Recent submissions

Comment · 6 months ago
Sure, here you go: https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=search

Heads up tho... it's behind AWS WAF with a JS challenge. Solving the challenge once works fine, but the WAF rate-limits the IP after ~10 requests and blocks for the rest of the day. So getting a session is doable, getting through 80,000 decisions is the hard bit. If you crack it I want to know! Cheers.

Comment · 6 months ago
Thanks! Yup,... the freemium + paid analysis route is the obvious next step from where I am. You're right that my commercial intent is muddying the message. The sell skills, not data/ consultancy angle isn't one I'd seriously considered. Sounds pretty good, need to sit with it.

A few weeks ago, I'd have said the SaaS product is the play, but now I'm not so sure. Cheers for taking the time.

Comment · 6 months ago
All fixed. The bug was in how I was building the postcode-to-council mapping.

The script was extracting prefixes from individual application addresses, and Ceredigion's database happened to have a chunk of records with HR* postcodes (data entry errors at source. The addresses are Welsh places like Aberystwyth and Borth, but with Hereford postcodes attached). Those errors polluted the lookup table, so HR* ended up pointing at Ceredigion.

Fixed by trusting only the manual postcode-to-council mappings for councils that have them, rather than supplementing from address extraction. The postcode you sent now correctly shows "not yet in coverage" rather than results from rural Wales. Cheers for flagging. That was a zinger of a bug.

Comment · 6 months ago
Cheers, and things get sticky isn't lost on me, especially after some of the feedback. Seems all the feedback is converging on the same direction namely open-source the data layer, lead with public-interest, let any commercial product sit on top rather than be the thing. Haven't fully thought it through but maybe this is where it should go. Appreciate the gov-data campaigning context too.
Comment · 6 months ago
Yeah, unfortunately you are not wrong about the national tradition of wanting to pull down clever-clogs...

The open source angle is something I'm increasingly considering, especially after a local government IT person made a fair point on this thread about the strain it causes. It won't fix the scraping load directly, but might frame the project as public-interest rather than attempting to make a bit of extra money. Tbh, the real value is probably in serving property developers and consultants, not emailing £19 PDFs to homeowners. Got a lot to think about.

Comment · 6 months ago
Fair points and yeah you must be sick of unrate-limited mass scraping. I run with 1.5-3 second delays from a single residential IP and back off when portals push back, but from your side I look the same as someone hammering you. On your point regarding FOI, what you say is fair. I should probably have led with that for the trickier councils. But the honest reason I haven't is doing 240 FOI requests at scale felt like it'd put a different kind of strain on councils, but if you're telling me the scraping is worse then I take that seriously. On "monetise illicitly obtained data"... I'm not going to pretend the £19 is altruism. But there is a public interest in this data being navigable across council boundaries, and that's not something individual councils can deliver. I must stress that I'm not sure I've got the model right yet and a lot of feedback today is pushing me toward more free, which I'm seriously considering.
Comment · 6 months ago
Thanks. Will look into that right away!
Comment · 6 months ago
All good points. I've been so busy with the data collection and just "irl stuff" that I haven't spoken to planners directly which is an oversight on my part — they're the obvious power users. RTPI/RICS are both on my list but as I said, I've been focusing on data more than distribution. Probably the wrong order tbh. FOI is interesting, especially for the trickier portals (Liverpool's WAF, the dead-portal ones). It might be cleaner than scraping. MP/open-data angle is definitely something I hadn't seriously considered. Worth thinking about tho! Thanks.
Comment · 6 months ago
Nice thinking. Hadn't thought of DevTools MCP that way. Curl_cffi I've used for TLS fingerprinting (Edinburgh was the first one) but the discovery side I've been doing manually... open DevTools, look at the request, copy as cURL, work out which params can be pruned. Automating that loop with an LLM in the middle would speed things up a lot, especially for the bespoke long tail. Will look into that this week. Thanks!
Comment · 6 months ago
Cheers, appreciate the feedback. The architect/consultant precedent angle is interesting and a couple of other commenters have already nudged me in similar directions. Tbh... you're likely right that the strongest commercial play isn't B2C £19 reports, it's giving someone fighting a contested case the national pattern across 15 similar pub conversions, the appeal outcomes, what stuck and what didn't. That's a very different product to what I have now but the data supports it. On the T&Cs/legal stuff... I'm not going to pretend I have perfect clarity on it. The position I'd defend is that the data is statutorily public, councils are required by law to publish it, I respect rate limits, and I'm aggregating not republishing in bulk. But there is this grey area between data being public to view and being usable for a commercial product, and I haven't fully nailed it down.
Comment · 6 months ago
Updated and pushed live: planninglens.co.uk/terms. Acceptable Use clause now permits programmatic access that respects rate limits, while still protecting our derived analysis and reports. Thanks for the kick.
Comment · 6 months ago
Thanks for the feedback. On TOS: the same answer as I gave others... the data is statutorily public, I respect rate limits. That being said, I admit it's a grey area I haven't 100% nailed down. The postcode bug is more concerning. That shouldn't happen. Do you mind sharing which postcode or city/county? It could be that it's falling back to the wrong council because I don't have data for the right one, or it's a bug in my mapping. Either way, it needs fixing asap! Cheers for flagging.
Comment · 6 months ago
Thanks and yeah, some of my boundary data (for the choropleth) comes from ONS open boundary files which I think are OGL but I'd need to check the chain of derivation. On the data.gov.uk standardisation, I've seen it but last I looked it was policy and boundaries, not actual decisions. Has that changed? If they're publishing decisions under OGL I'd gladly ditch the scraping for a proper feed. On licensing more generally... I haven't fully nailed it down. Showing aggregates and pointing back to source, but yeah there's a gap between data is public and do whatever you want with it commercially.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton