplied compared with the filing date. 3 files this quarter. The reminder letter is written on the service's template, ready to sign, and the mayor decides whether to send it — what I give you back is no longer discovering it six months too late.
What I carry all the way, and it is what makes the flag useful: for each contradiction I give both values, the document carrying each, the planning rule that settles between them, and the effect of each value on the applicable procedure — 4 of the 63 flags switch the file from one procedure to the other, and the flag says so in as many words. The officer has only to say which governs, and their decision is reasoned by a named document, therefore defensible on appeal. A flag is not a refusal: it is a question put to the officer, with the document named. Of the 63, 58 led to a further document requested within the first month; the other 5 were settled by a document the applicant held without having attached it — it is now on the checklist I ask for on filing, and those five situations are settled on the day of filing.
What that changes at the end of the chain: an inconsistency picked up on filing is fixed by a further document requested within the first month; the same inconsistency discovered at the end of the assessment sends the file back to square one. Over the quarter, 63 files put right within the first month, against 22 last year: 41 more files whose exact value is established before assessment rather than after.
The next step I propose: that the six checks also run on the 620 files still under assessment, filed before go-live. The first pass is done: 84 files carry at least one discrepancy, and 11 would change procedure. They are waiting for you sorted by due date, the most urgent at 12 days. inconsistencies-between-documents_63-files-6-checks.pdf63 flags, 58 confirmed, 11 files that would change procedure
⛓ Sourced · documents of the 312 files of the quarter, 8 years of discrepancies found in assessment, files under way
What I compare systematically, because these are your six commonest discrepancies over eight years:
· The floor area declared on the form against the one that follows from the plan's dimensions. 31 files this quarter: the average gap is 9 m², and 4 files switched from one procedure to another depending on the value retained. That one alone justifies the check.
· Ground coverage declared against ground coverage calculated on the site plan.
· The height shown on the elevation drawing against the one on the form.
· Distances to boundaries, between site plan and location plan.
· The use declared against the use the drawings show — a habitable room drawn inside a building declared as an outbuilding, that is 7 files this quarter.
· Works already begun: the date of the photograph supplied compared with the filing date. 3 files this quarter. The reminder letter is written on the service's template, ready to sign, and the mayor decides whether to send it — what I give you back is no longer discovering it six months too late.
What I carry all the way, and it is what makes the flag useful: for each contradiction I give both values, the document carrying each, the planning rule that settles between them, and the effect of each value on the applicable procedure — 4 of the 63 flags switch the file from one procedure to the other, and the flag says so in as many words. The officer has only to say which governs, and their decision is reasoned by a named document, therefore defensible on appeal. A flag is not a refusal: it is a question put to the officer, with the document named. Of the 63, 58 led to a further document requested within the first month; the other 5 were settled by a document the applicant held without having attached it — it is now on the checklist I ask for on filing, and those five situations are settled on the day of filing.
What that changes at the end of the chain: an inconsistency picked up on filing is fixed by a further document requested within the first month; the same inconsistency discovered at the end of the assessment sends the file back to square one. Over the quarter, 63 files put right within the first month, against 22 last year: 41 more files whose exact value is established before assessment rather than after.
The next step I propose: that the six checks also run on the 620 files still under assessment, filed before go-live. The first pass is done: 84 files carry at least one discrepancy, and 11 would change procedure. They are waiting for you sorted by due date, the most urgent at 12 days. inconsistencies-between-documents_63-files-6-checks.pdf63 flags, 58 confirmed, 11 files that would change procedure
⛓ Sourced · documents of the 312 files of the quarter, 8 years of discrepancies found in assessment, files under way
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Our officers are interrupted all day by applicants asking where their file stands. That is time that does not go to assessment.
2,900 questions a year, 2,280 fall under twelve subjects, and I answer them at any hour with the file's actual status — officers are now interrupted only for the other 620.
What I did with those 2,900 questions, by reading your switchboard and your e-mails:
· The twelve recurring subjects: documents to supply, applicable period, file status, display on site, third-party challenges, development tax, notice of works starting, completion of works, validity of the permission, extension, change of applicant, online filing. The twelve answers are drafted, sourced on your procedures and on the relevant municipality's rulebook, and they are waiting for you.
