Research and analysis

GigaHub Process Review Annex

Published 26 June 2026

Authored by Belmana, an independent contractor commissioned to run this evaluation on behalf of Building Digital UK (BDUK). Study conducted by Belmana and GC Insight.

These Annexes provide technical detail supporting the findings of the main report of the BDUK GigaHub Evaluation Process Review. “GigaHubs” were Hubs (gigabit-capable broadband connections for remote public buildings such as schools, GP surgeries, and libraries in rural areas), delivered as part of the Project Gigabit programme.

These Annexes set out the modelling assumptions, scoping patterns, and qualitative evidence-gathering approach that underpin the analysis presented in the report

Annex A: Data and modelling project scoping

This annex models how the scoping of GigaHubs projects would be affected by the interaction of the different GigaHub projects and any delays in the development of individual projects. The annex starts with the data about the GigaHubs and RGC Hub projects. The annex then describes modelling exploring how the projects would have drawn together lists of potential Hub sites. The list of Hubs is augmented with public data about the main public buildings found in communities. This list of English primary schools, GP surgeries and libraries, linked to data about broadband performance, underpins a model of the potential number of premises in scope of a project manage by a local authority. It can assess whether any rollout of GigaHubs would prove attractive to potential delivery bodies.

Building Digital UK datasets

Building Digital UK (BDUK) shared its administrative data on GigaHubs with the study team. The Hub intervention data related to the 2,553 Hubs supported by the programme. Data covered the name, address and type of site, the time of the connection, as well as the project name and funding body for each Hub. Snapshots of the data were collected for one year between July 2023 and July 2024. During this period, seven snapshots were taken in July 2023, September 2023, November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, March 2024 and July 2024. These datasets were linked together to create a panel at the Hub-level. The panel dataset, along with Hub characteristics such as location, type of Hubs, funding body and project, mapped how Hubs developed over time.

Over the years, the Hubs moved from being scoped to being built and ultimately connected. Simultaneously, the Hubs were also descoped and sometimes brought back into scope. At the aggregate level, this provided a timeline to understand how the projects were developing. Drawing from this dataset, Table 3 summarizes how GigaHubs progressed over time.

Assumptions to Model the Development of GigaHub Projects

This section describes modelling exploring how the projects would have drawn together lists of potential Hub sites.

Firstly, assumptions are made about the types of public buildings in the scope of the Hub product. Because of data availability, modelling concentrates on England, looking at a list of public buildings compiled by combining the DfE list of primary schools, with NHS England GP surgeries and the DCMS list of libraries. These provide 28,998 public buildings of which 193 are connected through GigaHubs and 570 through RGC. A second assumption is to quantify the broadband connectivity in a location and over time. For this, Connected Nations average download speed is used in the output area in which the public building is located. The average speed almost doubles over the period 2018-22 and this would affect how many Hubs are scoped into projects over time. A part of the country that seeks to connect public buildings will fund fewer buildings in 2022, than in 2018, because broadband speed grows. This then allows modelling of GigaHubs project initiation and scoping. Projects have been initiated by a lead organisation, typically a Tier 1 local authority (or consortium of LAs) or central government departments. For England, the candidate project leads have generally been county councils, consortiums of these or the Hub type lead departments, such as the Department for Education regarding primary schools. Each public building has been linked to the LA it is located in, and the type of public building is used to associate a government department to each public building. The counts can then test the potential project(s) that may connect the building. Broadly, this analysis highlights three findings linked to chapter 3 in the report:

• For the project initiation stage, the potential pool of organisations to lead a project is constrained by whether there are enough Hubs in their area and the overlap with England-wide projects that focus on a type of public building.

• In Executing GigaHubs, delays in initiating delivery of Hubs reduces the number of potential Hubs as the public buildings in slow broadband areas reduces over time quite markedly.

• The pool of Hub-eligible public buildings was further shrunk by the emergence of viable alternative funding routes through the GIS and DfE projects.

