Research and analysis

GigaHubs Process Review Summary

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.

Summary

BDUK’s “Hub” product mobilises resources to secure gigabit-capable broadband connections for remote public buildings such as schools, GP surgeries, and libraries in rural areas. This is a process review of the GigaHubs intervention; Hubs delivered as part of the Project Gigabit programme. GigaHubs delivered approximately 1,200 Hub product connections during 2021-26 through six projects led by the Department for Education (DfE), the Scottish Government, one local authority-led consortium and three local authorities. This contributed to the 5,670 Hubs delivered by BDUK as of September 2025 (BDUK, 2025). The review looks at how the GigaHubs programme developed and how effective were the processes to initiate, scope, implement and manage the GigaHub projects. The evidence draws on BDUK management data and interviews with BDUK staff, other government department leads, local authorities (LAs), suppliers, and site representatives.

Processes, product design and impact pathways

The process review finds evidence that processes and Hub product design choices influenced the uptake of the product and its ability to deliver connectivity, public sector impacts and wider effects in the context of local delivery capacity, and the interaction between GigaHubs and other broadband interventions operating in parallel.

• The programme put mechanisms in place to support effective use of connectivity at connected sites. Within GigaHubs, the DfE Schools Project provided a clear and structured pathway from connection to use in education, supported by alignment with DfE Connect the Classroom, guidance, and follow-on investment in internal networks and devices. Outside education, including in health and library settings, uptake was slower and more dependent on wider organisational IT strategies and contract cycles, highlighting the limits of the Hub product’s ability to ensure adoption on its own.

• Hub product design choices and the evolving delivery context jointly reduced the number of locally-led projects, and Hubs. The 100‑site minimum was intended to secure scale efficiencies and lower unit costs, but it limited the number of LAs able to assemble viable pipelines. As the programme moved from scoping into procurement, a faster‑than‑expected acceleration of commercial gigabit rollout in rural areas, alongside the mobilisation of BDUK’s area‑based GIS approach further narrowed the pool of sites for which GigaHubs was the most appropriate mechanism. Together these factors resulted in fewer locally-led Hub projects than originally anticipated.

• Alternative delivery routes have emerged. The reduction in GigaHubs is offset in part by large national delivery routes, most notably the DfE Schools Project, which used the same market product, procurement processes and project management teams to secure gigabit connections for schools, though the funding for the builds was from DfE sources with the connections delivered alongside Project Gigabit Hubs. This ensured the intended infrastructure effect was still delivered while allowing Project Gigabit funding to be utilised elsewhere.

• Requirements for sites to take up a minimum level of service, reinforced through clawback provisions where connections remained unused, supported value-for-money objectives and encouraged careful site selection and engagement with site owners. However, these requirements also introduced delivery risks, particularly in multi-area GigaHub projects where lead organisations had limited control over site-level decisions. In some cases, concerns about financial exposure from unused connections prevented projects from progressing.

• Expansion of the BDUK Gigabit Infrastructure Subsidy (GIS) shaped GigaHubs delivery. As part of BDUK’s Project Gigabit Programme, the Gigabit Infrastructure Subsidy (GIS) is one of the ways BDUK funds broadband infrastructure suppliers. This uses competitively procured local, regional and cross-regional contracts targeting places not in line for a broadband upgrade as part of commercial suppliers’ build plans; and helps them to deliver gigabit‑capable broadband to premises that are not expected to be served commercially. GIS has provided connectivity to public buildings in place of GigaHubs and so – as well as the wider commercial gigabit rollout – narrowed the pool of sites for which GigaHubs was the most appropriate intervention.

• Delivery processes supported “beyond-the-Hub” benefits primarily in indirect and longer-term ways. GigaHub connections extended gigabit-capable infrastructure into remote areas, lowering barriers to subsequent commercial build, voucher take-up, and further public and private connections. Local authority-led GigaHub projects were best positioned to integrate these investments with wider digital inclusion strategies, skills programmes, and community-based initiatives. However, uptake beyond the Hub was slower and less automatic than initially anticipated, relying on active promotion, public understanding of gigabit benefits, and alignment with complementary interventions. While the programme created enabling conditions for wider impacts, realising these benefits depended on sustained coordination across BDUK, delivery partners, suppliers, and—where relevant—the transition of sites into GIS delivery.