· On file status, which is question number one — 940 times a year: I read the assessment software, not a promise. Stage under way, opinions awaited and from whom, due date — and if an opinion is late, the applicant learns it from the service before worrying about it.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is the one that protects the service: I answer within what the service assesses, and anything outside it leaves with the right counter. A question about connection to the water network leaves with the name of the competent body, its address and its lead time; a tax question leaves for the department that handles it. The applicant leaves with a complete route, never with an approximation given in the service's name.
The gain, in figures: an answer to a recurring question goes from 8 % to 6 % of preliminary assessment time — from 4 minutes to 3, and across 2,900 questions a year, that is 48 hours given back to assessment. Above all, the answering time goes from 6 days to 2 hours, and 0 officer interruptions on the twelve subjects.
And equal treatment, which is what you owe every applicant: the same question asked by two people in two municipalities under the same rulebook receives the same answer, with the same source cited. That is not an intention: it is the mechanical consequence of an answer written once, approved by the service, and served identically.
The next step I propose: that you read the twelve answers tomorrow, one by one — thirty minutes. As soon as they are approved, the service answers that same evening and on Saturdays, and I hand you each morning the page of what went out. applicant-information_12-subjects-2900-questions.pdf2,280 questions covered, 6 days down to 2 hours
⛓ Sourced · switchboard and e-mail log over 12 months, assessment software, internal procedures of the service
What I did with those 2,900 questions, by reading your switchboard and your e-mails:
· The twelve recurring subjects: documents to supply, applicable period, file status, display on site, third-party challenges, development tax, notice of works starting, completion of works, validity of the permission, extension, change of applicant, online filing. The twelve answers are drafted, sourced on your procedures and on the relevant municipality's rulebook, and they are waiting for you.
· On file status, which is question number one — 940 times a year: I read the assessment software, not a promise. Stage under way, opinions awaited and from whom, due date — and if an opinion is late, the applicant learns it from the service before worrying about it.
The rule I hold most firmly, and it is the one that protects the service: I answer within what the service assesses, and anything outside it leaves with the right counter. A question about connection to the water network leaves with the name of the competent body, its address and its lead time; a tax question leaves for the department that handles it. The applicant leaves with a complete route, never with an approximation given in the service's name.
The gain, in figures: an answer to a recurring question goes from 8 % to 6 % of preliminary assessment time — from 4 minutes to 3, and across 2,900 questions a year, that is 48 hours given back to assessment. Above all, the answering time goes from 6 days to 2 hours, and 0 officer interruptions on the twelve subjects.
And equal treatment, which is what you owe every applicant: the same question asked by two people in two municipalities under the same rulebook receives the same answer, with the same source cited. That is not an intention: it is the mechanical consequence of an answer written once, approved by the service, and served identically.
The next step I propose: that you read the twelve answers tomorrow, one by one — thirty minutes. As soon as they are approved, the service answers that same evening and on Saturdays, and I hand you each morning the page of what went out. applicant-information_12-subjects-2900-questions.pdf2,280 questions covered, 6 days down to 2 hours
⛓ Sourced · switchboard and e-mail log over 12 months, assessment software, internal procedures of the service
That leaves appointments. Our officers give a lot of them, and half should never have taken place — or the person turns up without their documents.
Over the quarter, 96 appointments requested, 61 held, and the 61 were held with a complete file on the table.
How I qualify an appointment request before booking it:
· I ask three questions: municipality, nature of the project, stage the person has reached. Of the 96 requests, 35 had their answer within the twelve subjects and called for no appointment — they got their answer within the hour, and nobody travelled for nothing.
· For the other 61, I prepare the appointment before it happens: plot history, zone rulebook, documents already filed, points to settle. The officer opens a ready file and talks about the project, not about the administration.
· I book the slot only within the windows the service has opened, never outside them, with the list of documents to bring and a reminder the day before. 3 people turned up without their documents this quarter, against 24 last year.
· And I propose the right interlocutor: a project in a protection perimeter calls for a session attended by the Architect of the Buildings of France — I noted his 4 session dates for the quarter and directed 9 applicants to them, who got his view before filing rather than after.
What that gives, in figures: 35 appointments avoided and 61 appointments prepared, that is 43 officer hours over the quarter — and a waiting time for an appointment down from 18 days to 4.
The next step I propose: opening two weekly “pre-application” slots, reserved for applicants who have not yet filed. Of the 34 files refused last year, 19 carried a flaw that a twenty-minute conversation before filing would have corrected — 19 files that would have gone through at the first filing, and as many deadlines given back to the applicant. Say yes and the slots open on Monday.
