Research and analysis

Synthesis and conclusions

Published 10 September 2026

1. Site level benefits emerging through LFFN projects   

The table below shows the scale and diversity of public sector sites connected through the Local Full Fibre Network(LFFN) programme where this study has collected detailed evidence of site‑level benefits. This provides important context for interpreting findings, as it shows how many sites of each type were connected through the programme and therefore the scale at which similar benefits may have been realised.

1.1 Public sector sites connected through LFFN, by site type

Site type	Number connected
Care home/sheltered housing/assisted living	86
Cultural facilities (museums, visitor centres, historic sites)	83
Education facility – school/college	1292
Education facility - unspecified	95
Health – GP surgery	519
Health - hospital	53
Leisure centre	148
Youth Services	27

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.

By bringing together evidence across different site types, the table helps to explain how these factors interact to influence the benefits that are realised. This, in turn, provides a basis for understanding how far the findings can be applied to other similar sites, and the conditions that need to be in place for comparable benefits to be achieved.

Across the case studies, a number of clear patterns emerge in how improved connectivity has translated into site‑level benefits. These highlight both consistent outcomes across site types and important differences in how benefits have been realised.

1.2 Reliable connectivity as a consistent core benefit

A consistent finding across all site types is the importance of improved reliability. In many cases, existing connections were slow and prone to failure, which disrupted day‑to‑day operations. The introduction of fibre connectivity reduced outages and instability, allowing staff to use digital systems with confidence and support routine activities such as administration, communication and access to systems.

This finding needs to be understood in the context of starting conditions. In many of the case study sites, connectivity had previously been very poor, meaning even basic functions could not be carried out reliably. The scale of benefit observed therefore reflects the removal of a significant constraint. Without comparable information on baseline connectivity at other sites, it is difficult to assess how far these findings apply more widely. In particular, benefits may be less pronounced at sites connected through later programmes, since connectivity has generally improved over time, except in cases where interventions have focused on very rural or hard‑to‑reach locations with similarly poor starting conditions.

1.3 Operational benefits in some services

For some site types, particularly leisure centres and outdoor education centres, the primary benefits relate to improved reliability and the ability to carry out day‑to‑day tasks without disruption. In these cases, connectivity has not fundamentally changed how services are delivered, but has ensured that existing systems and activities can operate consistently. This represents an important, but largely operational, improvement in service delivery.

1.4 More transformational impacts where supported by wider change

In other site types, greater impacts have been observed where the connectivity upgrade has been accompanied by wider investment and changes in how services are delivered. This is particularly evident in sheltered housing and youth services. In these cases, connectivity has supported new delivery models, increased use of digital activity, and expanded access to services. These changes have led to improvements in the quality of provision, greater participation, and more inclusive services. However, these outcomes have not arisen automatically. They reflect local priorities, investment in equipment and staff capacity, and a willingness to adopt new approaches to service delivery.

1.5 Distinctive benefits in remote and rural settings

The case studies also highlight distinctive benefits in remote and highly rural areas, particularly in Shetland. In these locations, very poor connectivity previously limited even basic internet use and created practical challenges for service delivery. Improved connectivity has helped to overcome some of these challenges, enabling new forms of activity that were not previously possible. This includes schools connecting with other schools, health centres delivering more care locally and reducing the need for long-distance travel, and care staff accessing training remotely. These benefits reflect both the low starting point and the specific challenges associated with delivering services in remote areas. Similar effects may be seen in other remote public buildings connected through Project Gigabit.

1.6 Barriers to fully realising benefits

Finally, the case studies highlight a number of factors that can limit how far and how quickly benefits are realised. This is most clearly evidenced in the healthcare case study in Shetland, where the use of improved connectivity has been constrained by factors such as legacy clinical systems, established care processes, limited staff capacity and reluctance to change working practices. While the connectivity upgrade has removed a key constraint, further changes to systems, processes and ways of working are needed to fully realise its potential. In practice, this means that benefits are likely to emerge over time, as healthcare services adapt to make more effective use of the improved infrastructure.

