Research and analysis

Executive Summary

Published 10 September 2026

1. Focus and Method

This report presents the findings of Work Package Three of the Local Full Fibre Networks (LFFN) evaluation, being conducted by GC Insight, Belmana and Darren Kilburn. Work Package Three examines the benefits of improved connectivity for public sector organisations, including both site‑level impacts for public buildings which received an upgrade, and wider benefits for local authorities and their partners. It focuses on how improved connectivity has supported service delivery, operational efficiency, digital transformation, and wider local objectives.

The findings are based on detailed case studies, supported by a review of project documentation and 46 interviews with local authorities, service providers and other stakeholders. The analysis focuses on how benefits have been realised in practice, recognising that outcomes depend not only on improved connectivity but also on how organisations use it and the resources available to support this.

The case studies were selected to reflect a range of delivery models, geographies and types of use, covering a mix of site‑level, organisational and strategic benefits. They also include a specific focus on areas where benefits have been less well explored in previous BDUK evaluations:

• Greater Manchester – examines strategic and organisational benefits, including the role of connectivity in supporting wider digital infrastructure and collaboration.

• Shetland (North Isles) – focuses on site‑level benefits across schools, healthcare and social care in a remote setting.

• Colchester – includes both strategic, organisational and site‑level benefits across a range of local authority services, including leisure centres and museums.

• North Yorkshire – focuses primarily on how LFFN has enabled North Yorkshire County Council to deliver on its digital strategy

• North Wales – covers a range of site‑level benefits including healthcare and outdoor education centres,

• South Essex – examines both site‑level and wider strategic benefits, with a particular focus on sheltered housing.

• Essex and Hertfordshire – focuses on site‑level benefits for GP surgeries and how connectivity supports digitally enabled primary care.

• Plymouth – focuses on site‑level benefits, including how connectivity supports new delivery models and digital activities for youth services.

2. Site level benefits: Key findings

The table below summarises the site‑level benefits identified across the case studies, alongside the key factors that influenced how these benefits were realised in practice. While fibre connectivity provides the underlying infrastructure, the evidence shows that outcomes are shaped by a range of additional factors, including what connectivity was like before the upgrade, how organisations use digital systems, and the availability of supporting resources such as equipment, skills and organisational capacity.

Across the case studies, clear patterns emerge in how improved connectivity has translated into site‑level benefits, as well as how these benefits vary between services.

• Reliable connectivity was a consistent core benefit. Across all site types, improved reliability was the most consistent outcome. Previous connections were often slow and unstable, which disrupted day‑to‑day work. The upgrade removed this constraint, allowing staff to use digital systems with confidence and supporting routine activities such as administration, communication and access to systems.

• For some services, benefits were mainly operational. In services such as leisure centres and outdoor education centres, the main impact was improved reliability and smoother day‑to‑day operations. Connectivity ensured that existing systems could work as intended, but did not significantly change how services were delivered.

• More substantial changes where supported by wider investment. In some services, particularly sheltered housing and youth services, improved connectivity supported significant changes in how services are delivered. This included new delivery models, expanded activities and greater access for users. These outcomes depended on investment in equipment, staff capacity and a willingness to change how services operate.

• Distinctive benefits in remote and rural settings. In remote areas such as Shetland, very poor baseline connectivity had limited even basic service delivery. The upgrade enabled new activities that were not previously possible, including online teaching, more local healthcare delivery, and remote staff training. These benefits reflect both the low starting point and the challenges of delivering services in remote locations.

• Barriers limit how far benefits are realised. In some cases, particularly in healthcare in Shetland, wider benefits were constrained by factors such as legacy systems, established processes and limited staff capacity. While connectivity removed a key constraint, further changes to systems and ways of working are needed for benefits to be fully realised over time.