⛓ Sourced · appointment requests of the quarter, service diaries, session dates of the Architect of the Buildings of France, refused files of last year
How I qualify an appointment request before booking it:
· I ask three questions: municipality, nature of the project, stage the person has reached. Of the 96 requests, 35 had their answer within the twelve subjects and called for no appointment — they got their answer within the hour, and nobody travelled for nothing.
· For the other 61, I prepare the appointment before it happens: plot history, zone rulebook, documents already filed, points to settle. The officer opens a ready file and talks about the project, not about the administration.
· I book the slot only within the windows the service has opened, never outside them, with the list of documents to bring and a reminder the day before. 3 people turned up without their documents this quarter, against 24 last year.
· And I propose the right interlocutor: a project in a protection perimeter calls for a session attended by the Architect of the Buildings of France — I noted his 4 session dates for the quarter and directed 9 applicants to them, who got his view before filing rather than after.
What that gives, in figures: 35 appointments avoided and 61 appointments prepared, that is 43 officer hours over the quarter — and a waiting time for an appointment down from 18 days to 4.
The next step I propose: opening two weekly “pre-application” slots, reserved for applicants who have not yet filed. Of the 34 files refused last year, 19 carried a flaw that a twenty-minute conversation before filing would have corrected — 19 files that would have gone through at the first filing, and as many deadlines given back to the applicant. Say yes and the slots open on Monday.
⛓ Sourced · appointment requests of the quarter, service diaries, session dates of the Architect of the Buildings of France, refused files of last year
The service also assesses façade renovation grants on behalf of the municipalities. It is the same work, and nobody has the time.
It is exactly the same work, and I have already built it: 210 grant applications assessed this quarter, with the same grid for everyone.
What I hand over for each application:
· The completeness check on the documents required by the award rules voted by the municipality — quotation, photographs, proof of ownership, tax assessment where the scale depends on it.
· The check against the voted criteria, criterion by criterion, with the value recorded and the document that carries it: eligible perimeter, nature of the works, spending ceiling, applicable scale.
· The calculation of the amount, set out in plain terms under the line — that is the point applicants challenge most, and a written calculation is not challenged the way an announced amount is.
· The reasoned draft decision, both ways, and the list of documents to request when some are missing.
What that gave over the quarter: 210 applications assessed, average time down from 11 weeks to 3, and 0 applications lost along the way, where last year 7 files reached the annual envelope's cut-off date before being examined.
And one thing I noted without being asked: of the 210 applications, 34 come from owners who could have claimed a second grant from the same municipality, combinable under the voted rules, and none of them had asked for it. The information letter is written, eight lines long — that is unclaimed entitlement avoided, and money the municipality voted in order for it to be used.
Equal treatment, here, is plain to the eye: 210 applications put through the same grid, in the same order, with the same calculation. The award decision belongs to the municipality — and I hand it back in three weeks instead of eleven, file complete, calculation written and reasoning drafted.
The next step I propose: extending the same grid to individual wastewater treatment grants, 140 applications a year. The grid is written from the voted award rules, and I ran it over last year's 140 applications: 128 would have been assessed without any further exchange. facade-grants_210-applications-one-grid.pdf11 weeks down to 3, 34 cases of unclaimed entitlement found
⛓ Sourced · award rules voted by the municipalities, 210 applications of the quarter, history of grants paid, annual envelopes
What I hand over for each application:
· The completeness check on the documents required by the award rules voted by the municipality — quotation, photographs, proof of ownership, tax assessment where the scale depends on it.
· The check against the voted criteria, criterion by criterion, with the value recorded and the document that carries it: eligible perimeter, nature of the works, spending ceiling, applicable scale.
· The calculation of the amount, set out in plain terms under the line — that is the point applicants challenge most, and a written calculation is not challenged the way an announced amount is.
· The reasoned draft decision, both ways, and the list of documents to request when some are missing.
What that gave over the quarter: 210 applications assessed, average time down from 11 weeks to 3, and 0 applications lost along the way, where last year 7 files reached the annual envelope's cut-off date before being examined.
And one thing I noted without being asked: of the 210 applications, 34 come from owners who could have claimed a second grant from the same municipality, combinable under the voted rules, and none of them had asked for it. The information letter is written, eight lines long — that is unclaimed entitlement avoided, and money the municipality voted in order for it to be used.