Site type	Key benefits	Enabling factors and conditions	Generalisability
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) • Increase focus on digital skills and literacy	• Very low baseline connectivity (unreliable, low bandwidth) • Strong pre-existing digital culture and leadership • High staff and pupil digital capability • Access to devices and established platforms (e.g. Teams, OneNote) • Commitment to digital learning • Wider connectivity across partner schools and pupils’ homes	High for core benefits (reliability, admin, digital platforms) – consistent with other BDUK evaluations. More limited for advanced uses (e.g. global collaboration, specialist lessons), which depend on funding, devices and strong digital capability. Most applicable to rural or previously poorly connected schools with strong commitment to digital learning.
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) • Availability of digital health systems that can make use of the connection (benefits limited where systems are outdated or not connected) • Enough staff time and capacity to change how services are delivered and use new digital approaches • Basic infrastructure in place (e.g. Wi‑Fi) so staff and patients can actually use the connection	Moderate to high in similar remote clinical settings where baseline connectivity is very weak and travel burdens are high; benefits depend heavily on clinical systems, interoperability and the ability to embed new processes, so outcomes may be slower or more uneven in settings with complex legacy systems.
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	High for core benefits (reliability, capacity for digital services) because findings align with other BDUK evaluations. Level of benefit likely to vary with baseline upload/reliability and pace of digital adoption; evidence is stronger for system-level enablement than for uniform site-level outcomes in every 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 •Foundation for the adoption and effective operation of digital healthcare systems (e.g. electronic records, diagnostics, data sharing) •Better coordination between hospitals and other healthcare providers	•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	Moderate. Some benefits, such as improved resilience and telephony, reflect specific challenges in North Wales and are most relevant to sites upgrading from older systems. High (wider digital systems). There is a stronger basis for generalising benefits relating to faster and more consistent access to clinical systems and the role of connectivity in supporting the adoption and operation of digital healthcare systems across NHS 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	Moderate. Likely to apply to similar remote centres where connectivity is very poor and visitors expect basic digital access. Based on a small number of sites, and benefits are mainly operational rather than transformational, so less relevant where connectivity is already good.
Care homes	•Reliable connectivty 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. monitring 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	Moderate to high. Benefits are strongest where there is communal space, equipment, and ongoing support for residents. Without these, benefits are likely to be limited to staff and admin improvements.
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	•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)	Moderate to high. Benefits are strongest where there is communal space, equipment, and ongoing support for residents. Without these, benefits are likely to be limited to staff and admin improvements.
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, 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	High. Benefits are likely to apply to most leisure centres using digital booking and payment systems. Impact is mainly about improved reliability rather than enabling new services, so most relevant where connectivity issues were causing disruption.
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	Moderate. Benefits are likely for museums with poor or uneven connectivity, particularly where space use and digital services are constrained. Benefits will also depend on wider investment in digital exhibits and systems.
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 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)	Moderate. Connectivity can enable new forms of youth provision, but the specific benefits observed depend heavily on investment in equipment and staff, and on local priorities. Some uses (e.g. Virtual Reality(VR) and advanced digital activity) may not be typical across all youth centres.

2. Additional connectivity initiatives following LFFN delivery

Across the case studies, there is clear evidence that some local authorities and partnerships pursued additional fixed connectivity initiatives after LFFN delivery, although this was not universal. In several areas, LFFN acted as a platform for further fibre deployment or expansion of shared networks. In others, the main impacts of the infrastructure were realised through improved connectivity at the original sites rather than through subsequent network expansion.

These findings also have relevance to the analysis in Work Package 2, Scalability and Learning, and Work Package 4, Additional Uses of Gigabit Infrastructure.

2.1 Expansion of fibre networks beyond the original LFFN footprint

The strongest evidence of follow-on connectivity initiatives is found in South Essex, North Yorkshire, Colchester and Greater Manchester. In these areas, local partners actively built on the infrastructure delivered through LFFN by extending networks, connecting additional organisations or developing shared connectivity platforms.

In South Essex, the partnership secured further funding from programmes including Ready to Dig, SELEP and National Highways. These investments supported additional fibre links between civic offices and expanded the network from the original 129 LFFN sites to around 250 public and community buildings.

In North Yorkshire, the council-owned telecommunications provider NYnet used the LFFN backbone as the foundation for further network expansion. This included connecting additional public sector organisations, such as North Yorkshire Police, as well as extending connectivity to business parks across the county.

In Colchester, the Public Sector Asset Reuse(PSAR) project created the foundation for a wider fibre ecosystem managed by the council-owned company Amphora Connect. Through reinvestment and partnerships with commercial operators, the network associated with the original project now reaches around 20,000–22,000 premises, with further expansion underway.

