Collaborate
Let’s work on it together.
Perfect Scale is a planning-intelligence practice, not a product on a shelf. The most useful work tends to start with a conversation about a specific problem (a site, a borough, a portfolio, a policy question), and the most useful answers come from working alongside the people who already know the ground. We are still discovering the sharpest shape for this, and good collaborations are how we find it.
What stays constant is the evidence underneath: 15,533 small-site applications across all 33 London boroughs, 12,458 of them decided, every refusal reason classified and graded. The same reading whoever is asking. Below are the kinds of partner we already work with, and where we think we add the most.
The planning-risk seat in a site-origination team.
Where a partnership sources and assembles small sites, we read the planning side: approval likelihood, the unit count the borough actually supports, the likely timeline, and where schemes tend to lose units in determination. The team can then price land on evidence rather than hope.
In practice: scoping the planning layer of an infill-pipeline partnership, sitting alongside site identification, physical-risk screening and deal structuring.
Shared evidence at brief stage.
What a borough’s recent small-site decisions actually say about massing, density and the design points officers return to most. It works best as an independent reference behind a practice’s own judgement, freeing the design conversation from guesswork about the local record.
In practice: a studio reference for calibrating early-stage schemes, and the evidence base behind small-sites design guidance with award-winning practices.
An evidence base, offered to the authority.
The same record that reads as a league table about boroughs becomes a useful instrument in their hands: comparable-site evidence under a Site Release Fund bid or a feasibility shortlist, and the analysis beneath small-sites design guidance, an SPD, or ongoing monitoring of what the system is delivering.
In practice: comparable evidence for shortlist feasibility, and the data layer under design-guidance and policy work. Open to councils, ALMOs and registered providers.
A planning-risk screen before the facility.
Planning is often the unpriced variable in a development loan. We can show where planning risk sits across boroughs and site types, and the determination-time bands that affect carry. It is a triage tool that sharpens the credit conversation. It is descriptive, not a credit decision, and not financial advice.
In practice: a first-pass planning-risk read for a deal or a book, framed for the people pricing the risk.
Advice grounded in the decision record.
For advisory and acquisition teams, the borough record turns “what tends to happen here” into something specific: what this borough has approved on sites like this, and what it has refused. A recommendation can then rest on the decision history rather than comparable instinct.
In practice: borough intelligence that supports acquisition advice and deal-flow conversations.
Primary data for the housing-delivery debate.
Much of the small-sites debate runs on sentiment or macro figures. We bring one of the largest primary records of London small-site decisions to it, for data-grounded essays, joint evidence notes, and contributions that can be cited rather than asserted.
In practice: long-form practitioner essays and joint evidence notes for editorial and policy audiences.
The supply side of the supporter story.
Campaigns that mobilise genuine local support work best when they know the ground. We can supply the decision evidence behind that: which boroughs and site types refuse most, and where local support is likeliest to carry weight on the outcome.
In practice: supply-side decision evidence supporting supporter-mobilisation and policy campaigns.
How a collaboration tends to work
Start with the problem
Tell us what you’re working on. We’ll be honest about whether the evidence can speak to it, and where its limits are, before anything is committed.
Agree the shape
We agree the question, the deliverable and the timeline together, in writing. Some work is a quick read; some is an ongoing partnership. Both are fine.
Bring the record to bear
We draw on the same independent dataset and method behind everything we publish: coded decisions, classified refusal reasons, evidence-graded findings.
You keep the call
The data is the floor of the conversation, not the whole of it. It informs the decision; it does not make it for you. That accountability stays with people.
A note on neutrality
The reading of a site does not change with who commissions it. A buyer, a seller, an agent and an authority all get the same evidence, because it is drawn from the same public record. The borough dashboards stay free and open for anyone to use. We’d rather be the independent reference everyone can trust than take a side.
Tell us what you’re working on.
A site, a borough, a portfolio, a policy question, or an idea for working together. We read every message, and we’ll tell you plainly whether we can help.