Research and analysis

Evaluation of flexi-permit trials: executive summary

Published 9 April 2026

Introduction and background

In October 2023, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) commissioned RSM UK Consulting LLP, Open Road Associates (ORA), and Professor John Parkin to design, implement and evaluate a trial of flexi-permits in England.

Some street works, such as telecom fibre upgrades, require multiple permits for single programme of works across multiple streets. Many of these programmes support national initiatives, including Project Gigabit, which aims to provide gigabit-capable connectivity to 99% of UK premises by 2032. The flexi-permit trial tested whether consolidating multiple permits under a “flexi-permit” could reduce administrative burden and improve delivery efficiency.

While DSIT’s initial interest in flexi-permits focused on telecoms and broadband rollout, the trial was designed to assess potential benefits across all sectors, to understand both advantages and impacts of flexi-permits for street works as a whole. This trial follows on from a number of industry-led trials previously undertaken. Participants in those previous trials have been invited to share their experiences as part of this research. The trial and an underpinning evaluation framework were developed in Phase 1 of the 2-phase project, concluding with a final report, dated October 2024. Phase 2 involved trial recruitment, delivery and evaluation. The trial was delivered over the period February to July 2025.

2 local highway authorities (LHAs), Durham and Lincolnshire, and 3 promoters (including a telecoms operator) participated. In total, 18 flexi-permit programmes were delivered, spanning an overall total of 327 flexi-permit days (an average of 18.2 days per flexi-permit). The evaluation sought to determine whether the flexi-permit model offers tangible administrative or operational efficiencies compared to the current permit system, for whom these benefits arise, and under what conditions they are most achievable.

Methodology and limitations

The evaluation used a theory-based design structured around a Theory of Change (ToC) and tested through a Contribution Analysis (CA) framework. These methods were used to test the theory that a flexi-permit system could improve the coordination of street works and the efficiency of resource use, without causing increased disruption for road users. This approach allowed quantitative and qualitative evidence to be synthesised to understand how, and to what extent, the flexi-permit model contributed to observed outcomes. Data sources included:

• works data from participating LHAs and promoters’ Street Manager records.
• administrative data collected by LHAs and promoters during the trial, including programme-level records and progress updates.
• semi-structured interviews with participants and wider stakeholders (36 stakeholders).
• post-analysis focus groups with 5 LHAs.
• journey-time data collected via the Google Maps Platform live-traffic layer and the Distance Matrix Application Programming Interface (API) for trial sites to assess congestion impacts.

Several significant caveats apply to the interpretation of findings:

• limited sample size: the evaluation covered only 2 LHAs, 3 promoters and 18 flexi-permits. This restricts the ability to generalise findings nationally.
• legislative and system boundaries: no legislative or digital system changes were permitted for the trial. Participants were required to operate flexi-permits in parallel with individual permits in Street Manager, resulting in some duplicated effort. As a result, this hybrid approach limited the ability to fully assess the impacts of a true flexi-permit system in relation to resourcing, administration, platform functionality, fee structures and reinstatement tracking.
• selection bias: participation was voluntary and may have favoured “easier” or well-managed works, limiting representativeness.
• seasonal bias: the 24-week trial period did not capture winter operational conditions, embargo periods or seasonal demand. These factors can impose variation in levels of disruption, administrative complexity and resourcing requirements, thereby testing the robustness of a flexi-permit system in ways the trial could not.
• scope exclusions: Major, emergency, Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTRO), and lane-rental works were excluded. Findings should therefore not be extrapolated to these categories.

Key findings

• Implementation and delivery:
  
  
  • 4 of the 5 participants had a positive view of the trial, with increased confidence in the flexi-permit model.
  • the flexi-permit model was successfully implemented across both LHAs with high fidelity to trial parameters.
  • one promoter faced operational challenges, highlighting the need for better subcontractor oversight and process management.
  • participation was influenced primarily by the level of promoter engagement and internal capacity.
  • flexi-permits were also considered by participating LHAs as being beneficial for works that cause minimal traffic disruption, are short in duration, and avoid major excavation of the carriageway or footway, for example, minor surface repairs or the installation of small street infrastructure. They were seen as especially suitable for high-volume programmes of this nature, involving many individual works across an area, such as broadband or EV charge-point rollouts. Flexi-permits were not considered suitable for disruptive works.
  • early and constructive pre-application engagement between LHAs and promoters was critical for enabling detailed delivery planning, improved oversight and effective co-ordination.
• Administrative effort and efficiency:
  
  
  • while flexi-permits required greater upfront effort to plan, review and submit participants reported this was offset by lower administrative effort during delivery due to reduced re-permitting and fewer modification requests.
  • no material changes were observed in staffing or costs as work was absorbed into existing workflows.
  • LHAs reported that reviewing a single flexi-permit was administratively comparable to reviewing multiple individual permits but offered more holistic visibility over the network.
• Co-ordination and engagement:
  
