Research and analysis

Introduction and Methodology

Published 10 September 2026

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview of LFFN

The Local Full Fibre Networks (LFFN) programme, launched by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2017, was a £200 million programme designed to accelerate the deployment of full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband at a time when national coverage was still limited and uneven. The programme sought to improve connectivity for public-sector organisations, extend access to high-quality digital infrastructure for residents and businesses, and stimulate wider investment in full-fibre networks by reducing the costs and risks associated with early deployment. By using public-sector connectivity as a catalyst, LFFN aimed to generate local benefits while also supporting long-term improvements in digital capability and economic resilience. 

LFFN operated through three delivery models: 

• Public Sector Anchor Tenancy (PSAT) – procuring long-term connectivity for public-sector sites, providing suppliers with guaranteed demand that could help unlock or accelerate commercial rollout. 

• Public Sector Asset Reuse (PSAR)  – enabling suppliers to make use of existing public-sector infrastructure (e.g. ducting or fibre) to reduce build costs and extend full-fibre networks. 

• Public Sector Building Upgrades (PSBU)  – upgrading connections to public buildings and facilities, improving service quality for frontline organisations while creating opportunities for suppliers to deploy fibre more widely. 

Together, these models aimed to demonstrate more efficient ways of deploying fibre, enhance public-sector service delivery, and support the transition to a gigabit-capable UK.  

2. Purpose of this report

This report forms part of the independent evaluation of LFFN, delivered by GC Insight, Darren Kilburn and Belmana. The evaluation is structured around six work packages:

•  Work Package 1 – Broadband market impacts. Assesses how LFFN has influenced local and national broadband markets, including supplier entry, diversification, commercial models and competition.

•  Work Package 2 – Scalability and learning. Examines what LFFN taught BDUK and others, how learning has been applied in subsequent programmes, and the extent to which LFFN approaches can be scaled or replicated.

•  Work Package 3 – Public sector and strategic benefits. Investigates site-level benefits, local authority cost savings, wider digital ambitions, and how LFFN infrastructure is being used to support broader connectivity and digital strategies.

•  Work Package 4 – Additional use of gigabit infrastructure. Explores how LFFN-built infrastructure has been used for further commercial build, additional coverage, mobile connectivity, and the medium- to long-term value of dark fibre or passive assets.

•  Work Package 5 – Social, economic and environmental impacts. Identifies emerging socio-economic and environmental changes linked to LFFN, producing evidence and case studies in areas where impacts are observable.

• Work Package 6 – Programme-level synthesis and VfM. Synthesises findings from all work packages to assess overall LFFN impact, value for money, and implications for future BDUK programme design.

The focus of this report is Work Package Three, which focuses on how local authorities and public sector sites are using their improved connectivity, and the benefits they have derived from this. The key research questions are as follows:

• What benefits have individual sites experienced from LFFN connectivity, including any unintended effects, and where can these be quantified?

• To what extent can site-level benefits be scaled across other sites within each local authority?

• How have local authorities built on LFFN delivery through further connectivity or digital initiatives, and what future plans do they have for expanding or leveraging the infrastructure?

• How have authorities used LFFN-funded infrastructure to enable wider applications (e.g. smart sensors, 5G, shared systems or public Wi-Fi), and how do these uses support local objectives?

• How has LFFN infrastructure supported existing digital strategies, and in what ways, if any, have strategies been adapted as a result?

• What are the main benefits to local authorities (e.g. cost savings, productivity improvements, service innovation)/ Can any of these benefits be quantified or monetised?

• How do the benefits generated differ between PSAT, PSAR and PSBU projects?

These research questions have been addressed through qualitative research, involving semi-structured interviews with 15 LFFN projects. Eight of these projects were then the subject of in-depth case studies which explored public sector uses and benefits of LFFN infrastructure in more detail.

3. Methodology

This section describes the evaluation approach and data sources used for work package three. More detail on the method is provided in the evaluation plan. 

