Research and analysis

Smart Infrastructure Pilots Programme final evaluation: executive summary

Published 13 May 2026

Executive summary

Introduction

To support the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s (DSIT) ambition to deliver world-class digital infrastructure across the UK, drive innovation and unlock opportunities for economic growth, DSIT established the Smart Infrastructure Pilots Programme (SIPP). 

SIPP was a £1.5 million programme that sought to support local authorities (LAs) to procure and test ‘smart’ multi-purpose columns for mobile and wireless connectivity services and other relevant uses. It was intended that the £1.5 million would be matched by smart service providers working with the participating LA. Through this combined funding, areas were to procure and test ‘smart’ multi-purpose columns for mobile and wireless connectivity services, and other relevant uses, which, among other things, would help them make efficiency savings and increase connectivity for their local communities.

SIPP sought to build upon the learnings of the Digital Connectivity Infrastructure Accelerator programme (DCIA Phase One) which developed new Publicly Available Standards (PAS) to help LAs assess what type of smart multi-purpose columns could support their current and future connectivity plans. PAS 191 concerns the design and procurement of new smart multi-purpose columns. SIPP was focused on applying the PAS 191 standard to the design and procurement of new smart infrastructure for LAs.

Programme delivery commenced in October 2023 and was originally planned to run until March 2025.  4 SIPP projects concluded in March 2025, while the delivery timeframe was extended by DSIT (through to August 2025) for 2 SIPP projects to allow those projects more time to complete the installation of their multi-purpose poles. 

DSIT commissioned KPMG to undertake the programme-level evaluation of SIPP. The evaluation seeks to answer the following overarching evaluation research questions:

• Process evaluation: What went well and what could be improved with regard to SIPP, specifically in relation to the design and delivery (from both a DSIT and LA or partner organisation perspective)?
• Impact evaluation: To what extent did SIPP achieve the outcomes it set out to achieve within the timescale of the evaluation and to what extent can these outcomes be attributed to the programme?
• Economic evaluation: Is there evidence that the benefits from some of the use cases delivered by SIPP to date outweigh the costs?

Process, impact and economic evaluation methodology

The approach taken to delivering the evaluation aligns with that set out in the scoping and baseline report^{[footnote 1]} as well as the principles of the HM Treasury Magenta Book.

A range of research and data collection methods have been employed to obtain the evidence needed to answer the evaluation research questions. The main sources of data and information used includes: programme documentation (e.g benefits trackers^{[footnote 2]} and project completion reports^{[footnote 3]}; interviews with SIPP project leads, DSIT officials and officials from the UK Telecoms Innovation Network (UKTIN); surveys of other stakeholders involved in SIPP projects (primarily network providers and use case stakeholders); as well as other literature.

Process evaluation

For the process evaluation, thematic analysis was conducted on the evidence outlined above to identify key themes and insights. An assessment is made of how the processes and approaches adopted for SIPP have affected the delivery of the programme. Any lessons that can be learnt from the delivery of the programme for future programme delivery for instance are also outlined.

Impact evaluation

The purpose of the impact evaluation is to assess what changes have occurred up to the end of August 2025 as a result of SIPP and the extent to which such changes can be attributed to the programme itself. 

In the absence of viable quasi-experimental methods^{[footnote 4]} a theory-based approach to the SIPP impact evaluation is applied. Theory-based impact evaluations draw conclusions about an intervention’s impact through rigorous testing of whether the causal chains thought to bring about change are supported by sufficiently strong evidence and alternative explanations can be ruled out. A Theory of Change (ToC) describes and illustrates the changes an intervention is seeking to make, how it is expected to happen, and the measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts associated with the intended change.

At a broad level, the ToC for SIPP (see Figure 2.1 in section 2 for more detail) assumed that LAs would procure the fabrication and installation of PAS 191 standard multi-purpose poles. The process of procuring and fabrication of multi-purpose poles was expected to improve understanding across LAs and the wider industry of the PAS 191 standard. Using their matched funding, LAs were to work with partners to establish various different use cases (e.g. small cells, electrical vehicle (EV) chargers, internet of things (IoT) applications, CCTV) on the multi-purpose poles. Ultimately, this was intended to deliver various use case specific outcomes and impacts (e.g. increased connectivity to areas; improved air quality; improved security). The learning derived from projects was to be documented and disseminated to provide information for other LAs around the benefits from installing multi-purpose poles as well as the process for doing so. This was expected to lead to greater demand for the PAS 191 standard pole and consequently their installation in more areas - providing for greater connectivity and the opportunity to exploit technology in more areas. All of these activities involve LAs and the private sector working together and so improving the understanding and realisation of the benefits of utilising street furniture and other assets for network deployment.

