PROPOSED PROJECT
Permit Application Checker
Help applicants and council clerks catch incomplete permit submissions before processing begins. Read a defined permit form and its attachments against a published checklist, highlight missing fields or mismatched document details, and return a plain-language correction list for staff review.
Two details to put right.
Fictional noticeboard permit
Example checklist C04
Applicant name
PresentCommunity Garden Group
Contact details
MissingBlank
Site plan
MatchP12 matches application P12
Site consent
ConflictP21 differs from application P12
The project in practice.
A fictional community-noticeboard application uses checklist C04. The applicant name is present, the contact field is blank, the site plan matches site P12, and the consent attachment names P21. Two of four completeness checks pass. Staff review a request for contact information and the correct site consent; the application has not been assessed for approval.
WHAT IS USUALLY DONE
Applicants submit forms and attachments with missing fields or conflicting site details. Clerks discover these gaps one document at a time and write correction requests from scratch.
WHAT SOVRUN CAN DO FOR YOU
Sovrun would build a completeness check for one defined application type. It compares supplied forms and attachments against the designated checklist, shows the exact missing or conflicting field, and drafts a plain-language correction list for staff review. It does not decide whether permission should be granted.
Show the exact mismatch.
Make the correction understandable.
The application names site P12. The plan agrees, but the consent attachment names P21. The clerk needs the applicant to resolve that contradiction, not a vague request to upload all documents again.
Site on the application and plan
Different site on the attachment
Please add contact details to field 2. The application and site plan refer to P12, but the consent document refers to P21. Please confirm the intended site and provide the matching consent record. A clerk will review the updated documents.
A shorter route
to a complete submission.
The proposed checker gives applicants a specific correction list and clerks a record they can verify. It makes no eligibility or approval decision.
Two checks need attention.
- Applicant name
- Present
- Contact details
- Missing
- Site plan
- P12 matches
- Consent
- P21 conflict
Fix these two details.
- Add your contact details to field 2.
- Resolve the site number on the consent document.
Awaiting clerk review before sending.
Keep the decision clear.
- Original check
- Two open issues
- Updated documents
- Not received
- Completeness sign-off
- Pending
- Permit decision
- Not made
How we’d make it happen.
Read the supplied records
Match the form and attachments to the same application and designated checklist version.
Show specific gaps
Highlight missing fields and contradictory identifiers beside their original source.
Review the correction request
A clerk confirms each finding before requesting an update; later checks retain the original review history.
Where AI helps
Document models extract proposed fields and attachment references. Code checks required fields and exact identifiers; language models turn supported findings into understandable corrections. Low-confidence readings remain questions for a clerk.
What people approve
Council staff confirm the checklist version, extracted details, and correction wording. A completeness result does not replace the authority’s assessment or approval process, and nothing is submitted automatically.
What we’d need to start
- Defined application form and designated completeness checklist
- Attachments with site and applicant references
- Clerk review rules and approved correction wording
How we’d test it
Test absent pages, unreadable fields, outdated checklists, repeated attachments, and site-ID mismatches. Verify that complete fields do not imply permit approval and uncertain readings are not treated as confirmed failures.
Prepared for Public sector & social impact. We would agree on the work after reviewing your brief, materials, and requirements.
This is a proposed project, not completed client work. The visuals and numbers show example outputs, not measured results.