3.1 Summary of Approach

The approach to Work Package Three has been primarily qualitative, designed to explore the range of benefits associated with LFFN projects and the factors that have influenced how these benefits have emerged in different local contexts. The research was structured as a two-stage process.

The first stage involved semi-structured interviews with representatives from 15 LFFN projects. These interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders including lead officers responsible for LFFN delivery within the relevant local authority, alongside delivery partners in some cases. The purpose of this stage was to gather evidence on the benefits experienced by public sector sites and local authorities, including both anticipated outcomes and any additional or unintended effects. The interviews also explored how LFFN infrastructure had been used or built upon following project delivery.

The second stage involved the development of eight in-depth case studies, selected from the wider group of projects. These case studies enabled a more detailed examination of how benefits have been realised in practice. They involved additional stakeholder interviews and a more detailed review of local documentation and contextual evidence.

Across both stages, the analysis focused on addressing the research questions for Work Package Three, while also seeking to understand the contextual factors that have shaped benefit realisation. In particular, the research explored the local conditions, organisational capabilities, delivery models, and partnership arrangements that have influenced the types of outcomes observed. Attention was also given to identifying key enablers and challenges that have affected how LFFN infrastructure has been used by local authorities and public sector organisations.

This approach allows the evaluation to move beyond identifying individual examples of benefits, and instead develop a clearer understanding of how and why different outcomes have emerged across projects, and the conditions under which they are most likely to occur. This is important for government and local authorities because it highlights the additional organisational, strategic and contextual factors that shape benefit realisation, beyond the provision of gigabit connectivity alone, and is therefore relevant to authorities connected through LFFN as well as through other public or private investment routes.

The main tasks are described below.

Review of project documentation

We undertook a structured review of project documentation produced at different stages of the LFFN lifecycle. This included approved business cases, which set out intended objectives and benefits, and documentation produced at or after project completion, which captured early evidence of how the infrastructure was being used and the benefits beginning to emerge (referred to by BDUK as project monitoring returns).

Together, these documents provided insight into each project’s objectives, delivery model and infrastructure, as well as early realised impacts and any unanticipated uses of the network. The availability and level of detail in post‑completion monitoring information varied between projects, reflecting differing local capacity to track benefits once delivery activity had ended.

Selection of 15 projects for initial qualitative research

In collaboration with BDUK, we agreed a list of 15 projects for the first phase of fieldwork. Projects were selected to ensure representation across delivery models (PSAT, PSAR, PSBU), project types, geographies and anticipated benefit areas. A further key consideration was the likelihood of access to knowledgeable stakeholders, BDUK’s ability to re-establish contact with project teams, and confidence that relevant staff remained in post and could speak to the project’s development and outcomes.

The projects selected as part of the initial qualitative research, in alphabetical order, are:

1. Avonmouth (PSAR)
2. Cambridge (PSAR)
3. Cambridge  (PSBU)
4. Colchester (PSAR)
5. Essex & Hertfordshire (PSBU)
6. Greater Manchester (PSAT)
7. Norfolk (PSBU)
8. North Isles, Shetland (PSBU)
9. North Wales (PSBU)
10. North Yorkshire (PSAT)
11. Pembrokeshire (PSBU)
12. Plymouth (PSBU)
13. South Essex (PSBU)
14. Stoke (PSAR)
15. Wolverhampton (PSAT)

Workshop with BDUK and Darren Kilburn

A dedicated workshop was held to discuss each of the 15 projects in detail. This was used to refine our understanding of their context, identify the most promising lines of enquiry for fieldwork, and highlight project-specific aspects that required tailored questioning. The workshop directly informed the development of interview topic guides and ensured alignment with BDUK’s knowledge and priorities.