Modelling who leads a project

This modelling looks across the list of public buildings from the perspective of a potential project lead. In England, the 153 Tier 1 authorities provide the starting point. These comprise of county councils, metropolitan and non-metropolitan unitary authorities and London boroughs. These authorities would be candidates to lead a GigaHub project, having a significant local role in connecting public buildings, the scale needed to look across areas where enough public buildings would be available to. A first stage in the modelling established how many primary schools, libraries and GP surgeries in each authority is in an output area with slow broadband. Using 2020 as the base year, two download speeds were identified, each to identify enough public buildings to meet the 7,000 overall target of the GigaHubs Programme. The lower download speed was 42.6 Mbps, measured as the average for an output area with a public building, and this identified 5,000 public buildings that were in output areas where download speed was below this. A higher cut-off speed, average download speed in an output area of 51.7 Mbps, identified 10,000 public buildings, the upper bound. Overall, around 18,000 schools, GP surgeries and libraries are in outputs areas where download speed exceeded 51. Mbps. Table A1 indicates five groups for the 153 Tier 1 LAs. The table has been generated by ordering all LAs by the number of public buildings that were in the slow speed output areas (average download speed in 2020 less than 42.6 Mbps). The first four groups each have 30 LAs, with the fastest group on the right having 3.

Table A1: Grouping LAs by the number of potential Hub sites - Part 1

	LAs with most potential Hubs	LAs with many potential Hubs
Total number of public buildings	11,966	6,326
Total per LA	398.8	208.9
Public buildings in OAs with slow broadband (<42.6Mbps in 2020)	104.6, of which 83.2 are primary schools and 21.4 non-school public buildings	30.6, of which 22 are primary schools and 8.6 non-school public buildings
Public buildings in OAs broadband speed <51.7Mbps	228.5, of which 151 are primary schools and 78 non-school public buildings	66.9, of which 42.3 are primary schools and 24.7 non-school public buildings
Hubs	17.1	4.6
LAs with Project	6	4
Tier 1 authorities with five or more RGC Hubs or GigaHubs in bold	Devon, Norfolk, Kent, Essex, North Yorkshire, Somerset, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Suffolk, Cornwall, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Dorset, West Sussex, East Sussex, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire, County Durham, Northumberland, Worcestershire, Buckinghamshire, Cumberland, Wiltshire, Surrey, Sheffield, Shropshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Central, Westmorland and Furness	Herefordshire, Manchester, Nottinghamshire, Doncaster, Wakefield, East Riding, Kirklees, Calderdale, Hertfordshire, Rotherham, Wirral, Westminster, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, West Northamptonshire, Bath & NE Somerset, Oxfordshire, Leeds, North Somerset, Isle of Wight, Sunderland, Bradford, North Lincolnshire, Barnsley, Tameside, Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Ealing, Milton Keynes, Southwark

Table A1: Grouping LAs by the number of potential Hub sites - Part 2

	LAs with some potential Hubs	LAs with few potential Hubs
Total number of public buildings	3,288	3,522
Total per LA	109.6	117.4
Public buildings in OAs with slow broadband (<42.6Mbps in 2020)	11.9, of which 8.6 are primary schools and 3.3 non-school public buildings	4.9, of which 3.5 are primary schools and 1.4 non-school public buildings
Public buildings in OAs broadband speed <51.7Mbps	24.6, of which 16.3 are primary schools and 8.4 non-school public buildings	11.6, of which 7.2 are primary schools and 4.4 non-school public buildings
Hubs	0.4	0.5
LAs with Project	1	1
Tier 1 authorities with five or more RGC Hubs or GigaHubs in bold	Windsor & Maidenhead, Central Bedfordshire, Gateshead, North Tyneside, Bury, Newcastle upon Tyne, Rutland, Brent, Swindon, Hammersmith & Fulham, Lewisham, Bedford, Liverpool, Wokingham, Hackney, Salford, Sefton, Warrington, Trafford, York, Lambeth, Bexley, Bracknell Forest, Greenwich, North Northants, Southend-on-Sea, Wandsworth, Blackpool, City of London, Islington	Stoke-on-Trent, Torbay, Walsall, Blackburn with Darwen, City of Bristol, Coventry, Medway, Rochdale, Sandwell, Telford and Wrekin, Bromley, Darlington, Halton, Harrow, Oldham, South Tyneside, Thurrock, West Berkshire, Bournemouth, etc, Derby, Haringey, Nottingham, Redcar and Cleveland, Solihull, South Gloucestershire, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Croydon, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea

Table A1: Grouping LAs by the number of potential Hub sites - Part 3

	LAs with least potential Hubs
Total number of public buildings	3,741
Total per LA	117.8
Public buildings in OAs with slow broadband (<42.6Mbps in 2020)	1.3, of which 0.7 are primary schools and 0.6 non-school public buildings
Public buildings in OAs broadband speed <51.7Mbps	4.2, of which 2 are primary schools and 2.2 non-school public buildings
Hubs	0.0
LAs with Project	0
Tier 1 authorities with five or more RGC Hubs or GigaHubs in bold	Reading, Richmond upon Thames, Stockport, Stockton-on-Tees, Bolton, Camden, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Leicester, Newham, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Waltham Forest, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Havering, Isles Of Scilly, Kingston upon Hull, Merton, North East Lincolnshire, Plymouth, Redbridge, Sutton, Wigan, Barking and Dagenham, Dudley, Hartlepool, Knowsley, Luton, Slough, St. Helens

Moving from the left to right, the size of LAs reduces, as the least populated areas – all else being equal – would have the fewest public buildings. There are nearly 400 schools, GP surgeries or libraries in the 30 LAs in the left most column, compared to the 117.8 in the final column. The table’s columns are not entirely driven by LA size, however. The number of potential Hubs in the areas is used to categorise, so the first column has the most potential Hubs, i.e. public buildings in low-speed output areas. Moving from the first to the second group, while the number of buildings halves, the number that are in the output areas with average download speed of 42.6Mbps falls by two thirds, from 104.6 to 30.6. Whereas in the second group 15% of public buildings are in slow OAs, the share is 26% in the first group: the first group of LAs are those with the most potential Hubs. The Table can be used to identify how many LAs might have led a project individually. In guidance put out to assist organisations as they apply for a GigaHub project, it was stated that for “GigaHubs funding a minimum of 100 eligible sites are required. Table A1 indicates on average the first set of LAs would have had between 105-228 potential sites. The second set of LA’s are likely to fall below this cut-off, as there would be 67 public buildings on average in output areas where speeds are less than 51.7 Mbps. Overall, this modelling highlights that – from the Tier 1 local authorities – the pool of potential organisations to lead a project was around 30-60 local authorities. These tended to be the more rural, county council authorities. By the end of financial year 2023/24, across both the RGC and GigaHub projects, the first category had made inroads into connecting the buildings that were in slow broadband areas. On average, 17.1 buildings were connected using Hub investments; six of these local authorities were involved in either a GigaHub or an RGC project led by an LA. These modelling results align with the main report’s findings that an evolving delivery context alongside design constraints, particularly the 100-site minimum threshold which limited the viability of LA-led projects, jointly shaped structural feasibility. Rapid commercial rollout reduced the number of eligible sites year on year, while alternative funding routes (GIS and DfE) removed significant parts of potential pipelines. Together, these factors progressively narrowed the scope for single-area governance projects. As this dynamic iterated over time, fewer LA-led projects remained structurally feasible under the GigaHubs Programme. Furthermore, multi-area governance projects generally laid beyond the operational scope of the programme unless cross-authority working arrangements were already established. This further constrained expansion beyond single-area governance projects, limiting provision for sites in LAs which did not meet the site threshold. For LA-led projects specifically, delivery was complicated by mixed site types, which often required layered coordination across multiple internal functions, site owners, and, in some cases, separate contract holders — particularly where potential GigaHub sites formed part of wider service contracts. Alongside local authorities, government departments led projects. In England, DfE has led two projects, one during the RGC round of funding and a second in the GigaHubs round. These would have targeted primary schools that had low connectivity.

Table A2: Overlap between projects

	Potential Hub sites	Of which schools	Hub Connections	School Hub connected
	Min	Max	Low	High
Dorset	102	212	69	111	34	30
Oxfordshire	29	136	28	70	54	33
Shropshire	67	177	56	97	48	28

It is worth considering any overlap between the LA projects and DfE led projects. There were three projects led by single LAs, and then a project co-ordinated by the Midlands Engine LEP and led from Nottinghamshire County Council. Both Table A1 and Table A2 highlight that the overlap between the DfE projects and LA projects will be considerable. Primary schools are likely to be the public building in an area that is remote from the gigabit-capable broadband network, as schools are located so that children’s travel is minimised. Other public buildings – such as GP surgeries and libraries – which are not routinely used by children can be more distant from residences and tend to be in somewhat bigger settlements than primary schools. They are then less likely to be in slow broadband areas.

