Loading KRAYN...
Loading KRAYN...
Five real KRAYN reports, five perspectives, one engine — each card opens the same report the button does. The depth of a heavily-constrained site, a real Section 32 audited against the data, the same site re-weighted as you change why you're there, a growth-corridor block inside an approved precinct structure plan, and a block the state has reserved for a future public purpose.
Of the 5 samples here, 4 are in Victoria and 1 in New South Wales — that is where our first showcases were generated, not a limit on the addresses KRAYN reads. Which checks run in your state is a separate question, and we map that honestly.
Flags a flood control and a heritage listing on the block, a high-voltage transmission line that appears to cross or immediately abut the parcel, and ground-data sources that disagree until a geotechnical investigation settles them, then shows how they stack into the cost of building here.
Flags a single planning overlay on the parcel — a Public Acquisition Overlay: land reserved for a future public purpose such as road, rail or drainage. Under it, private development is typically refused and sell-to-state negotiation is the usual pathway. The engine reads the permit complexity as a show-stopper and the site as 'Significant constraints to understand first.' Nothing on the frontage tells you this — it surfaces only from the planning scheme.
Sits inside an approved Precinct Structure Plan (Sunbury, PSP 1074) — a mapped future-use designation, not current zoning, and never a yield, approval or timing forecast. On the block today it flags two planning overlays (a Specific Controls Overlay among them) and a registered easement to confirm on title, notes soft rock about a metre down, and still reads 'Largely clear — a few things to check.' The growth designation is context to weigh, not a green light.
Reads a real scanned Section 32, checks its planning claims against KRAYN's independent data, and marks plainly what the scan was too unclear to read, the cross-check a vendor's own document can't do for you.
A Greenwich harbourside block that reads 'Largely clear — a few things to check' when you're buying it to live in — its 38° fall is flagged as a cost to know about, not a deal-breaker. The NSW contaminated-land register records no site on the parcel and two within a kilometre, the nearest about 649 m away, noted for context because absence on the parcel is never a clearance. Tell it you're building and that slope becomes a major finding: the verdict hardens to 'Works — with real costs to plan for.' Tell it you're subdividing and it hardens again, to 'Unsuitable as a subdivision on the evidence checked' — 520 m² against a 550 m² minimum. Your plan can bring more of the site into view — it never softens what's there.
A major leads the verdict — it's the finding heavy enough to set the tone for the whole read. A flagged item is real and named: something a government dataset actually places on the parcel. To confirm means the answer needs a professional — a surveyor, a geotechnical investigation — before it's settled. And a caveat means the register itself is incomplete: a clean check is never a clean bill of health.
The same engine, on the property you're actually deciding on.
Start a reportEach card opens already read for a specific job. Flip the intent lens inside the report — the facts stay fixed; the weighting follows your job.
Depth is not uniform across Australia and we would rather say so than let you find out. Each state below lists what produced a read on a real parcel and what did not.
New South Wales — 29 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement); 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; parcel boundary geometry, development-application records and nearby planning applications read here.
Victoria — 29 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement); 2 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; parcel boundary geometry and nearby planning applications read here; no development-application records here.
Queensland — 25 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Coastal acid sulfate soil, Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement); 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; parcel boundary geometry and development-application records read here.
South Australia — 26 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Registered easement / mains; 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; development-application records read here; no parcel boundary geometry here.
Western Australia — 23 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Planning zone, Coastal acid sulfate soil, Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement), Registered easement / mains; 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; no parcel boundary geometry and no development-application records here.
Tasmania — 23 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Planning zone, Coastal acid sulfate soil, Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement), Registered easement / mains; 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; no parcel boundary geometry and no development-application records here.
Northern Territory — 23 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Planning zone, Coastal acid sulfate soil, Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement), Registered easement / mains; 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; no parcel boundary geometry and no development-application records here.
Australian Capital Territory — 22 of 35 checks produced a read on a real parcel here; not read here: Planning zone, Coastal acid sulfate soil, Landfill register (EPA VLR), Wetland mapping, Biodiversity mapping, Coastal management area, Land protection mapping, Landslip (mass movement), Registered easement / mains; 4 more are held and wired but have not read in any state yet; development-application records read here; no parcel boundary geometry here.
Coverage measured by executing the read path over every stored report, as at 2026-09-17. Nothing above is typed — each sentence is derived from that measurement.