We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Public sector — Planning assessmentThe AI agent for assessing planning applications: prepare the analysis, secure the decision
The time allowed to assess a planning application is set by law, and every analytical error exposes the authority to litigation. This AI building block equips the whole case-handling department: systematic testing against the local plan, completeness checks, detection of inconsistencies. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — it is installed without changing your business software. The competent authority decides and signs, file by file.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Completeness: the dimensioned site plan (document DP2) and the certificate of compliance with the 2020 environmental regulation are missing.
⛓ Source · the local plan's regulations + the council's easement map
I am preparing the letter requesting documents and the heritage referral form, for your review.
✎ Action · draft letters ready — the case officer approves and the authority signs
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).
For a case-handling department (council, intercommunal body, shared planning service), a Blue Lemon Agent agent prepares the assessment of planning applications — testing against the local plan and the easements, checking the completeness of the documents, spotting inconsistencies — and highlights the points the case officer should look at. 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, applicants' documents are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Use limited to what you have authorised, with no decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent and reinforced human oversight. The decision and the signature remain with the competent authority.
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).
A clear offer, one agent
An agent supporting the assessment of planning applications (local plan, completeness, consistency), configured on your local documents, installed and operated for you. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
What does the planning permission assessment agent actually do?
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, configured on your local documents, 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; no decision with legal effect is taken by the agent, the competent authority deciding and signing case by case.
Testing against the local plan
Reading the project against the zoning and the articles of the regulations (footprint, height, setback, appearance), for the case officer to approve.
Easements & constraints
Spotting the public utility easements and perimeters (heritage, risk) that may require an opinion or an extended deadline.
Completeness checks
Checking the file's documents (application forms, plans, certificates) and flagging gaps before requesting further documents.
Reading documents & plans
OCR and extraction of the key information from application forms, site plans and notices, to prepare the analysis.
Detecting inconsistencies
Highlighting contradictions between documents (areas, dimensions, description) and points of legal concern.
Preparing the letters
Draft requests for documents, deadline notifications and referrals for external opinions, from your own templates.
Informing applicants
Answers to everyday questions: documents to provide, deadlines, applicable zoning, progress of a file.
Planning memory
Instantly find an article of the regulations, a local court ruling or an earlier assessment precedent.
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.
Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits)
Consistency check. Final decision by a human.
Pre-assessment of applications (benefits, grants, permits) from 515 € 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 →In 30 minutes we identify the agent that will give your staff the most time back — without oversizing the project.
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.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· A request for documents was notified on the 47th day after filing on DP-2026-0203. Article R*423-38 provides for it within the month.
· Three files reach the end of their assessment period this week and no decision is drafted.
· A second request for documents went out on PC-2026-0088. The first was therefore not exhaustive.
· Documents arrived on 14/07 on two files and the period was not recalculated in the system. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · files concerned
⛓ Source · filing register, notified letters, acknowledgements, system deadlines
What I established, document by document: filed at the town hall on 18/05, acknowledged the same day, request for documents notified on 04/07 — that is the 47th day.
What the two texts say, which I quote because they are short and checkable:
· R*423-23 — the standard assessment period is one month for a prior declaration.
· R*423-38 — where the file is incomplete, the authority sends the applicant, within the month following the filing, a recorded-delivery letter setting out exhaustively the missing documents.
What I do not say: that a tacit decision has been acquired. That is a legal characterisation, and it is yours to make — I record two dates and I quote two articles.
The note is ready, with the three dated documents, for your legal team. DP-2026-0203_notified-on-day-47.pdf3 dates · 2 articles quoted
⛓ Source · filing of 18/05, notification of 04/07 · art. R*423-23 and R*423-38 French planning code
Routing follows your organisation: the late notification to the head of service and the lawyer, both together — one assesses, the other characterises; the three expiring periods to their respective case officers; the second request for documents to the head of service, because it is the first one that raises the question; the unrecalculated periods to the system administrator.