In line with the approach set out in the scoping report, the theory-based approach of contribution analysis^{[footnote 5]} (CA) is applied to assess the extent to which the activities undertaken by SIPP areas have been implemented in accordance with the ToC. It is used to test the extent to which the chains of causality, and underlying assumptions, in the ToC are supported by and confirmed by the evidence available. However, based on the evidence available and the change that is currently visible, it is too early to apply fully a CA framework because outputs and outcomes are still emerging and/or uncertain. As a result, in what follows, the contribution story and a narrative of how the programme has contributed to change is presented. To that end, the evaluation assesses the extent to which the activities undertaken by SIPP areas are consistent with the future delivery of expected outcomes and impacts as illustrated in the ToC.

Economic evaluation

The purpose of the economic evaluation, as set out in the research question, is to consider whether there is evidence that the benefits from some of the use cases delivered by SIPP to date outweigh the costs. This research question reflects the fact that, at the time of the evaluation, a full cost-benefit analysis of the programme was not possible because many of the future outcomes and impacts targeted by the programme had not been evidenced or achieved yet. Instead, the economic evaluation focuses on the likely benefits that either have been achieved or might be expected to be achieved over the lifetime of a multi-purpose pole. These benefits are then compared to the costs of multi-purpose poles in order to assess whether the benefits from use cases that might typically be deployed on a multi-purpose pole are expected to outweigh the costs of the pole.

Key findings

Summary of the SIPP process evaluation findings

The overarching research question for the process evaluation is: What went well and what could be improved with regard to SIPP, specifically in relation to the design and delivery (from both a DSIT and local authority (LA) or partner organisation perspective)?

To help answer this overarching research question a number of supplementary process evaluation research questions were developed through the use of the ToC (see section 2 for more details). These questions covered issues around: the delivery of the programme; the spreading of knowledge outside the intervention areas; things that could have been improved with respect to the design and, or, delivery of the programme; and the influence of the funding method used for the programme on delivery.

This section considers the evidence used to answer these supplementary questions.  The evidence identified the following key findings:

By August 2025 the majority of multi-purpose poles originally planned across the 6 SIPP areas had been installed:

• By March 2025 (the original deadline for the programme), 31 multi-purpose poles had been installed across 5 of the 6 SIPP areas (as compared to a target of 71 poles at the start of the programme); one SIPP area had not installed any multi-purpose poles by March 2025. By the end of August 2025, this had increased to a total of 67 poles across all of the 6 SIPP areas.

• The deployment of use cases necessarily lagged the installation of poles. By March 2025, 25 use cases had been deployed on poles across the 3 SIPP areas; 3 SIPP areas had not deployed any use cases by March 2025. This compared to original plans for at least 138 use cases to be deployed by March 2025.

• By August 2025, the number of use cases deployed had increased to 58 with at least one use case deployed in all but one SIPP area. By August 2025, more than one use case had been deployed on at least 15 multi-purpose poles. However, due to the delays in the installation of multi-purpose poles, by August 2025 a number of poles were yet to have use cases deployed on them.

• Use cases deployed by August 2025 included small cells, CCTV cameras, traffic management monitors, air quality monitors, audio speakers and advertising screens.

*Various factors impacted on the delivery of the programme and projects:8

• Most SIPP areas viewed the delivery timeframe as short for infrastructure projects of this nature. 2 SIPP areas were unable to complete the installation of poles within the original time period. Given the 2 areas had clear plans for the installation of multi-purpose poles, DSIT granted an extension for the 2 areas to August 2025.

• SIPP LAs said that DSIT had provided good support, particularly technical advice, to help the delivery of their projects.

• SIPP areas said that a range of factors delayed both the fabrication and installation of poles for their projects. These factors included: procurement; changes to designs; planning delays; as well as practical issues with the physical installation of poles.

• A number of these issues were particular to the design and installation of multi-purpose poles. As such they might be considered as part of the normal learning process that organisations go through when procuring and installing a new product or service (like the PAS 191 specification multi-purpose poles).

Spreading of knowledge outside SIPP areas has been limited:

SIPP areas recorded being involved in 14 dissemination events in the period to August 2025. Most activity in this area has focused on internal dissemination through internal meetings and events.

The funding model used for SIPP supported its delivery:

Funding was provided to LAs via a non-ring fenced capital grant in preference to a more traditional method of funding (where funds are spent in line with a Grant Funding Agreement and then spend is claimed back from the funding body). This approach was chosen to provide LAs with increased flexibility and freedom to deliver their plans when compared to more traditional methods of funding.

