Planning applications Bristol: LPA Decision Performance

Every row is a verbatim sentence read from the named source's own page through our fetch service on the date shown, hash-pinned to the stored read (the sha of the page's visible text; the raw page is mirrored to R2).

3 of the 20 named sources that could be read published a usable figure; 17 published none and are recorded as not published, never filled in; 3 could not be read (blocked, dead or unreachable) and count nowhere.

The headline figures (median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) are over ONE figure per source in % (a source's median where its page yielded several accepted sentences), so N counts sources, never sentences; 0 candidate sentence(s) were refused by a reviewer with the reason recorded.

The fuller derivation this dataset is chartered to grow into (not yet what the figures above are; they are each source's own published figure as read): one row per local planning authority per quarter, from the department's own LA-level returns: applications received and decided, the share decided inside the statutory period or an agreed extension, the approval rate by development type, and the appeals made and allowed; across the rows the site computes the national rank and quartile per council, the change on the previous quarter and on the same quarter a year earlier, and the two figures a buyer actually wants and nobody publishes together - the odds and the elapsed weeks for THEIR council and THEIR application type.

The councils' own registers are linked, never mirrored: on the first read 5 of 17 refused the crawler by robots and 10 more did not answer at all.