Useful Prompts for UK Property Valuation & & Land Uplift Appraisal

Analyse this title register and title plan. Confirm registered owner(s), title number, tenure (freehold/leasehold), registered extent, and cross-reference against the address and boundary shown on public mapping. Flag any discrepancy between the title plan and the physical site, and note that the title plan is a general boundary, not a precise survey.

Review this title plan and any referenced boundary/rights-of-way documents. Identify all rights of way, shared access, easements benefiting or burdening the site, and any boundary features (fences, walls, hedges) that may not match the registered boundary. Explain what further evidence (boundary agreement, deed plan) would resolve any ambiguity.

Review these restrictive covenants, charges, and notices listed on the title register. Explain, in plain terms, what each one restricts or requires. Assess whether any covenant would conflict with the intended use or development, and identify what indemnity insurance or deed of variation might be needed.

Review this auction legal pack. Flag anything that could affect value, mortgageability, or completion risk: short leasehold terms, unusual special conditions, missing local authority/water/environmental searches, tenancy details, arrears, deposit and completion timeframes, and any special conditions of sale that shift additional cost or risk to the buyer.

Assess this site for ransom-strip risk. Identify whether access, services, or visibility splays depend on land in third-party ownership, whether any adjoining owner could reasonably demand a ransom payment to unlock development, and what alternative access or negotiated solutions exist.

Using this Local Plan extract and Policies Map reference, determine the site's planning designation: within/outside settlement boundary, Green Belt/Grey Belt, allocated site, employment land, or countryside. Identify every policy that would apply to a development proposal on this site and summarise what each requires.

Assess the realistic planning potential of this site under current development plan and national policy. Identify supporting and opposing policy considerations, relevant planning history, and comparable local decisions. Give a planning probability score of 0–100% for each development scenario supplied, and explain what evidence would most improve the odds.

Assess whether this site could qualify as 'grey belt' or previously developed land under the current NPPF definition, or whether it would be treated as conventional Green Belt requiring 'very special circumstances'. Identify the specific NPPF paragraphs and local Green Belt review evidence that would apply.

Analyse these planning applications and decisions within approximately 1–3 miles of the site, prioritising similar site characteristics, designation, unit numbers, and access. Identify which planning arguments have historically succeeded or failed with this authority, and any recurring reasons for refusal or conditions of approval.

Assess whether this scheme could proceed under permitted development rights rather than full planning permission, referencing the relevant Use Class and General Permitted Development Order provisions. Identify any Article 4 direction that could remove permitted development rights for this site, and note prior approval requirements that still apply.

Using this Flood Map for Planning output for the site, identify the Flood Zone classification, surface water risk, and whether a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment would be required to support a planning application. Explain the practical implications for insurability and mortgageability.

Screen this site for ecological constraints: proximity to SSSI, SAC, SPA, Ramsar sites, ancient woodland, or protected species habitat. Assess what Biodiversity Net Gain obligations (10% minimum uplift) are likely to apply and estimate the scale of on-site or off-site BNG provision this scheme would need to deliver.

Assess this site's heritage constraints: listed building status (grade), conservation area boundary, registered parks and gardens, and scheduled monuments nearby. Explain how each designation would affect the design, materials, and approval process for the proposed scheme.

Based on the site's historic use and location, screen for likely ground condition risks: contamination, mining legacy, made ground, and unstable ground. Identify what site investigation (Phase 1 desk study, Phase 2 intrusive) would typically be required before a lender or planning authority would proceed.

Assess likely utility and infrastructure capacity constraints for this scheme: water, foul/surface drainage, electricity capacity, and highways access. Identify what statutory undertaker enquiries would be needed and flag any known local capacity issues (e.g., water company drainage constraints) that could add cost or delay.

Determine the realistic development capacity of this site. Produce three scenarios — conservative, base case, and maximum credible — estimating unit numbers, housing mix, density, and parking for each. Prioritise what the local planning authority is realistically likely to support over theoretical maximum density, and flag which assumptions need architect/planning validation.

Given this site capacity and these local market comparables, test different unit mix scenarios (e.g., weighted toward 1-beds vs family houses) and estimate the resulting GDV for each. Identify the mix that maximises value while remaining consistent with local policy and market absorption capacity.

