Most of these come up during the first working session, when a planning team is still deciding how much of the project to commit to paper. Short answers below; the longer version depends on your site and your council calendar.
A field pass over candidate sites, a first cut at node sizing, and a written note on assumptions and open risks. It is not a final design. It tells you whether the project is worth a full technical dossier.
We prepare the technical inputs that permitting depends on: route drawings, civil works specifications, servitude descriptions. The filing itself stays with your legal team. We flag where a permit timeline is likely to slip.
Safety considerations enter the planning record early: trench depths, cabinet placement, electrical protection, working clearances. We document them as design constraints, not as guarantees. Compliance review remains with the responsible authority.
Yes, and it usually is. Each phase carries verifiable milestones and continuity criteria. If adoption lags or a permit stalls, the next phase is re-scoped rather than abandoned. Ducts and spare capacity are planned with that in mind.
Typically the IT lead, whoever owns urban planning or public works, and one person with authority over the budget calendar. Field surveys move faster when a local contact can open access to substations and rights of way.
That is a useful result. A site ruled out early, with reasons on paper, saves the cost of topographic work and a returned permit file. We compare alternatives on the same basis so the committee sees the trade-offs.
Still mapping your options? The questions page walks through the same ground in more detail, and contact is the fastest way to start a preliminary evaluation.
Feedback from municipal planning offices, cooperatives and local operators we have worked with on site assessment, node sizing and permitting records. Names are withheld where the project is still under review.
The risk section was the part our council actually read. Land access on two parcels was flagged before we signed anything, and we switched the node location without restarting the survey.
We had a rough map of our associates and nothing else. The capacity model gave us a phased ring we could actually fund, with empty ducts left for the second stage.
The dossier came back once, on a mismatch between the civil works drawings and the field survey. That was our error, not theirs, and the note of assumptions made it easy to correct.
Teams we have supported