All SIPP LAs praised the funding model; they said that having the funding available upfront made it much easier and quicker to go through LA finance or procurement processes to enable effective delivery of the project when compared to more traditional methods.

As well as providing more flexibility to LAs, DSIT officials said that channelling the funding through LAs, who are subject to similar levels of scrutiny over spending as central government departments, meant less DSIT resource needed to be expended on the scrutiny of LA’s spending.

In terms of areas for improvement, the main areas identified included:

Funding for project management:

A number of SIPP LAs said there was a need for revenue funding to be provided alongside the capital funding element of the programme. These LAs said that such revenue funding could have been used to increase the project management capacity for their SIPP projects and help support delivery.

Better initial planning of projects by LAs:

A number of SIPP areas highlighted the need for comprehensive planning of projects from the start. In particular engagement with both internal and external stakeholders likely to be involved in the manufacture and installation of multi-purpose poles was stated as being necessary for a successful project.

Summary of the SIPP impact evaluation findings

The overarching research question for the impact evaluation is: to what extent did SIPP achieve the outcomes it set out to achieve within the timescale of the evaluation and to what extent can these outcomes be attributed to the programme?

This section looks at the evidence used to answer the supplementary impact evaluation research questions which were developed through the use of the ToC. In what follows, evidence on the following topics is considered, reflecting the themes covered by the supplementary research questions: the benefits of using street furniture for network deployment; documentation and dissemination of learning; and improved understanding within LAs of the benefits of using street furniture for network deployment. The evidence identified the following key findings:

Benefits of using street furniture for network deployment

Evidence from the benefit trackers and other programme documentation shows that the provision of funding to SIPP projects led to the manufacture and installation of multi-purpose poles across SIPP areas.

SIPP has illustrated the viability of manufacturing and installing PAS 191 multi-purpose poles with 67 poles being installed across the 6 SIPP areas by August 2025. It has also demonstrated the increased capacity that such poles have for hosting multiple use cases. By the end of August 2025, 15 multi-purpose poles had more than one use case deployed on them; in total, 58 use cases had been deployed on poles with more planned to follow.

All SIPP areas reported that their projects would not have gone ahead without DSIT funding and there is no evidence of PAS 191 poles being installed elsewhere in the country. Furthermore, the installation of multiple use cases on certain other street furniture, like standard street lighting columns for instance, is not structurally viable, and therefore could only be done using PAS 191 poles (or a similar new alternative design). As a result there is considered to be strong evidence that these activities and outputs are attributable to the programme.

Documentation and dissemination of lessons learnt

Most SIPP areas said they had updated specifications for the procurement of multi-purpose poles. The revised specifications covered issues like aesthetics, shallow foundations and the integration of various different use cases and would be useful for other LAs looking to procure and install multi-purpose poles in their areas. Such activity would not have been possible without the procurement and installation of multi-purpose poles by SIPP areas and so is attributable to the programme.

However, the dissemination of these specifications and the wider lessons learnt from the experience of manufacturing and installing multi-purpose poles by August 2025 had been limited. This creates a potential weakness in the chain of causality in the ToC and potentially threatens the wider adoption of PAS 191 poles because other LAs may not be made aware of the practicalities of procuring and installing multi-purpose poles and so may not install more poles.

Improved understanding within LAs of the benefits of using street furniture for network deployment

Given the stage of delivery of most projects at the time of the evaluation, most of the improved understanding within LAs from their SIPP projects related to technical and practical installation aspects – aspects that relate directly to the programme itself (i.e. the procurement, fabrication and installation of PAS 191 poles).

All SIPP LAs said they had improved their understanding of smart infrastructure possibilities as a result of the programme. They said that new internal capacity and knowledge around the technical and practical deployment of smart infrastructure had been created in their organisations. A number of SIPP LAs said that a multi-purpose pole was likely to be a viable option in strategic locations where there was likely to be multiple use case demands, for instance densely populated, urban areas.

In addition, a majority of respondents to the network provider and use case stakeholder surveys (see Appendix 2) said that SIPP had increased their understanding of the benefits of street furniture for network or use case deployment.

However, going forward, integrating the use of multi-purpose poles within LAs will depend on convincing a number of different LA departments (like street lighting and environment for example) of the benefits. This may not be straight-forward given the different objectives of different departments.

Taking all this evidence together, SIPP has delivered the vast majority (94%) of the multi-purpose poles proposed by SIPP areas and in so doing has improved the understanding in LAs of the practicalities of installing multi-purpose poles; outcomes that are attributable to DSIT funding.

Future adoption will rely on the dissemination of learnings from the procurement, fabrication and installation of PAS 191 poles as well as collaboration across different LA teams. There may, therefore, be a role for DSIT to undertake such dissemination activity in the future.