Table A3: Overlap between Midlands project in counties

	Potential Hub sites	Of which schools	Hub Connections	School Hub connected
Derbyshire	133	331	110	224	28	27
Lincolnshire	93	283	76	152	60	57
Staffordshire	93	210	78	141	13	13
Worcestershire	77	173	65	122	7	6
Herefordshire	46	83	34	60	1	1
Nottinghamshire	45	101	35	67	7	7
Leicestershire	33	84	27	52	19	17
Rutland	16	26	14	19	0	0
Telford & Wrekin	6	12	4	12	0	0
TOTAL	740	1,828	596	1,127	271	219

This overlap reduced the likelihood of LAs choosing to lead projects. Local authorities were likely to recognise their need to connect primary schools that are unable to access gigabit capable broadband could be met by the DfE project. Many eligible school sites were eventually connected through the DfE Schools Project using the same market process, effectively substituting for Hub-funded delivery while achieving the same infrastructure outcome. Given primary schools dominated potential site lists, this substitution was disproportionately important. As a result, the pool of viable LA-led projects sharply contracted, leaving structural viability low even prior to accounting for the effects of accelerated commercial rollout. Once combined with accelerated commercial rollout in rural and remote areas as well as the 100-site minimum threshold requirement, the structural viability of single-area governance LA-led projects fell to fewer than 20 LAs. This contraction in the pool of viable sites reduced the likelihood of LAs initiating single-area governance projects, even before variation in capacity, resources, or prior delivery experience is accounted for. The final section of Table A1 lists the local authorities in each category and those in bold had more than 5 connections to public buildings through a Hubs project. Most would have been through the DfE project. Overall, this would lead to the LA led project needing to focus on public buildings that are outside primary schools. This leads to: - The pool of LAs that would lead a project is far lower than 30 as their need to connect primary schools will be met by DfE GigaHubs projects. As two-thirds of the public buildings in remote areas are primary schools, the effect could mean there would be 10-20 candidate LAs. - There would also be an incentive on LAs to combine their efforts such as was the case with the Midlands Project. Table A4 considers a further dimension to the number of candidate public buildings. It uses the same modelling approach as Table A1 to count how many schools, GP surgeries and libraries in England may need a Hub investment, re-estimating the number for 2021 and 2022.

Table A4: Public buildings in output areas with slow download speeds

	2020	2021	2022
All candidate sites	4,603	2,417	1,207
Of which schools	3,541	1,921	993
Other site types	1,062	496	214

The average download speeds achieved rises over time. The GigaHubs projects were first designed in 2021 and 2022. There were also some delays in the activities to finalise potential sites and then procure the connections. The table indicates that this would lead to effects. The number of candidate sites – that is public buildings in areas that have low average download speeds – declines over time reducing by around half annually. This is because there are improvements in the areas’ connectivity as fast broadband is rolled out as documented by Ofcom in their annual Connected Nations reports – 27% gigabit broadband availability across Uk residential premises in 2020, 47% in 2021, 70% in 2022, 76% in 2023, 83% in 2024, and 87% in 2025. The rapid progression of commercial rollout accelerated the speed at which public buildings move out of ‘slow broadband’ categories. Modelling should also be interpreted within the context of the data environment at the time. Initial site identification relied on a combination of data from the 2020 Connected Nations report and emerging OMR intelligence, which provided an appropriate foundation for early pipeline scoping but pre-dated subsequent maturation of BDUK’s Open Market Review (OMR) data as well as later acceleration of commercial build. Interview evidence indicates that early datasets were incomplete and difficult to interpret, particularly for public buildings and schools. In several cases, schools initially identified as eligible were later found to have leased line provision, alternative programme coverage, or planned commercial upgrades. Large-scale rescoping, including the early removal of a substantial portion of school sites following DfE-led validation, further constricted the potential pipeline. As OMR data matured and national procurement processes (including GIS and DfE) developed more granular premises-level data, eligibility lists were refined, and sites were frequently added or removed. These dynamics reinforce the main report’s finding that structural viability was shaped within an evolving and imperfect evidence base, and that later datasets show even greater levels of commercial build than were originally visible at scoping. Combined these factors meant that the already reduced pool of viable single-area LA-led projects was operating within a continuously narrowing and data-revised eligibility landscape.