Qualitative interviews with local authorities

We conducted qualitative interviews with representatives from each of the selected authorities. Discussions focused on:

• the intended uses and benefits set out in original business cases, and whether these had been realised

• any further investments or actions that enhanced the value of the LFFN infrastructure

• the strategic role of LFFN in supporting wider priorities such as digital transformation, service delivery improvement or smart city initiatives

• organisational-level efficiencies and any indicative cost savings

• unanticipated benefits and emerging uses

• factors that influenced whether, how and to what extent benefits were realised

• project-specific circumstances that shaped outcomes

Selection and development of case studies

Following the first round of interviews with LFFN projects, eight projects were selected for more detailed case study research. The purpose of the case studies was to examine in greater depth how LFFN infrastructure has been used by local authorities and public sector organisations, the benefits that have emerged, and the factors that have shaped these outcomes. The case studies also enabled the evaluation to gather evidence from a wider group of stakeholders than those involved in the initial interviews, including public sector sites, delivery partners and other organisations that have benefited from the infrastructure.

The selection of case studies was guided by three main considerations.

Stakeholder availability. Case studies require engagement with a range of stakeholders who were involved in delivering the project or who are using the infrastructure. During the initial interviews, each LFFN project lead was asked whether they would be able to facilitate introductions to relevant colleagues and partner organisations. Priority was given to projects where there was clear willingness and capacity to support further research and where access to key stakeholders appeared feasible.

Diversity of projects. The LFFN programme includes projects delivered through different models (PSAT, PSBU and PSAR) and across a wide range of local contexts, including both urban and rural areas. The case studies were therefore selected to capture this diversity, enabling the evaluation to examine how different delivery models, organisational arrangements and local conditions have influenced the outcomes achieved.

Distinctiveness of benefits. Previous BDUK evaluations, such as the Gigahubs evaluation, have already examined connectivity improvements for certain types of public sector sites (e.g. schools and libraries). For this evaluation, priority was given to projects that demonstrated more distinctive or less well-documented types of benefit. These included benefits for health services, sheltered housing, emergency services and other public sector functions, as well as wider organisational and strategic benefits such as the use of infrastructure to support digital transformation, smart city initiatives or broader place-based digital strategies.

Using these criteria, the following eight projects were selected as case studies (the number of stakeholders interviewed for the case study is given in brackets):

• Colchester (PSAR): Selected due to clear evidence of benefits emerging from the reuse of council-owned infrastructure. The case study explores cost savings, improved digital services for social housing and care services, and the wider strategic value of the council owning and operating a local fibre network (nine stakeholder interviews).

• Essex and Hertfordshire (PSBU): A health-focused project connecting GP surgeries. While benefits for health facilities have been explored in other evaluations, the case study provides insight into the role of LFFN connectivity in supporting health service delivery and coordination across the wider health system (two stakeholder interviews).

• Greater Manchester Combined Authority (PSAT): The largest LFFN project. The case study focuses on the strategic and organisational benefits of the network, including its role in enabling the GM One Network (five stakeholder interviews).

• North Wales (PSBU): Selected due to the diversity of public sector sites connected, including community hospitals, village halls, community councils and a publicly owned cinema/theatre. The case study also explores reported cost savings from improved connectivity (six stakeholder interviews)

• North Yorkshire (PSAT): A project delivering a wide range of public sector benefits across council offices, emergency services and other facilities. The case study examines both operational benefits and the wider strategic value associated with public ownership of the network through NYnet (three stakeholder interviews).

• Plymouth (PSBU): Selected due to reported benefits for healthcare providers, particularly Derriford Hospital, alongside improvements in connectivity for youth and community services (two stakeholder interviews).

• Shetland Islands (PSBU): Provides an example of benefits emerging in a highly remote and rural context. The case study focuses on connectivity improvements for schools, health services, social care, energy distribution and the SaxaVord Spaceport (seven stakeholder interviews).

• South Essex (PSBU): Selected to explore benefits across a range of public sector sites including sheltered housing, fire stations and civic buildings, as well as the role of the network in enabling wider digital initiatives such as IoT pilots and collaboration between local authorities (four stakeholder interviews).