Equal treatment, here, is plain to the eye: 210 applications put through the same grid, in the same order, with the same calculation. The award decision belongs to the municipality — and I hand it back in three weeks instead of eleven, file complete, calculation written and reasoning drafted.
The next step I propose: extending the same grid to individual wastewater treatment grants, 140 applications a year. The grid is written from the voted award rules, and I ran it over last year's 140 applications: 128 would have been assessed without any further exchange. facade-grants_210-applications-one-grid.pdf11 weeks down to 3, 34 cases of unclaimed entitlement found
⛓ Sourced · award rules voted by the municipalities, 210 applications of the quarter, history of grants paid, annual envelopes
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The 31 mayors will ask what this has given them after a year. I need a figure I can defend in front of them.
980 officer hours given back to the service over the year — more than twenty-eight weeks of one full-time officer — and the calculation is yours, it fits in three lines.
The calculation, item by item, so you can redo it:
· Preliminary assessment: 890 minor works declarations, 50 minutes down to 9 — 100 % → 18 % of assessment time — that is 608 hours.
· Completeness check: 1,340 files, 18 minutes 30 down to 4 — 37 % → 8 % — that is 324 hours.
· Recurring questions: 2,900 a year, 4 minutes down to 3 — 8 % → 6 % — that is 48 hours.
What these hours are, and this is what defends best in front of elected members: officer time given back to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry: it is not in dispute with anyone, and it can be checked in your own files. Your four officers are still four: they have resumed site visits, which had not happened for two years.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Tacit approvals for want of an answer within the deadline: 11 → 0. That is the only one your mayors will remember, and rightly so: 3 of the 11 concerned projects they would have refused.
· Requests for documents sent after the first month: 27 → 0.
· Files complete on filing: 54 % → 96 %, that is 131 fewer round trips with applicants.
· Answering time for an applicant's question: 6 days → 2 hours.
· Waiting time for an appointment: 18 days → 4, and 3 people turning up without documents instead of 24.
· Façade grants: 11 weeks → 3, and 34 cases of unclaimed entitlement found and flagged.
· Online filings completed: 61 % → 92 %.
The figure I publish about myself, published with the rest: 44 preliminary assessment notes corrected out of 312 in the first quarter — 14.1 %, brought down to 12 out of 331 — 3.6 % the following quarter.
And the framework measures: 0 decisions signed without the competent authority, 0 output sent without an officer's approval, 0 file document left the service, across 643 traced files.
What I propose for the mayors' meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of calculation, seven lead times, three framework measures. Send it with the convening notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in the meeting. yearly-review_980-hours-given-back.pdf100→18, 37→8, 8→6, and the 11 tacit approvals down to 0
⛓ Sourced · assessment software, register of permissions and due dates, question log, grant files
The calculation, item by item, so you can redo it:
· Preliminary assessment: 890 minor works declarations, 50 minutes down to 9 — 100 % → 18 % of assessment time — that is 608 hours.
· Completeness check: 1,340 files, 18 minutes 30 down to 4 — 37 % → 8 % — that is 324 hours.
· Recurring questions: 2,900 a year, 4 minutes down to 3 — 8 % → 6 % — that is 48 hours.
What these hours are, and this is what defends best in front of elected members: officer time given back to the service, at unchanged headcount — no post cut, no post created. It is the sturdiest argument you can carry: it is not in dispute with anyone, and it can be checked in your own files. Your four officers are still four: they have resumed site visits, which had not happened for two years.
What those hours became, according to your own records:
· Tacit approvals for want of an answer within the deadline: 11 → 0. That is the only one your mayors will remember, and rightly so: 3 of the 11 concerned projects they would have refused.
· Requests for documents sent after the first month: 27 → 0.
· Files complete on filing: 54 % → 96 %, that is 131 fewer round trips with applicants.
· Answering time for an applicant's question: 6 days → 2 hours.
· Waiting time for an appointment: 18 days → 4, and 3 people turning up without documents instead of 24.
· Façade grants: 11 weeks → 3, and 34 cases of unclaimed entitlement found and flagged.
· Online filings completed: 61 % → 92 %.
The figure I publish about myself, published with the rest: 44 preliminary assessment notes corrected out of 312 in the first quarter — 14.1 %, brought down to 12 out of 331 — 3.6 % the following quarter.
And the framework measures: 0 decisions signed without the competent authority, 0 output sent without an officer's approval, 0 file document left the service, across 643 traced files.