With a chase: 12 h on the late notification and the three expiring periods — a period cannot be recovered; 48 h on the rest. Then a weekly summary to the head of service: by file, never by case officer.
What that gives you this morning: four files picked up before a deadline decided in the service's place. A request for documents notified on day 47 taken to the lawyer with its three dates, three expiring periods handed to their case officers, a second request for documents raised with the head of service, and two deadline schedules brought up to date in the system.
What that gives the service back from tomorrow: the case officer opens a file already checked against the local plan and the easements, completeness verified, contradictions between dimensions and floor areas brought out. The competent authority decides and signs in minutes on a complete, reasoned file, instead of piecing the chronology back together. Statutory periods are met, and the same project gets the same analysis whichever officer handles it and whoever the applicant is.
On what I consult: access is opened by service and by file type, every lookup is logged, and it is withdrawn with a single word. And applicants' documents leave neither the service nor France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The next step is ready: a few minutes to load your local plan and your easements, and I take up this month's deadline schedule, file by file.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Compliant, with the measured value: site coverage 32% against 40 allowed, height 8.40 m against 9 allowed, setback from the road 6.20 m against 5 required, and five further points.
Three to settle, and they are not of the same kind:
· Parking — the regulations require 2 spaces per dwelling; the drawing shows 3 for 2 dwellings. One is missing, that is arithmetic.
· Green space — 28% of the plot, the regulations require 30. The difference lies in what is counted: the drawing includes the access driveway, the regulations exclude it — I flag the reading, I do not settle it.
· External appearance — the regulations require a colour "in harmony with neighbouring buildings". No value can be checked here; it is a case officer's judgement.
What I hand you, and why the conclusion is yours: the eleven clauses, each with the measured value, the source dimension and the drawing number that carries it — eight check out on a figure, three call for a reading. Compliance is pronounced in a decision that carries your signature and can be challenged: it is the reasoning that defends it, and the reasoning is already drafted for all eleven clauses. Three judgements are left to you, and twenty minutes of reading. PC-2026-0141_set-against-the-plan.pdf11 clauses · 8 compliant · 3 to settle
⛓ Source · zone UC regulations, drawings PC2 and PC4, descriptive statement
What the regulations say, clause UC 13: "at least 30% of the plot shall be laid out as open-ground green space".
What the drawing shows: 28% excluding the access driveway, 31% including it.
What separates the two: the driveway is stabilised gravel. Depending on whether it is treated as a permeable surface or as a laid-out area, it counts towards the 30% or it does not.
What I can bring, and have brought: four files from the same zone where the question arose. Three excluded the driveway, one included it — and that one had unstabilised gravel.
What I isolated in the four, rather than deriving a rule from them: the fact that decided each one, and it is the same every time — the nature of the gravel. Here it is stabilised, as in the three files that excluded the driveway. A consistent practice is not a regulation, and the case officer may depart from it with reasons: that is exactly what the fourth file did. So you have both sets of reasons in front of you, the three and the fourth, ready to be taken up either way. zone-UC_4-green-space-precedents.pdf4 files · 3 exclusions, 1 inclusion
✎ Support · 4 precedents from the same zone — the reading stays with the case officer
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Why this is the heart of the matter: article R*423-38 requires the letter to set out exhaustively the missing documents. A second request does not repair an incomplete first one — which is what happened on PC-2026-0088 this morning.
The seven, with their form reference: landscape integration (PC6), photograph of the wider setting (PC8), thermal regulations certificate, fire safety statement, dimensioned section on natural ground level, certificate of no objection from the estate developer, and the signatory's authority.
Two points I flag without counting them as missing: PC4 is supplied but illegible at printed scale, and the form states a floor area differing from the drawing by 4 m².
The letter is written: the seven documents listed with their references, the two points flagged separately, and the deadline computed from the filing date.