In Greater Manchester, the LFFN fibre infrastructure became the backbone of the GM One Network, a shared regional network linking public sector organisations across the city region. Partners subsequently extended connectivity to around 250 additional sites through a contract with Vodafone, funded collectively by participating organisations.

Although smaller in scale, the Shetland (North Isles) case study also provides an example of follow-on connectivity activity. The council extended the network to support private sector partners, including SaxaVord Spaceport  and Scottish and Southern Electricity(SSE) energy substations.

2.2 Key enabling factors

Across the projects where additional connectivity initiatives occurred, several enabling factors emerge.

First, the presence of strong local delivery organisations or partnership structures played an important role. In the strongest cases, the infrastructure was supported by an organisation or partnership capable of developing the network further. Examples include GM One in Greater Manchester, NYnet in North Yorkshire, Amphora Connect in Colchester and the South Essex local authority partnership. These organisations provided the governance, technical capability and commercial relationships required to extend the network beyond the original LFFN footprint.

Second, access to additional funding or investment mechanisms was important. Follow-on connectivity initiatives were funded through one of three mechanisms:

• 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 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. 

Finally, in the strongest examples LFFN was treated as part of a longer-term digital infrastructure strategy, rather than as a stand-alone connectivity project. This strategic perspective helped local partners identify opportunities to extend the network and connect additional users over time.

2.3 Where additional connectivity initiatives were more limited

The case studies also illustrate that follow-on connectivity initiatives did not occur everywhere. In Essex and Hertfordshire, the project focused primarily on improving connectivity to GP surgeries and enabling digital healthcare services, and the case study does not present evidence of subsequent fibre expansion led by local authorities or health partners.

Similarly, while the Shetland project connected additional strategic users such as SaxaVord and SSE, the case study does not describe a broader programme of systematic fibre expansion. This partly reflects the geographic context, where the small population and highly dispersed settlement pattern limit the commercial and practical case for extensive additional fibre deployment.

Overall, the evidence suggests that while LFFN created opportunities for further connectivity initiatives, the extent to which these opportunities were realised depended heavily on local capability, governance arrangements and access to additional investment.

3. Future plans and strategies for extending or building on LFFN infrastructure

Across the case studies, there is limited evidence of major planned expansion of fibre networks following LFFN delivery. In most areas, the infrastructure is already extensive and the focus has shifted towards using the network rather than significantly extending it. However, a small number of case studies do show clearer ambitions to continue building on the infrastructure.

The clearest example is Colchester, where further expansion of the network appears to be both a strategic and commercial priority. The council-owned company Amphora Connect continues to grow its fibre footprint through partnerships with other infrastructure providers and through incremental expansion of its own network. Interviewees also noted that local government reform could create opportunities to expand Amphora Connect’s role as a provider of connectivity and digital services across a wider geography. In this case, continued network growth is closely linked to the organisation’s long-term business model.

There is also some evidence of future expansion in North Yorkshire, where the council-owned provider NYnet has already used the LFFN backbone to connect additional organisations and sites. While there is not a specific future expansion programme, interviewees indicated that the network is expected to continue growing as opportunities arise.

In South Essex, interviewees suggested that the enlarged fibre backbone could support further digital infrastructure development across the area, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation and devolution. However, there are currently no firm plans for further fibre expansion.

In Greater Manchester, future plans focus primarily on broadening participation in the GM One Network, rather than extending the fibre infrastructure itself. The LFFN project already provided extensive fibre coverage across the city region, and the GM One Network operates on top of this infrastructure. While additional sites could potentially be connected if new partners joined, this would involve expanding the Software Defined Wide Area Network(SD-WAN) rather than undertaking significant new fibre build.

Overall, the case studies suggest that future expansion is most likely where there is a clear organisational or commercial rationale for continuing to grow the network. This is most evident in Colchester and, to a lesser extent, North Yorkshire.

4. Applications beyond fixed connectivity

The case studies show that LFFN infrastructure has supported a range of technologies and digital applications beyond fixed connectivity, although the scale and maturity of these uses varies across locations.

The strongest examples come from Greater Manchester, North Yorkshire and Colchester, where the fibre infrastructure has been used as a platform for a broader set of digital initiatives. These include public Wi-Fi networks, sensor platforms, 5G deployment, CCTV systems and telecare technologies, illustrating how the networks have enabled wider digital innovation once the underlying connectivity was in place.