  
  • the trial led to stronger early-stage collaboration between LHAs and promoters, fostering shared understanding and more effective scheduling.
  • engagement during works remained largely unchanged, although one trial demonstrated increased frequency of updates due to the dynamic nature of the permit.
  • the system was considered particularly beneficial where multiple works in close proximity were co-ordinated under one programme.
• Delivery and performance:
  
  
  • works were delivered largely on schedule with minimal overruns (0% overall) and there was some evidence of earlier completion in Lincolnshire.
  • the majority of interviewees agreed that flexi-permits led to greater efficiencies in delivery compared to regular permits, due to the agility of the system. However, permit trial data suggested that flexi-permits recorded a slightly higher end date delay (+0.04 days) compared to normal permits (-0.82 days). One promoter noted the loss of precision in sub-contractor tracking offset operational benefits and that they did not notice an increase in efficiency.
  • flexi-permits enabled operational flexibility, allowing promoters to move between sites without requesting permit amendments.
  • change requests were significantly fewer under the flexi-permit model. No flexi applications recorded Permit Modification Requests, compared with 308 requests (2% of 13,587 applications) recorded under the regular permit model.
  • no negative impacts were reported on inspection processes, safety or quality of reinstatement. On a small sample, the Category A (live-site inspections primarily used to check safety measures) failure rate was higher using flexi-permits (33%, n=2) than individual permits (19%, n=137).
• Public and network impacts:
  
  
  • works typically took place on non-traffic-sensitive roads, with minimal or no congestion impacts.
  • journey-time analysis found no statistically significant differences between flexi-permit and regular works.
  • the level of complaints received were deemed to be within a normal range i.e., 4 flexi-permits (27%) received complaints (ranging from 1 to 4 complaints each).
• Perceptions and sector views:
  
  
  • most trial participants viewed the flexi permit model as workable and beneficial, with potential to streamline operations for high-volume works such as broadband or electric vehicle infrastructure rollout.
  • 2 LHAs, who did not participate in this trial but had participated in previous industry-led trials, expressed concerns about loss of oversight and tracking limitations and reported that they did not observe meaningful improvements in delivery. However, as industry-led trials were conducted previously in at least 9 LHAs overall, this feedback reflects only a small sample and may not be representative of the wider group.
  • wider stakeholders expressed mixed views: industry bodies and promoters were broadly positive, while many LHAs raised concerns about reduced oversight and co-ordination challenges. All groups emphasised that successful flexi-permit use depends on strong planning, clear boundaries, and robust digital systems.

Recommendations

The caveats associated with the findings of this trial mean that this evaluation is not able to make a definitive recommendation either in favour of or against proceeding with flexi-permit legislation. However, stakeholder feedback has highlighted some core fundamentals that are recommended for consideration as part of any future iteration of flexi-permits, namely:

• early engagement and collaboration between LHAs and promoters, with detailed delivery plans (with dates and co-ordination checks) remaining mandatory. Early-stage coordination is likely to support downstream management of street works more widely, and so should be considered beyond the use of flexi-permits.
• provision of a concise summary of flexi-permit parameters to promoters, to aid transparency and to support compliance.
• digital integration and streamlining of systems and processes (see technology solutions below), thereby avoiding manual workarounds (developing and updating an Excel spreadsheet and providing email updates) used within the trial.
• daily updates and standardised whereabouts reporting to support transparency.
• robust compliance controls to preserve public safety, quality assurance, and accountability.
• provision of the ability to update the status of individual streets within the overarching flexi-permit. Being able to close off Unique Street Reference Numbers (USRNs) within the flexi-permit would improve accuracy of inspection co-ordination, network management, monitoring and reporting.
• consistent metrics and monitoring protocols to track administrative savings, delivery efficiency, and network impacts over time.
• provision of a clear framework that defines and presents the parameters of a flexi-permit, to aid decision-makers within LHAs.
• provision of system induction to stakeholders to ensure compliance. This would be particularly beneficial for newer companies engaged in street works who have less experience and knowledge of the relevant street works legislation.

There are also aspects of flexi-permits that have not been tested as part of this trial which would require significant consideration if the implementation of flexi-permits was to be considered:

• technology solutions: Street Manager would need to be adapted to allow for flexi-permits. This would include consideration of how to provide functionality and auditing for reinstatements, inspections and offences for individual works within the broader flexi-permit. Real-time data sharing tools will need to be integrated for improved visibility, progress updates, and compliance monitoring.
• fee charges: if individual permits were to be replaced by a single flexi-permit, the fee associated with the permit (and the method for calculating it) would need to be designed to ensure minimal loss of revenue for LHAs.