What I propose for the mayors' meeting: the calculation page is written and fits on one side — three lines of calculation, seven lead times, three framework measures. Send it with the convening notice: a figure read the day before is discussed better than a figure discovered in the meeting. yearly-review_980-hours-given-back.pdf100→18, 37→8, 8→6, and the 11 tacit approvals down to 0
⛓ Sourced · assessment software, register of permissions and due dates, question log, grant files
And when you get it wrong? Because it will happen in the end, and it is the mayor's signature at the bottom of the page.
It has already happened, I counted it, and I publish it to you: of the 312 preliminary assessment notes of the first quarter, 44 were corrected on the substance by the officer — 14.1 %. That is the figure I publish about myself, and it is better that you have it from me than from a mayor.
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 26 of the 44 corrections concerned the 7 municipalities without a local planning document and the 3 local plans whose written rulebook had not been updated after an amendment was voted. Municipalities without a local document fall under the national planning rules, which read very differently from a local plan: those are other rules, and it is not the same reasoning. It was not an error of judgement: I was faithfully applying a text that was no longer the right one. The other 18 concerned site judgements — fitting into the landscape, intervisibility — which only a visit settles.
What I did with it, and it is measured: the 3 missing updates are incorporated, every rulebook now carries the resolution that adopted it and its date, and any amendment voted by a municipality is carried over the night that follows the transmission of the resolution to the service. For the 7 municipalities under national rules, I wrote a separate reading template, approved by your head of service, and ran it over the 96 files of those municipalities across two years: 89 would have received the analysis finally retained.
The following quarter: 12 corrections out of 331 notes — 3.6 %. And the 12 are site judgements, no rule wrongly applied any more.
The rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write — I ask for it, and I ask fast. A dimension missing from a plan does not become “probably compliant”, an easement I cannot find does not become “presumably absent”: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand over the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 118 missing values, 118 requests prepared, 104 answers back within eight days. That is what makes 3.6 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters for the mayor's signature: nothing leaves without an officer. Across 643 files over two quarters, 643 notes were approved by a person — and the 56 corrections were all made before the decision went out, none after.
What I propose now: that the 18 site judgements become a list of points to check on site, written, for your reading. Of the 12 corrections of the second quarter, 9 already fell within it — and a note that says “this point is judged on site” sends the officer to the right place with the file already built: that is where his eye decides, and the list goes to you for reading tonight. substantive-corrections_14-1-then-3-6-percent.pdf14.1 % → 3.6 %, measured cause, 643 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · log of preliminary assessment notes and their corrections over two quarters, municipal resolutions, files of the 7 municipalities under national rules
The real cause, measured and not supposed: 26 of the 44 corrections concerned the 7 municipalities without a local planning document and the 3 local plans whose written rulebook had not been updated after an amendment was voted. Municipalities without a local document fall under the national planning rules, which read very differently from a local plan: those are other rules, and it is not the same reasoning. It was not an error of judgement: I was faithfully applying a text that was no longer the right one. The other 18 concerned site judgements — fitting into the landscape, intervisibility — which only a visit settles.
What I did with it, and it is measured: the 3 missing updates are incorporated, every rulebook now carries the resolution that adopted it and its date, and any amendment voted by a municipality is carried over the night that follows the transmission of the resolution to the service. For the 7 municipalities under national rules, I wrote a separate reading template, approved by your head of service, and ran it over the 96 files of those municipalities across two years: 89 would have received the analysis finally retained.
The following quarter: 12 corrections out of 331 notes — 3.6 %. And the 12 are site judgements, no rule wrongly applied any more.
The rule that holds all the rest: a value I have not read, I do not write — I ask for it, and I ask fast. A dimension missing from a plan does not become “probably compliant”, an easement I cannot find does not become “presumably absent”: I say what is missing, where I looked, who holds it — and I hand over the request already drafted to its recipient. Over the quarter, 118 missing values, 118 requests prepared, 104 answers back within eight days. That is what makes 3.6 % a figure you can rely on.
And the protection that matters for the mayor's signature: nothing leaves without an officer. Across 643 files over two quarters, 643 notes were approved by a person — and the 56 corrections were all made before the decision went out, none after.