Findings about the stages of the GigaHubs Programme

The review examined the delivery of GigaHubs through the stages of the process, covering initiation, scoping, supplier procurement, and delivery. The evidence presented illustrates how performance at each stage shaped overall delivery outcomes and responds to research questions about each stage.

Stage 1: Initiation – To what extent did local delivery capability and governance influence pace and quality of delivery?

Modelling indicates that around 30-60 LAs would have enough sites to lead projects, reducing to around 15, if schools, which could be connected by the DfE Project, were excluded. Then, local delivery capability was a critical determinant of progress at the initiation stage. Local authorities with prior experience of BDUK programmes such as RGC and LFFN, and with established digital teams, were better placed to develop viable projects and move quickly into delivery.

In contrast, authorities with limited experience of public-sector broadband programmes took longer to consider initiating a project, reporting capacity constraints and a reliance on BDUK for support. In the context of a wider rollout of gigabit in the areas, the modelling indicates the case for locally-led projects would have been lessened, contributing to fewer LA-led projects than initially anticipated. Multi-area projects emerged in part as a response to these constraints but introduced additional governance complexity, increasing delivery risk.

Engagement with national bodies such as DfE was generally effective, while integration with NHS organisations proved more challenging due to centralised decision-making and difficulties committing to usage requirements.

Stage 2: Scoping – How effective were site-selection processes and supporting data pipelines?

Quantitative evidence shows that rescoping successfully removed better-connected sites. Site-selection processes improved over time but were initially constrained by immature data and the dynamic nature of broadband rollout. LA-led projects benefited from local knowledge and entered scoping with more refined site lists, resulting in fewer changes as projects progressed. Strict eligibility criteria excluded some community buildings with potential wider value, but securing additional non-BDUK funding by projects led to the sites’ inclusion.

National datasets, particularly the Open Market Review (OMR), provided a necessary starting point but were sometimes incomplete or out of date, especially for public buildings. This led to data gathering exercises, most notably in the DfE project.

Stage 3: Supplier procurement – Did procurement routes enable timely, good-value contracting, and where did they encounter difficulties?

The Dynamic Purchasing System (RM6095) provided a flexible and generally effective procurement route for single-LA projects, enabling access to a broad supplier base and supporting value for money through competition and subcontracting. These projects progressed relatively smoothly once sites were finalised.

However, procurement risks increased in multi-area projects. The Midlands Project illustrates how issues around risk allocation - particularly clawback provisions linked to service take-up - stalled contract award. While subsequent actions reallocated the identified sites to other Hub projects or to be connected through GIS, this would have meant eligible buildings would have received gigabit speed broadband later than expected. The DfE project also experienced procurement delays, requiring a second competition after initial bids proved unaffordable.

Stage 4: Delivery – How did delivery-side constraints affect timelines and the realisation of benefits?

Delivery performance was strongest in LA-led projects with experienced teams and established supplier relationships. These projects largely met milestones, managed delivery-side challenges effectively, and in some cases expanded scope. Common constraints included site access, wayleaves, coordination with site owners, and engineering challenges in remote areas, but these were mitigated through proactive project management and strong local relationships. Smaller sites without dedicated IT leads were more vulnerable to delay.

Multi-area and national projects were at earlier stages of delivery at the time of review, with benefits yet to be fully realised. Delivery also took place alongside multiple parallel broadband initiatives, stretching local and supplier capacity and reducing opportunities for learning and benefits realisation.

Across stages 

GigaHub processes in the context of wider Gigabit programme Across the stages of the GigaHubs projects, although the GigaHubs approach did not ultimately scale to the levels first envisaged, and some public buildings originally in scope did not receive gigabit connectivity during the period in which the Hub product was in use, the final outcomes were within the context of the wider Project Gigabit programme and evolution of the market context.

GigaHubs provided an early, ready‑to‑deploy route to connect priority public buildings, bridging the period before GIS could be fully designed and procured using detailed OMR and Public Review evidence. GigaHub Project participants envisaged the emphasis of investment naturally shifting toward the GIS area‑based procurements. In this context, the contribution of GigaHubs is reasonable, and viewed as strategically valuable: it accelerated early benefit generating connections and supported local delivery capability. It is helping to prepare the ground for the more comprehensive, and scalable coverage that GIS is positioned to deliver.