Annex B: Case Study Approach

This annex explains the approach to conduct case studies for the Hubs process evaluation. The aim of the case studies was to understand the process by which GigaHubs are delivered, the challenges faced at each of the stages and draw learnings from the same. Deep qualitative interviews were conducted with various stakeholders, including local delivery leads or managers at BDUK, LAs or other project leads, suppliers and Hubs, for all projects to gather evidence on how Hub delivery occurs and the roles of various stakeholders in this.

Approach to fieldwork

GigaHubs are being delivered by six projects. The delivery bodies include three LAs, Department of Education and NHS Scotland. The Midlands Project is run by the Midlands Engine, operating out of Nottinghamshire Council. BDUK appointed local delivery leads or managers (LDLs/LDMs) to oversee each of the projects. The BDUK LDLs for each of the projects provided a first set of interviewees. The interviews explored the role of the LDLs, aims of the project, how the project was scoped including the process to select sites, delivery and challenges faced, status of the project and anticipated benefits or early outcomes. The interviews with LDLs helped gain an overarching understanding of the different delivery stages and gain insights into each of the projects. Further contacts were snowballed from here on. The first contact, BDUK lead, then put the research team in touch with the LA delivering the projects. Interviews teased out the processes used in projects, synthesising across views on project aims, how hubs were selected and delivered. The focus was on understanding the procurement process and the challenges faced. The Hubs were being connected in the context of other local gigabit-capable initiatives, e.g. GIS, voucher, etc., with additional funding leveraged into the GigaHubs in several cases. The interviews took the local context into account and explored the different project stages. Simultaneously, other delivery bodies, namely Department for Education (DfE) and Midlands Engine, were also contacted. The themes of the interviews were the same as that for LAs delivering the project. The DfE interview included additional questions about other complimentary policies such as CtC, procurement experience since it took place over a much wider area and inter-departmental coordination. The Midlands Project was close to being cancelled at the time of the interview. Consequently, the questions focused on the challenges and mitigation measures. The lead LA, Nottinghamshire County, and LAs with large number of Hubs, such as Shropshire, were contacted for interviews in the Midlands Project. Typically, the delivery bodies enabled contact with suppliers, Hubs and further stakeholders such as community groups involved in the Hubs project. The approach to contact suppliers was tailored by project leads identifying contacts and the best pathway to contact that individual to understand supplier experience in delivering connections. The suppliers were asked about their previous involvement with Hubs, impact of the Hubs on their activities, relationship with the LAs and Hubs, and learning from the project. The approach for Hubs was relatively consultative for selection, such as looking at both BDUK funded Hubs and those that the project has funded through securing additional funding. The interviews with Hubs were tweaked depending upon the type of Hub and focused on understanding the use of fast broadband, its benefits and process of getting connected. The stage at which a project was also determine whether Hub contact is possible. In the case of DfE and Midlands, which were not in delivery and procurement of connections was still in train, Hub contact could not be initiated. The Hubs are funded by BDUK, DfE and MHCLG. Consequently, leads at MHCLG, DCMS and DSIT were also contacted around the same time to gain more stakeholder perspectives on each of the stages and explore common policy goals. The process review also integrates evidence from the previous RGC evaluation. NHS Scotland was interviewed during the RGC phase and consequently not contacted again for the GigaHubs process review.

Interviews

Overall, 20 qualitative interviews were conducted in total, 9 with local delivery leads at BDUK, 2 with LAs, 3 with suppliers, 2 with Hubs and 4 with other stakeholders. These were all between September 2023 and June 2024. The interviews took place online and typically lasted between 40-60 mins. Interviewees were asked for permission to record the interviews. The main purpose of these interviews was to gather in-depth evidence on the process of connecting Hubs. The fieldwork was underpinned by interview frameworks. The frameworks were designed to cover all stages of delivering a Hub and then adapted to focused on a few stages depending upon who was being interviewed. Different stakeholders added to the understanding of how Hubs were delivered, and evidence was consolidated across the piece to highlight the process at each stage. The same set of frameworks were used by all researchers conducting interviews in different study areas.