What is yours to do is the notification: it carries your signature and it starts a clock — that is what makes it enforceable against the applicant, and why only one person can set it running. You read, you sign, it goes out the same day. PC-2026-0158_7-missing-documents.pdf7 documents · 2 points flagged
⛓ Source · file as filed, document schedule, completed application form
The illegible PC4: the document is supplied. Asking for it again as "missing" would be inaccurate; saying nothing means assessing on a drawing nobody can read. The wording that holds both: note that it is supplied and ask for a usable print, in the same letter but in a paragraph separate from the seven.
The floor area gap: 4 m² between the form and the dimensioned drawing. That is not a missing document, it is an inconsistency — and it is better settled by a phone call than by recorded delivery.
What I have prepared: the letter with the seven documents, the separate paragraph for PC4, and a call note for the area gap.
And an observation beyond this file: of your 84 requests for documents last year, eleven were followed by a second request. In nine cases out of eleven, the forgotten document was one of the same three. requests-for-documents_11-second-requests.pdf84 requests · 11 second · 3 recurring documents
✎ Support · letter drafted in 2 blocks — signature and sending stay with the service
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· DP-2019-0142 — objection, grounds: building not necessary to the agricultural holding.
· PC-2021-0067 — granted, the applicant farmed the land and the pool adjoined the existing dwelling.
· PC-2023-0198 — objection, then granted after an internal appeal and a modified scheme.
What the third brings: the response to the internal appeal is on file. It sets out exactly what changed the decision — the pool brought within the existing built envelope.
What I did with those three, rather than deriving a doctrine: for each, I set out the clause in the version applicable to it — it was amended in 2022, between the first and the last — and the word that changed. On the only file postdating the amendment, the ground relied on comes down to one sentence, and I have carried it across, unaltered, into the two draft decisions waiting for you: the grant and the objection.
What follows is decided, and it is signed: three files are not a rule, and it is the case officer who judges. What I hand you is a decision drafted both ways, with its reference cases, their reasons, and the clause of the regulations that changed in between. agricultural-zone_3-pool-precedents.pdf3 files · 2 objections, 1 grant
⛓ Source · 3 files, reasoned decisions, 2022 amendment to the regulations
Before 2022, clause A 2: only buildings "necessary to the agricultural holding" were permitted.
Since the amendment of 14/09/2022: extensions and outbuildings to existing dwellings are also permitted, within limits of area and siting set out in the regulations.
What that changes for your three precedents: the 2019 objection rested on wording that no longer exists. Citing it today as a precedent would be an error, and it is the kind of error made by searching quickly in a system.
So what I do as a matter of course: when I surface a precedent, I surface the version of the regulations in force at the date of the decision, and I flag whether it has changed since.
Across your whole caseload: your local plan has been amended three times since 2019. 412 of 1,180 files assessed were assessed under a version earlier than the one now in force. local-plan_3-amendments-since-2019.pdf1,180 files · 412 under an earlier version
✎ Support · the version of the regulations attached to every precedent
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I recorded: a missing-documents letter notified on 02/06, seven documents listed. Five arrived on 14/06, two did not. The filing carries an acknowledgement, the five documents are legible and attached to their reference.
This kind of case had not yet been taken into account in your deadline tracker: it shows a date calculated on a complete file, and nothing says what it shows during a partial filing. So I have not settled it on my own — and I qualify neither the starting point nor any decision.
Three ways to display it. Recalculate from the first partial filing: the tracker shows a date, at the cost of a date that assumes a complete file while two documents are missing. Show no date before the last document: nothing is assumed, at the cost of a file with no visible deadline for weeks — and it is in that zone that a request went out on the 47th day on DP-2026-0203. Show both dates side by side — the one arising from the filing of 14/06 and the one arising from the last document awaited — each with the document and date grounding it, and carry the note that qualifying the starting point belongs to the department: the officer sees both and decides.
I recommend the third. Showing a single date would be qualifying the starting point, and that is not for me to do: I record what the documents carry and their dates. The two dates shown leave no file without a visible deadline, which is the only flaw that produces a decision nobody has taken.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: show the earlier of the two dates, marked “subject to completeness”, and have me chase the applicant at seven days for the two remaining documents.