Assess this scheme against the local authority's parking and open space standards. Calculate the parking provision required for the proposed unit mix, identify whether any parking reduction could be justified (accessibility, car club, PTAL-equivalent), and calculate the open space/amenity space obligation.

Determine whether this scheme triggers an affordable housing requirement under local policy, and if so, calculate the likely on-site provision (units) or commuted sum payment. Identify whether a viability assessment could justify a reduced contribution, and what evidence that would require.

Compare the existing use of this property with realistic alternative uses: refurbishment, extension, conversion, subdivision, HMO, or redevelopment. For each, estimate indicative value, cost, planning risk, timescale, and return. Identify the financially and physically optimal use rather than the theoretical maximum-density option.

Act as a RICS-style valuer. Determine current Market Value using comparable evidence. Rank comparables by relevance (location, size, condition, age, tenure, transaction date), calculate £/sq ft and £/unit metrics, adjust for differences, reject weak or anomalous comparables, and produce low, central, and high Market Value estimates. Distinguish sold prices from asking prices and explain the weighting applied.

Audit these comparables as a professional valuer. Score each 0–100 for location, size, condition, age, tenure, and market similarity. Identify anomalies — distressed sales, auction sales, developer incentives, bulk/portfolio purchases — and explain why each comparable should or shouldn't influence the valuation. Recalculate a weighted valuation from only the strongest evidence.

Calculate appropriate £/sq ft and £/m² market benchmarks using this comparable evidence, segmented by property type, size, age, and condition. Identify whether larger units show a size discount, and apply an adjusted benchmark to the subject property to produce a valuation range.

Using this regional House Price Index data, calculate the appropriate time adjustment to apply to each comparable transaction to bring it to a current-date equivalent value. Show the adjustment applied to each comparable and the resulting revised valuation range.

Compare new-build sold prices against resale comparables of similar size, type, and location in this area. Quantify the typical new-build premium (or discount) being achieved, and assess whether that premium is likely to persist given local supply of competing new-build schemes.

Determine the sustainable market rent for this property using comparable current lettings and recently let evidence, adjusting for size, condition, furnishing, parking, and EPC rating. Distinguish asking rents from achieved/let rents where possible and produce conservative, central, and optimistic rental estimates.

Value this property using the investment method. Establish market rent, operating costs, void allowance, and management/maintenance costs. Identify appropriate market yields from comparable investment transactions, then calculate gross yield, net yield, and capital value via yield capitalisation, with a sensitivity range across a plausible yield spread.

Compare single-let and HMO strategies for this property. Confirm whether the local authority requires HMO licensing or is subject to an Article 4 direction restricting HMO use. Model gross and net income, licensing/compliance costs, and management overhead for each strategy, and identify the higher-return option after accounting for additional risk.

Model realistic void periods, letting agent/management fees, maintenance reserve, and insurance costs for this property type and location, and recalculate net yield after these deductions. Compare against the headline gross yield to show the true return.

Analyse this commercial lease: term, break clauses, rent review mechanism (open market/RPI/fixed uplift), tenant covenant strength if known, and any repairing or service charge obligations. Assess income security and how the lease structure should affect the yield applied in valuation.

Build a Gross Development Value from this unit schedule, applying the comparable £/sq ft and £/unit benchmarks to each unit type. Show the calculation per unit and the total GDV, with low/central/high scenarios reflecting the comparable evidence range.

Estimate the site's existing-use value without assuming any development permission. Analyse alternative existing uses, current income/rental value, and comparable land or property transactions in the current use category. Produce a defensible EUV range, explicitly excluding any speculative development value.

Calculate the residual land value for each development scenario. Start from GDV and deduct construction costs, professional fees, planning costs, finance, abnormal costs, infrastructure, CIL/S106, affordable housing costs, marketing, sales/legal costs, contingency, and developer profit. Show the calculation transparently and produce gross and net (after acquisition costs) residual land value.