Site type	Key benefits	Enabling factors and conditions
Schools	• Reliable, high-speed connectivity enabling full use of digital platforms • Improved teaching and lesson planning • Live online learning and remote teaching • Expanded learning opportunities (e.g. collaboration with other schools, specialist lessons) •Reduced administrative delays • Increase focus on digital skills and literacy	• Very poor connectivity before the upgrade (slow, unreliable, not fit for routine use) • Strong pre-existing digital culture and leadership, with strong commitment to digital learning • High staff and pupil digital capability • Access to devices and established platforms (e.g. Teams, OneNote)
Health centres (remote / island)	•Reliable connectivity supporting consistent access to clinical systems and data •Improved ability to deliver care locally, reducing the need for patients to travel •Greater use of remote consultations and digital collaboration in routine care •Improved efficiency and resilience of IT support and systems	• Very poor connectivity before the upgrade (slow, unreliable, not fit for routine use) •Need for clinical processes and NHS systems that can adapt to new models of care to make the best use of the connection (benefits have been limited by outdated processes and legacy systems) • Need for staff time and capacity to change how services are delivered, and for practitioners to embrace digital ways of working
GP surgeries	•More reliable connectivity, allowing digital systems to be used consistently day to day •Supports the use of digital primary care services (e.g. online consultations, triage and remote access to systems) •Improved information sharing and coordination between healthcare providers	•Level of connectivity before the upgrade (benefits are greater where connections were slow or unreliable) •Central IT support and coordination, making it easier to introduce and use new systems •Basic equipment and network setup in place so practices can use the improved connection •Wider NHS move towards digital services, which influences how the connection is used in practice
Community hospitals	•More reliable communication systems (including telephony), supporting day‑to‑day operations •Faster and more consistent access to clinical and administrative systems, reducing delays in day‑to‑day activity •Improved resilience, reducing the risk of service disruption during network failures •Lower operating costs through moving from analogue to digital systems •Better coordination between hospitals and other healthcare providers •Foundation for the adoption and effective operation of digital healthcare systems (e.g. electronic records, diagnostics, data sharing)	•Previous reliance on older systems (e.g. analogue telephony and less resilient connections) •Investment in resilient infrastructure (e.g. multiple connections to avoid single points of failure) •Organisational need for high reliability in critical services •Existing use of communication systems across multiple sites
Outdoor education centres	•Reliable internet that meets visitor expectations and improves their overall experience •Faster day‑to‑day work for staff, with no delays logging in or accessing files •More reliable communication with schools and other partners •Improved IT systems, including the move to cloud-based services and better security	•Very poor connectivity before the upgrade (no broadband, no mobile signal, very slow systems) •Investment in basic equipment and simple training, so staff and visitors can use digital services •Council IT support and plans to move systems to the cloud
Care homes	•Reliable connectivity supporting day-to-day care and administrative work •Improved resident wellbeing through better communication with family and access to digital services •Ability to adopt digital care technologies (e.g. monitoring systems, digital records) •Improved staff training and collaboration through remote access •Reduced travel time and disruption for staff	•Very poor connectivity before the upgrade (frequent outages, limited capacity) •Organisational commitment to digital working •Central ICT support to manage systems and devices •Investment in end‑user devices and care technologies •Availability of digital care systems that can use the connection
Sheltered housing	•Improved access to digital services for residents, supporting digital inclusion and independence •More coordinated service delivery across multiple sites (e.g. shared sessions and activities) •Wider and more viable range of activities through linking sites together online •      Improved efficiency for staff (faster systems, fewer disruptions) •Greater resident engagement and participation in activities •Greater resident engagement and participation in activities	•Very poor baseline connectivity and limited or no tenant access before upgrade •Investment in shared equipment (e.g. screens, cameras) to support group activity •Ongoing digital support for residents (training, dedicated support roles) •Service model that benefits from working across multiple sites •Partnerships with external providers (e.g. adult education, public health)
Leisure centres	•Reliable connectivity supporting day‑to‑day service delivery (e.g. bookings, payments, access systems) •Reduced disruption to services, with systems available consistently and fewer outages •Better customer experience through more reliable services and public Wi‑Fi •Greater confidence in using and maintaining digital systems	•Existing reliance on digital systems for service delivery (e.g. bookings, payments, Customer Relationship Management(CRM) systems) •Previous connectivity generally sufficient in speed but unreliable (so benefits focused on stability rather than capacity) •Dedicated connection rather than shared council network, reducing external disruption •Limited need for wider organisational change, as systems were already in place
Museums	•Reliable connectivity supporting day‑to‑day operations (e.g. ticketing, sales, website management) •Improved use of space, with more areas able to support meetings, events and activities •More flexible working for staff (e.g. ability to work in different parts of the building) •Improved visitor experience through public Wi‑Fi and more consistent digital services •Better support for digital content and online services (e.g. managing websites, uploading media)	•Level of connectivity before the upgrade (greater impact where buildings had limited or uneven coverage) •Building characteristics (e.g. layout and construction affecting Wi‑Fi coverage) •Existing use of digital systems (e.g. ticketing, CRM, websites) •Organisational plans to invest in digital exhibitions and systems over time
Youth Services	•Expanded range of activities that can be delivered in-house (including digitally intensive activities) •Improved ability to respond to young people’s interests and demand for digital activities •Greater access to services for young people who cannot attend in person (through remote or hybrid delivery) •Improved quality of provision for specific groups (e.g. young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities(SEND)) •Increased participation by supporting multiple users and wider community use	•Very limited connectivity before the upgrade (low speeds not able to support modern digital activities) •Investment in digital equipment (e.g. gaming systems, media tools) to make use of the connection •Dedicated staff capacity to develop and deliver digital activities •Demand from young people for digital content and services •Organisational willingness to introduce new delivery models (e.g. hybrid provision)