Shall I remember it for the next ones? Of the year's 214 files, 63 received a partial filing of documents, 22 of them in two or more instalments. If you approve the rule, I will display the next ones that way, and I will give you the count each month.
⛓ Source · DP-2026-0211, letter of 02/06 (7 documents), filing of 14/06 (5 documents) · 63 partial filings out of 214 files
The rule, in one sentence: a partial filing of documents causes two dates to be shown — the one arising from the filing received, the one arising from the last document awaited; each carries the document and date grounding it; the documents still awaited are named with the exact wording of the notified letter; qualifying the starting point stays with the department.
Why your condition matters more than it looks: a reworded label is no longer the one notified. An applicant who reads “section plan” where the letter said “section plan of the site and of the building” files the wrong document — and the notified letter is the only record of what was requested.
What it changes on this file: the tracker shows both dates, each with the document grounding it, and the 2 documents awaited are named with the wording of the letter of 02/06. No decision is qualified as acquired, and no date is presented as the one that applies.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your tracker settings under its own name, with its date, the department head who approved it and the file that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and the tracker goes back to a single date.
✎ Rule approved · deadline tracker settings, entry “partial filing of documents”, approved on 15/06 by the department
What I looked at: the 63 files with a partial filing, the exchanges they produced, and the documents filed twice.
What comes out of it: 29 of the 63 produced a call from the applicant — “do you have everything?” — averaging 12 minutes, 5 h 48 over the year. And 9 applicants re-filed a document already provided, because nothing told them which one was still missing.
The cause is not with the applicants: your department acknowledges the filing, and the acknowledgement does not say what is still awaited. A partial filing therefore receives the same acknowledgement as a complete one, and the person who sent it has no way of knowing where they stand.
What I propose, and it is a standard letter to write on your side: that the acknowledgement of a partial filing list the documents still awaited, with the wording of the notified letter.
What it is worth, on your figures: 5 h 48 of calls and 9 pointless filings over the year, for a standard letter written once. Across the 63 files, the time from first partial filing to completeness averages 26 days: the 9 pointless filings weighed in that figure. The calculation comes from your 214 files, not from a professional average.
The decision is yours: it is a letter from your department, and I write and notify no letter without your signature.
✎ Proposal · 63 partial filings, 29 calls of 12 minutes, 9 documents re-filed for nothing, 26 days to completeness — the standard letter belongs to the department
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Why AI matters to assessment services — and why they hesitate
The statutory assessment deadlines are tight, the regulations increasingly dense (local plan, easements, environmental regulation, heritage architect), and the slightest error of completeness or consistency opens the door to litigation. But the data handled concerns real people and real projects.
! The issue
The case-handling department is caught between assessment deadlines that cannot stretch, planning rules that layer on top of each other (zoning, articles of the regulations, public utility easements, external opinions) and a requirement of legal soundness on every decision. Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting applicants' documents, plans, land registry data and local regulations 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, configuration on your own planning documents, reinforced human oversight, no decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent: the time saved on preparation is never paid for in lost sovereignty or diminished equal treatment. The aim is not to replace the case officer, but to make their analysis more reliable and faster.
Sovereignty of planning data: compliance & continuity of public service
A case-handling department handles applicants' documents and projects, and engages the authority's liability. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, file by file.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to the department: no document leaves the authority's network, nothing passes through a public 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 applicants' documents: our architecture stays out of the American hyperscalers' reach, even when hosted in Europe.
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 with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent; traceability and reinforced 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.
How much time can an assessment department win back?
By automating the reading of documents, the testing against the local plan and the completeness checks, a department can aim for a noticeable reduction in preparation time on standardised files — reinvested in detailed analysis and in meeting the deadlines.
Four guarantees that matter to a public service
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent issue the permit?
Does it adapt to our local plan?
What is the framing under the AI Act?
Is applicants' data protected?
Do we have to change our planning software?
Does the agent guarantee equal treatment of applications?
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
Other AI solutions for the public sector
Let us estimate the potential in your assessment department
A few minutes to identify the most useful scope — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.