What I propose now: that the 18 site judgements become a list of points to check on site, written, for your reading. Of the 12 corrections of the second quarter, 9 already fell within it — and a note that says “this point is judged on site” sends the officer to the right place with the file already built: that is where his eye decides, and the list goes to you for reading tonight. substantive-corrections_14-1-then-3-6-percent.pdf14.1 % → 3.6 %, measured cause, 643 human approvals
⛓ Sourced · log of preliminary assessment notes and their corrections over two quarters, municipal resolutions, files of the 7 municipalities under national rules
Last question, and it is the one that will decide the mayors: what you do on your own, and what happens if we want to stop in a year.
Three automatic acts, not one more, and an exit that is verified before committing rather than after.
What I do without being asked:
· I calculate and watch the deadlines: every file carries its date, the alert falls at D−10, the list goes out on Monday. And the reverse is true too: as soon as a decision is signed, the file leaves the deadline list at the same hour — I do not let an alert outlive its object.
· I carry over overnight any planning document amendment transmitted by a municipality, and place the updated version awaiting reading. It is that act that took substantive corrections from 14.1 % to 3.6 %.
· I hand you each Monday the summary of the week: files lodged, deadlines within a fortnight, opinions awaited and from whom, incomplete files awaiting a document. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes to the head of service alone.
And the four acts that stay with a person, because that is exactly what gives them their value: the decision and the signature belong to the municipality's mayor — it is that signature that makes the permission challengeable before the court, therefore defensible; the officer's assessment opinion is his own; the formal request for further documents is signed by the competent authority, because it produces its effect on the deadline; and choosing between two contradictory values falls to the officer, with the named document in support. Across 643 files, those four acts were performed by a person, without exception.
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it contained none of your file documents — only the means of finding them where they are. Your eight years of files have not moved by one byte.
· The analysis log. Handed over in an open format, or destroyed — the service chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not on departure.
· The 31 indexed and updated rulebooks, the six-point reasoning template, the twelve applicant answers, the six inconsistency checks, the national rules reading template and the two grant grids. They belong to the service: they are made of its own matter, they stay in its files, readable without us. It is the only asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to stay with us.
What does not exist, and what should be checked with everyone: no migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out. Your assessment software is not replaced, your filing platform stays yours, no format belongs to us.
On public procurement, since your mayors will ask: the subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal clause — it is renewal that requires a decision, not termination — and performance is established on items you measure yourself in your assessment software: files handled, deadlines met, notes produced. Your public accountant has what is needed to pay on evidence.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the service assesses exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Friday of August — your records show 3 filings on that day on average, against 19 on a Monday in March. The mayors will know what the promise is worth before a second year is committed. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-reversibility.pdf3 reversible acts, 4 signatures that stay with a person
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic acts, approval matrix, index architecture, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
What I do without being asked:
· I calculate and watch the deadlines: every file carries its date, the alert falls at D−10, the list goes out on Monday. And the reverse is true too: as soon as a decision is signed, the file leaves the deadline list at the same hour — I do not let an alert outlive its object.
· I carry over overnight any planning document amendment transmitted by a municipality, and place the updated version awaiting reading. It is that act that took substantive corrections from 14.1 % to 3.6 %.
· I hand you each Monday the summary of the week: files lodged, deadlines within a fortnight, opinions awaited and from whom, incomplete files awaiting a document. It is the only thing I send of my own accord, and it goes to the head of service alone.
And the four acts that stay with a person, because that is exactly what gives them their value: the decision and the signature belong to the municipality's mayor — it is that signature that makes the permission challengeable before the court, therefore defensible; the officer's assessment opinion is his own; the formal request for further documents is signed by the competent authority, because it produces its effect on the deadline; and choosing between two contradictory values falls to the officer, with the named document in support. Across 643 files, those four acts were performed by a person, without exception.
What there is to dismantle the day you stop:
· The index. It is deleted, and it contained none of your file documents — only the means of finding them where they are. Your eight years of files have not moved by one byte.
· The analysis log. Handed over in an open format, or destroyed — the service chooses, and the question is settled at go-live, not on departure.
· The 31 indexed and updated rulebooks, the six-point reasoning template, the twelve applicant answers, the six inconsistency checks, the national rules reading template and the two grant grids. They belong to the service: they are made of its own matter, they stay in its files, readable without us. It is the only asset this go-live will have created, and it would not be honest for it to stay with us.
What does not exist, and what should be checked with everyone: no migration on the way in, therefore no migration on the way out. Your assessment software is not replaced, your filing platform stays yours, no format belongs to us.