3. Strategic and organisational benefits

The case studies show that, beyond site‑level impacts, LFFN has supported a wider set of organisational and strategic benefits for local authorities and their partners. These include cost savings and efficiencies, service improvements and new digital applications, stronger collaboration between organisations, progress against local digital priorities, and, in some areas, further development of networks and shared connectivity platforms.

3.1 Cost savings and efficiencies

Several case studies show that LFFN has helped local authorities improve value for money in connectivity and network provision. This includes moving away from older and more expensive arrangements, consolidating network provision, and improving how capacity and resilience are delivered.

These benefits are particularly evident in Greater Manchester, through consolidation and shared provision via the GM One Network, and in Colchester, through its Wide Area Network(WAN) arrangements via Amphora. North Yorkshire provides a different example, where a council‑owned provider (NYnet) has enabled lower‑cost upgrades and more efficient connectivity across a large rural area.

3.2 Service improvements and innovation

Across several case studies, LFFN infrastructure has supported service improvements and wider digital applications beyond fixed connectivity. These include public Wi‑Fi, CCTV, telecare, and sensor‑based applications. In some places, fibre has been extended into town centres and public buildings to support public Wi‑Fi, for example in North Yorkshire’s market towns and Colchester town centre. In other cases, fibre has supported upgrades to operational systems such as CCTV and telecare, as seen in Colchester, alongside early “smart” applications.

In several locations the network has also been used as a platform for wider digital initiatives. Greater Manchester provides a leading example, where pilot projects have demonstrated the potential for sensor‑based and smart city applications to reduce domestic energy use, improve traffic management and lower costs. Colchester shows how the infrastructure has supported service improvements, for example by enhancing telecare services for elderly and vulnerable residents, improving communication and reducing the need for in‑person callouts. North Yorkshire and South Essex have also developed LoRaWAN(Long Range Wide Area Network) networks and sensor platforms linked to the LFFN infrastructure, although these remain at an earlier stage.

Overall, while there is clear evidence of progress in several areas, the case studies suggest that benefits from smart city applications and wider service improvements take time to emerge. They depend on sustained organisational commitment, access to funding, and the capacity to develop and implement new uses over time.

3.3 Facilitating collaboration

The case studies suggest that LFFN has supported collaboration in two ways.

First, in projects spanning multiple local authority areas or large partner groups, the programme created a shared framework through which organisations could discuss needs, plan delivery and coordinate implementation. This applies in Greater Manchester, North Wales, Essex and Hertfordshire, and South Essex, where delivery required joint planning and agreement across multiple organisations.

Second, in some places the infrastructure itself has supported closer integration between partners through shared platforms and shared networks. Greater Manchester is the clearest example of this, where the GM One Network provides a shared regional connectivity platform used by multiple public bodies. South Essex also illustrates this through follow‑on connectivity that created direct links between authorities, supporting more joined‑up working across sites and making it easier to share information and develop joint initiatives. This closer integration is also helping local authorities prepare for local government reform, where future changes may bring councils together into larger, combined organisations.

3.4 Delivering and shaping digital strategies

Across the case studies, LFFN has interacted with local digital strategies in different ways. North Yorkshire provides the clearest example of LFFN supporting delivery of an existing strategy, where digital infrastructure was already a defined priority and the programme was used to deliver planned ambitions around connectivity and digital services. Greater Manchester provides the clearest example of LFFN helping to shape strategy, with interviewees linking the programme to a stronger regional focus and capability around connected places and shared digital infrastructure.