Summary of the SIPP economic evaluation findings

The evaluation research question for the economic evaluation is: Is there evidence that the benefits from some of the use cases delivered by SIPP to date outweigh the costs?

To answer the research question, the costs of PAS 191 standard multi-purpose poles are investigated and these costs compared against the benefits that might be expected to derive from use cases deployed on the poles. The evidence identified the following key findings:

Costs of multi-purpose poles

Estimates of the cost of multi-purpose poles varied significantly across SIPP areas. In part this difference in cost was attributable to differences in the exact nature and attributes of the poles procured.

The costings provided by SIPP areas suggested that a central estimate of the cost of a PAS 191 multi-purpose pole might be around £11,200. However, there is a lot of variation around this central estimate. Moreover, it is possible that it is at the higher end of what might be considered the longer term cost. This is because the cost would be expected to fall over time were the use of PAS 191 poles to become more commonplace, meaning manufactures could benefit from economies of scale and the consumer benefit from more competition between manufacturers.

Benefits of multi-purpose poles

The principal value of PAS 191 multi-purpose poles is that they are designed to accommodate a number of use cases in locations where existing street furniture is unable to accommodate multiple use cases. Though the PAS 191 pole is not envisaged to be a like-for-like replacement, the main piece of street furniture which the PAS 191 poles replaced in SIPP was conventional street lighting poles, which do not have the structural capability to accommodate multiple use cases.

A number of SIPP LAs said that, going forward, in certain situations a multi-purpose pole would be preferred to a standard lamppost. The LAs said this would likely occur in strategic locations where there was likely to be multiple use case demands made on existing street lampposts.

A number of benefits can be derived from deploying a number of different use cases on multi-purpose poles including:

SIPP areas identified potential revenue raising opportunities from small cells, electric vehicle charging points and potential advertising revenue from electronic display screens.

SIPP areas said that a number of use cases like CCTV and environmental or traffic sensors incurred a cost to the LA and did not, usually, generate any revenue. However, such use cases were usually deployed for wider, non-revenue generating, benefits.

These non-revenue benefits might include: lower crime from increased CCTV coverage; better traffic flow (and so reduced travel times) from increased traffic sensor coverage; and improved air quality from a better understanding of emissions resulting from increased coverage of air quality sensors. Evidence from literature suggests that the non-revenue benefits that could accrue to these use cases are not insignificant.

In addition, other non-revenue benefits from multi-purpose poles mentioned by LAs included reduced clutter on streets and more efficient future deployment of use cases (when compared to other street furniture).

Assessment of costs and benefits

Comparing estimates of the revenue benefits that could accrue to the deployment of a small cell and EV charging point on a multi-purpose pole over an assumed 30 year lifespan with the central estimate of the cost of a multi-purpose pole results in a net present value of -£5,600. That is, there is a net cost of £5,600 in net present value terms from using the PAS 191 pole.

However, this estimate takes no account of any other benefits that might accrue to the PAS 191 pole from other, non-revenue generating, use cases that could be deployed on the pole. Other use cases would need to generate around £386 per annum or more in societal benefits to deliver a positive net present value. Estimates of the potential societal benefits that could accrue to the use cases outlined above (CCTV, traffic sensors and environmental sensors), suggest that generating this level of societal benefit does not seem unreasonable.

Taking all the economic evaluation evidence together (for instance revenue and non-revenue benefits) suggests that PAS 191 multi-purpose poles would be considered value for money in certain cases. Whilst PAS 191 poles will not be viable replacements for standard street lampposts in all situations, in locations with particular opportunities, challenges or needs (e.g. demand for improved mobile connectivity; demand for EV; crime; congestion; air pollution) the PAS 191 poles could represent a value for money choice in order to host a number of different use cases. This is most likely to occur in densely populated urban areas.

1. KPMG, 5G Innovation Regions and Smart Infrastructure Pilots Programme Evaluation: Scoping and baseline report, May 2024 ↩

2. The benefits tracker was a spreadsheet used to track progress against each project’s intended benefits. ↩

3. Project completion reports (also called closure reports) were produced by SIPP LAs to capture the LAs approach to the project and to highlight key findings (like outcomes, benefits and lessons learnt) from each individual SIPP project ↩

4. 5G Innovation Regions and Smart Infrastructure Pilots Programme Evaluation: Scoping and baseline report, May 2024 ↩

5. Contribution analysis is considered the most appropriate theory-based approach to apply to this evaluation because of the ability to use the range of evidence and information to test and, where relevant, attribute causality to linkages in the ToC. ↩