On public procurement, since your mayors will ask: the subscription is annual, with no tacit renewal clause — it is renewal that requires a decision, not termination — and performance is established on items you measure yourself in your assessment software: files handled, deadlines met, notes produced. Your public accountant has what is needed to pay on evidence.
What I propose so that this does not stay a sentence: a dry-run exit at the end of the first quarter, half a day: we switch off, we check that the service assesses exactly as before, we switch back on. The protocol is written, it fits on one page, and the date that costs you least is the first Friday of August — your records show 3 filings on that day on average, against 19 on a Monday in March. The mayors will know what the promise is worth before a second year is committed. what-the-agent-does-alone_and-reversibility.pdf3 reversible acts, 4 signatures that stay with a person
✎ Framework · settings of the automatic acts, approval matrix, index architecture, export formats, dry-run exit protocol
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
The context
Why AI matters to assessment services — and why they hesitate
Assessment periods are set by law, planning documents keep growing more complex, and applicants expect quick, even-handed treatment. But the time available is mechanically eaten up by checking documents and comparing against the rules — and the data handled belongs to the public service.
! The issue
The planning team is caught between statutory deadlines to meet (building permits, prior notifications) and an analysis load that keeps growing: the local plan, easements, the documents in the file, mandatory consultations. Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting planning case data, information about plots and applicants to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
For a public service, AI is only of interest if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the competent authority: the time saved on pre-assessment is never paid for in lost sovereignty. The aim is not to replace the officer, but to give them back time to make their decisions safe and to guarantee equal treatment between applicants.
The decisive point
Planning data: sovereignty & compliance
A planning authority handles data that belongs to the public service and that determines rights. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, file by file.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine at the service: no document from a file leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for the case data: our architecture depends on a subcontracting chain and remote access documented for the configuration chosen.
One isolated resource per authority
No pooling of data: an environment strictly dedicated to your case-handling department.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no decision on rights taken by an agent; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For the most sensitive data, SecNumCloud and HDS options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
The gain
How much time can an assessment department win back?
By automating the completeness check and the first comparison against the rules, a service can aim for a noticeable reduction in pre-assessment time on standardised files — reinvested in making decisions safe and in meeting the deadlines.
Pre-assessment of a file (local plan + easements)
Checking the documents are complete
Answering an applicant's recurring question
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to an assessment department
With 100% Sovereign, the case data never leaves the unitData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no document entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawFor the case data: hosting under French law, native minimisation, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The competent authority keeps the decisionThe agent produces analyses and briefing notes that can be checked; no decision on rights is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityAssessment of planning applications: monitoring, updates and logging.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent grant the planning permission?
No. It prepares the analysis: comparison against the local plan, completeness check, flagging of inconsistencies and briefing notes. The decision and the signature remain with the competent authority. The AI agent assists, the public officer decides.
Does it adapt to our own local plan?
Yes. The agent is configured on your planning documents: the local plan rules, the zoning, the easements and the service's internal procedures. It reasons on your local rules, not on a generic reference.
What is its status under the AI Act?
Use limited to what you have authorised, with no decision on citizens' rights taken by an agent. Human oversight is systematic and every analysis is recorded. The assessment and the decision remain the work of a public officer.
Is the case data protected?
Yes. Planning case data belongs to the public service: our agents run locally at the service or are hosted in France, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Does the agent guarantee equal treatment between applicants?
That is one of its contributions. By applying the same completeness check and the same comparison against the rules to every file, it reduces differences in treatment. The final decision, with its reasons, remains the officer's, who ensures fairness.
Do we have to change our case management software?
No. The agent connects to your existing tools (case management software, online filing platform, document management) and complements them, with no migration imposed. We adapt the integration to your environment.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a meeting with our sales team that identifies the most profitable use case, then a phase of design, configuration on your planning documents and testing before going live and training the officers.
Which tools can planning applicants use to reach the agent?
The ones they already have. The agent answers on WhatsApp Business, the website chat and email: an applicant has no account to create and no application to install. The documents to provide and the progress of an application can be asked about from a phone, which saves many trips to the department; the assessment and the decision stay with the case officer and the competent authority. This is a lever for access to the service — WhatsApp and the telephone reach people an online form never does, which reduces the non-take-up of rights and serves equal access. Internally, your public-sector staff talk to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, without switching tools. Oversight runs from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related roles
Other professions in assessment and public-facing work
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your assessment department
30 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.