SDF-MIRA evaluates the maturity, technical quality, implementation readiness and decision-support value of municipal SDFs across a locked 12-dimension assessment framework — producing a defensible, executive-ready maturity report.
Provide the adopted SDF document and any supporting evidence — including the IDP, Capital Investment Framework, sector master plans and zoning scheme extracts.
Drag & drop or click to upload
SDF, IDP, CIF, sector plans and supporting evidence
PDF · DOCX · TXT
SDF-MIRA combines a locked, defensible maturity rubric with AI-assisted document analysis to produce a structured, comparable assessment of any municipal Spatial Development Framework.
Submit the adopted SDF and any companion documents — IDP, CIF, sector master plans, environmental management framework and zoning extracts.
The tool analyses your documents against the locked 12-dimension framework, scoring each on a 0 – 5 maturity scale with evidence-based rationale.
View overall maturity score, sub-scores, dimension profile radar, strengths, weaknesses and a prioritised improvement action register.
Generate a defensible, executive-ready maturity assessment report suitable for council, oversight bodies and intergovernmental engagement.
Each dimension is assessed independently on a 0 – 5 maturity scale and contributes to four composite sub-scores: SPLUMA compliance, technical quality, implementation readiness and decision support.
Assesses whether the SDF satisfies the core statutory, procedural and decision-making requirements expected of a municipal SDF, including SPLUMA compliance, IDP integration, adoption status, public participation and legal clarity.
Why it matters
Non-compliance exposes the SDF to legal challenge and undermines its statutory authority as a land use decision-making instrument.
Assesses whether the SDF presents a clear, coherent and defensible spatial strategy, including a long-term spatial vision, five-year plan, spatial concept, transformation agenda, growth management approach and trade-off logic.
Why it matters
Without a defensible spatial logic, the SDF becomes a document of intentions rather than a directive framework for spatial transformation.
Assesses whether the SDF is based on credible, current, spatially appropriate and well-interpreted evidence, and whether the evidence directly informs proposals and implementation.
Why it matters
A weak evidence base produces spatial proposals that cannot be defended, prioritised or implemented with confidence.
Assesses whether the SDF defines a coherent municipality-wide spatial structure, including settlement hierarchy, nodes, corridors, edges, rural structure, functional areas and investment hierarchy.
Why it matters
Spatial structure is the SDF's primary instrument for restructuring inherited geography and directing future growth and investment.
Assesses whether the SDF properly quantifies and spatially allocates population growth, housing demand, density assumptions, land requirements, infill potential and expansion needs.
Why it matters
Without quantified demand the SDF cannot guide housing delivery, land release or bulk infrastructure sequencing.
Assesses whether the SDF understands the spatial economy, employment patterns, economic nodes, land for economic activity, informal economy, job access and investment-readiness.
Why it matters
Spatial transformation without economic logic produces dormitory settlements rather than functional, inclusive urban economies.
Assesses whether the SDF tests whether proposed growth, densification, housing and investment areas can realistically be serviced by existing and planned infrastructure.
Why it matters
Spatial proposals not aligned with infrastructure capacity create unaffordable backlogs and stalled developments.
Assesses whether environmental systems, agricultural resources, climate risks and disaster risks are used to shape where development should be promoted, limited, avoided or adapted.
Why it matters
Failure to integrate environmental and risk constraints produces settlements exposed to flooding, water stress and climate shocks.
Assesses whether the SDF translates spatial proposals into prioritised, spatially targeted, affordable and budget-linked capital investment decisions.
Why it matters
An SDF disconnected from the capital budget is a planning artefact; alignment is what makes spatial intent operational.
Assesses whether the SDF explains how spatial proposals should be translated into the Land Use Scheme, zoning, overlays, incentives, shortened procedures and development decision criteria.
Why it matters
Without regulatory translation, the SDF cannot direct day-to-day land use decisions or development applications.
Assesses whether the SDF clearly defines actions, responsibilities, resources, targets, indicators, reporting mechanisms, partnerships, risks and triggers for implementation.
Why it matters
Implementation gaps are the single largest reason SDFs fail to produce spatial change on the ground.
Assesses whether the SDF is clear, accessible, visually legible, traceable and usable as a decision-support tool by officials, councillors, developers, MPT members and stakeholders.
Why it matters
A technically sound SDF that officials cannot use becomes a shelf document rather than a working instrument of governance.
Every criterion is scored on a discrete 0 – 5 scale. Dimension and overall scores are weighted averages of those criterion scores, then mapped to one of six maturity bands. The same scale and bands are used by the assessor, the dashboard and the PDF report.
Applied to dimension scores and the overall result
Evidence-based, quantified, scenario-tested and directly usable for decisions.
Strong integration with infrastructure, finance, LUMS and sector plans.
Technically sound, spatially clear and practically usable for everyday planning.
Partially addressed; some analysis, mapping or proposals but incomplete or weakly integrated.
Issue mentioned only in generic, descriptive or compliance-driven terms.
Requirement is missing or cannot be located in the supplied evidence.
Applied to each of the 101 framework criteria
Requirement is missing or cannot be located in the supplied evidence.
Mentioned only in generic, descriptive or compliance-driven terms.
Partially addressed; some analysis, mapping or proposals but incomplete.
Addressed in a technically sound, spatially clear, practically usable way.
Strong integration with spatial planning, infrastructure, finance and LUMS.
Evidence-based, quantified, scenario-tested, monitorable and decision-ready.
Every score must be anchored in a verbatim quote from the source documents. Criteria with no traceable evidence score 0 or 1 with a "not located" note in the Evidence Register.