There is also evidence of strategic influence in South Essex and Colchester, where LFFN reinforced ambitions around digital infrastructure and helped strengthen coordination in planning and investment, even where this was less formalised.

3.5 Building on networks

In some areas, LFFN has acted as a foundation for further network development beyond the original site list. This includes extending fibre networks, connecting additional organisations, and developing shared platforms over time.

Examples include South Essex, North Yorkshire, Colchester and Greater Manchester, where networks have been extended or used to connect additional users. North Wales also provides an example of building on the programme, through further connectivity activity using the same delivery approach alongside related digital infrastructure work.

Other case studies show a more limited level of follow‑on expansion, with the main focus on using improved connectivity at the original sites. Overall, the evidence suggests that while LFFN created opportunities to build on existing infrastructure, the extent to which this has happened has varied across areas and depended on local delivery capability, governance arrangements and access to funding or investment.

4. Key enablers of strategic and organisational benefits

Across the case studies, the wider organisational and strategic benefits did not arise automatically from the infrastructure. They were most evident where local authorities had the ability to influence how the network was used, the capacity to develop services on top of it, and practical routes to fund and sustain further activity.

4.1 Public control of the infrastructure

A clear pattern across the case studies is that local authorities were more able to realise wider organisational and strategic benefits where they retained a degree of control over the infrastructure. This is most evident in Colchester and North Yorkshire, where the network is council‑owned. In these cases, ownership has provided both technical capability and flexibility, allowing the network to be reused and extended at relatively low cost. It has also made it easier to pursue initiatives that contribute to public objectives, rather than being constrained by commercial service models.

In Greater Manchester and South Essex, local authorities do not own the infrastructure in the same way, but LFFN provided long‑term rights of use to dark fibre. This has enabled partners to build on the network over time, support data sharing and closer integration, and develop joint initiatives. However, there is some evidence that where key elements of the network are delivered through commercial supplier arrangements, this can limit flexibility.

By contrast, more standard Public Sector Building Upgrade approaches, where local authorities have limited rights or control over the underlying infrastructure, were less likely to generate wider strategic and organisational benefits beyond improvements at connected sites.

Public ownership does not guarantee that these benefits will be realised. In Shetland, the network is council‑owned, but the focus has been on improving connectivity at public sector sites rather than pursuing wider digital initiatives or service reform. This partly reflects the remote island context and the council’s stated priorities. Even in this case, however, control of the infrastructure has supported partnership working, including with an energy distribution provider, contributing to more responsive and reliable local services.

4.2 Delivery capability, partnership strength and leadership

The most developed examples are in places with strong delivery capability, effective partnership arrangements and clear leadership. This includes GM One in Greater Manchester, NYnet in North Yorkshire, Amphora Connect in Colchester, and the South Essex partnership.

These arrangements provided the capability to manage and develop the network over time, as well as the governance structures needed to coordinate activity across multiple partners. This includes technical expertise, commercial relationships, and the ability to identify and take forward new opportunities for using and extending the infrastructure.

This capability is important because many of the wider benefits sit above the infrastructure itself. Developing shared networks, agreeing common standards, and delivering new digital initiatives require coordination, leadership and sustained effort. Where this capability was in place, local authorities were better able to move from infrastructure delivery to wider organisational change.

4.3 Access to funding and investment models

Follow‑on activity has depended on access to funding and viable investment mechanisms. Across the case studies, three main approaches can be seen:

• Pooled partner investment models – such as in Greater Manchester, where expansion was funded collectively by participating public sector organisations by capitalising future IT expenditure

• New public funding streams – such as in South Essex and North Yorkshire, where additional fibre deployment was supported through funding programmes such as Ready to Dig and the Getting Building Fund

• Reinvestment of commercial revenues – Colchester offers the best example of this, but NYnet has also done this in North Yorkshire on a smaller scale

These mechanisms have supported network expansion, development of new applications, and improvements to services. Where such routes were not in place, activity has tended to focus more on using the existing network rather than extending or building on it.

4.4 Clear strategic direction

Strategic and organisational benefits were easier to realise where connectivity was treated as part of a wider digital infrastructure strategy, rather than as a stand‑alone project.

In North Yorkshire, LFFN was used to deliver an existing strategy, with clear links to wider ambitions around digital services and smart infrastructure. This provided a clear direction for how the network should be used and developed over time.

Where this strategic clarity was present, local authorities were better able to identify how the network could support wider objectives and to prioritise investment and activity accordingly.