Two further projects (Norfolk and Wolverhampton) were identified as potential reserve case studies, while several others were not progressed due to limited evidence of benefits or the absence of suitable stakeholders to participate in further research.

In total, 46 stakeholders were interviewed, comprising 38 interviews for case study projects and a further eight interviews with non‑case study projects.

Together, the selected case studies capture a broad mix of delivery models, geographic contexts and types of benefit, allowing the evaluation to explore how outcomes have varied across projects and the conditions under which benefits have emerged, although the strength and granularity of evidence differs between case studies, reflecting challenges in engaging site‑level stakeholders in some projects.  

Analysis and synthesis

Interview and case study evidence was analysed thematically, with findings mapped against the Work Package 3 research questions. For each case study, relevant evidence was extracted and summarised under a consistent set of headings.

The analysis then involved identifying patterns across projects, including how different types of benefits emerged, the contextual factors that enabled or constrained them, and the extent to which findings differed across delivery models (PSAT, PSAR and PSBU). This helped ensure that conclusions were grounded in evidence from the case studies while also enabling broader insights to be drawn across the programme.

The final stage involved synthesising the findings across the case studies to provide an overall assessment of how LFFN infrastructure has been used by local authorities, the benefits that have emerged, and the factors that have influenced these outcomes. This synthesis aimed to identify what has worked, for whom, in which contexts, and why.

3.2 Challenges and limitations

The main challenge encountered in Work Package Three was identifying and engaging relevant stakeholders to participate in interviews, particularly those based at public sector sites connected through LFFN. In most cases, local authority project teams were not required by BDUK to collect or retain contact details for individuals at the sites that received upgraded connections. As a result, this information was often unavailable when the evaluation began. While some projects were able to provide contact details or facilitate introductions, this was inconsistent and limited our ability to engage directly with site-level stakeholders across all projects.

The time that has elapsed since project delivery also presented a challenge. Fieldwork was undertaken several years after most LFFN connections were delivered (between 2019 and 2021), reflecting an intentional decision informed by the LFFN Wave One evaluation, which found that additional time was often required for benefits to emerge. This decision was reinforced by some of the findings from case studies, where local authorities were only just starting to fully exploit LFFN funded infrastructure (e.g. in Greater Manchester).  However, this longer timeframe also created practical difficulties in identifying and engaging individuals who had been directly involved in LFFN delivery or who could comment first‑hand on changes resulting from the upgrade.

In some cases, where contact details were available, individuals had moved on from their roles. In other cases, contacts were identified within relevant services but had not been in post at the time the connectivity upgrade took place, meaning they were only able to provide limited insight into the previous connectivity challenges or the changes resulting from the upgrade.

A further challenge was identifying stakeholders who could comment on how improved connectivity had affected service delivery. Much of the available contact information related to individuals involved in IT planning, procurement or network design. While these stakeholders could provide useful information about the technical aspects of the project and the rationale for upgrades, they were often less able to comment on how connectivity improvements had affected day-to-day service delivery or organisational outcomes. In several cases, particularly within the health sector, these stakeholders were also reluctant or unable to provide introductions to colleagues more closely involved in frontline service delivery.

More broadly, the evaluation relies heavily on qualitative evidence from stakeholders, which introduces potential risks of bias. Given the time that has elapsed since delivery, there is a risk of recall bias, with interviewees reflecting on events that took place several years earlier. There is also a possibility that some stakeholders may present the achievements of the project in a more positive light, particularly where they were closely involved in its development or delivery.

To mitigate these risks, the evaluation team sought to triangulate evidence across multiple stakeholders and sources wherever possible, including project documentation and other evaluation findings. However, the ability to do this varied between case studies, particularly where the number of stakeholders available for interview was limited. As a result, the strength of evidence on certain outcomes varies between projects.