Quantify the value uplift created by planning: (1) existing-use value, (2) current market/hope value without consent, (3) residual development value with consent, (4) maximum rational acquisition price. State the absolute £ and percentage uplift between each stage, and how much of the uplift must be retained to cover planning risk, professional costs, and required developer return.

Using the probability-weighted residual land value and required developer return, calculate the maximum acquisition price, a recommended target offer price, and a walk-away price. Explain the gap between each and what would justify moving toward the ceiling.

Build a month-by-month discounted cash-flow appraisal for this development/investment. Model acquisition, construction, professional costs, finance drawdown, operating income, sales receipts, and exit proceeds over the full project timeline. Calculate NPV, IRR, equity multiple, and peak cash requirement.

From this cash flow, calculate IRR, NPV at [your target discount rate], and equity multiple. Compare against a second scenario if supplied, and explain which deal offers the better risk-adjusted return given differing durations and equity requirements.

Assess likely development finance terms for this scheme: loan-to-cost and loan-to-value ratios, typical arrangement and exit fees, and interest rate range for a project of this size and risk profile. Identify the equity contribution required and whether the deal meets typical lender criteria.

From this month-by-month cash flow, identify the peak funding requirement (maximum cumulative cash outlay before positive receipts), the month it occurs, and the total equity required assuming the modelled debt facility. Flag any month where cash flow is tightest relative to available facility.

Compare three exit strategies for this completed scheme: (A) sell all units on completion, (B) let and hold long-term, (C) refinance and hold. Model the resulting IRR, cash released, and ongoing income for each, and recommend the strategy that best matches the stated investment objective.

Estimate build cost per m² for this scheme type, quality specification, and region, referencing current cost indices. Break down the estimate into substructure, superstructure, external works, and M&E, and flag any elements likely to carry abnormal costs given the site conditions established earlier.

From this property description and condition notes, estimate a refurbishment scope and cost range to bring the property to lettable/sellable standard. Break the estimate into kitchen, bathroom, decoration, flooring, electrics, heating, and structural/roof items, with a contingency allowance appropriate to the property's age and condition.

Build a professional fees and abnormal costs schedule for this scheme: architect, planning consultant, structural engineer, QS, project manager, and any specialist reports (ecology, flood, heritage, ground investigation) triggered by the constraints already identified. Express each as a £ figure and % of build cost.

Calculate the likely Community Infrastructure Levy liability for this scheme using the local authority's current CIL charging schedule, estimate any S106 contributions typically sought in this authority for schemes of this type, and estimate Biodiversity Net Gain delivery cost based on the BNG assessment in Prompt C2.

Given the site constraints, ground conditions, and planning risks identified in this appraisal, recommend an appropriate contingency percentage and £ allowance, distinguishing between design contingency and risk contingency. Explain which specific identified risks justify a higher-than-standard allowance.

Stress-test this appraisal against ±5%, ±10%, and ±15% changes in GDV, build cost, finance rate, and sales/letting period. Identify the break-even point for each variable and which assumption creates the greatest downside risk. Calculate the maximum price that should be paid under conservative, base, and optimistic scenarios.

Act as a hostile planning consultant, surveyor, and land buyer trying to disprove this development case. Investigate access, flooding, ecology, heritage, ground conditions, utilities capacity, title restrictions, and planning precedent. Rank each issue by probability, financial impact, and ability to mitigate, and identify any potential deal-breakers.

Given these development scenarios, each with an estimated residual value and planning probability, calculate the probability-weighted value (Σ probability × residual value). Explain what this figure means for acquisition pricing compared to simply using the base-case scenario alone.

Reconcile the comparable, investment, residual, and DCF valuations produced for this property. Identify where the methods agree and where they diverge, and explain the most likely reasons for any divergence. Produce a single most-defensible Market Value or investment value, stating the assumptions behind it.

Act as an independent investment committee. Using all supplied title, planning, market, valuation, cost, and risk evidence, decide whether this opportunity should be pursued. State the maximum acquisition price, target price, and walk-away price. Compare realistic strategies (e.g., sell after uplift, develop and sell, develop and hold). Conclude BUY / NEGOTIATE / CONDITIONAL OFFER / WALK AWAY, and list the five pieces of missing information that could most materially change the decision.