In Greater Manchester, the network has supported a number of early use cases linked to transport and infrastructure management, including roadside sensors, digital modelling of transport networks, drone-based monitoring and expanded CCTV coverage. In North Yorkshire, the infrastructure has enabled free public Wi-Fi in market towns and a county-wide Long Range Wide Area Network(LoRaWAN) network, which supports a range of sensor-based applications such as environmental monitoring and building management pilots. In Colchester, the council-owned network has enabled a private 5G network, town centre Wi-Fi, an expanded digital CCTV system and improvements to telecare services.

There is also some evidence of similar activity in South Essex, where the network has supported the development of a LoRaWAN platform and early sensor pilots, although these applications remain at an exploratory stage.

4.1 Enabling factors

The factors that appear to support these initiatives are broadly similar to those identified in the earlier analysis of follow-on connectivity initiatives. In particular, the strongest examples tend to occur where local authorities have a dedicated delivery organisation capable of developing the network further, such as GM One in Greater Manchester, NYnet in North Yorkshire and Amphora in Colchester. These organisations provide the governance structures, technical capability and partnerships needed to translate infrastructure into wider digital applications.

A further factor is the presence of a clear digital strategy identifying how the infrastructure should be used. This was particularly evident in North Yorkshire, where the council had already set out ambitions around public Wi-Fi, LoRaWAN and smart infrastructure prior to LFFN delivery. This strategic clarity helped the authority move quickly in developing new applications once the fibre backbone was in place.

Finally, several of the initiatives identified in the case studies have been supported by additional funding or complementary programmes, such as innovation funding linked to 5G deployment or smart infrastructure pilots. This highlights that while LFFN created the underlying connectivity platform, the development of new technologies on top of the network often required further investment and organisational effort.

4.2 Challenges in moving beyond connectivity

The case studies also suggest that many initiatives beyond fixed connectivity remain at an early stage of development. Several of the sensor networks and smart infrastructure projects identified are still operating as pilots or innovation projects, rather than fully embedded services.

Interviewees highlighted a number of barriers to scaling these initiatives. In Greater Manchester, stakeholders noted that developing practical use cases takes time and requires organisational capacity and coordination. In North Yorkshire, progress on some sensor-based initiatives has been slowed by organisational changes associated with local government reorganisation. In Colchester, ambitions to develop wider smart-city applications are constrained by funding and staffing capacity, meaning that resources are often prioritised towards maintaining and expanding the core network.

Overall, the evidence suggests that while LFFN infrastructure can enable a wide range of digital technologies, moving from connectivity to sustained innovation requires additional organisational capacity, funding and strategic focus. As a result, many of the initiatives identified in the case studies should currently be seen as early-stage developments rather than fully established service models.

5. Digital strategies

The case studies suggest that LFFN interacted with local digital strategies in two main ways. In some areas, it supported the delivery of an existing strategy. In others, it appears to have helped create or strengthen the strategic framework itself.

The clearest example of the first pattern is North Yorkshire. The council already had a formal digital strategy before LFFN, with digital infrastructure identified as a core priority. Interviewees were clear that this gave the authority a strong starting point: it already knew how improved connectivity would support its wider ambitions around smart technologies, digital services and connected communities. As a result, LFFN was not treated as a stand-alone infrastructure project, but as a way of delivering an existing strategy. This also helps explain why North Yorkshire was able to move relatively quickly in developing further initiatives such as public Wi-Fi and LoRaWAN once the backbone was in place.

The clearest example of the second pattern is Greater Manchester. Here, interviewees suggested that LFFN was instrumental in the emergence of the Connected Places agenda. Rather than simply fitting into an established strategy, the programme appears to have created the regional mechanism, capability and sense of focus that allowed digital connectivity to become a stronger strategic priority across the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. In this sense, LFFN did not just support strategy delivery; it also helped shape the strategy itself and the institutional arrangements needed to act on it.

There is also some evidence of strategic influence in South Essex and Colchester, although it is less formalised. In South Essex, the project appears to have contributed to a more coordinated approach to digital infrastructure planning and strengthened collaboration between authorities. In Colchester, interviewees described a wider ambition to use the network to support a “digital council” and, potentially, a future “digital unitary council”. In both cases, LFFN seems to have reinforced or accelerated wider digital ambitions, even if the evidence is less clear on whether this involved a formal new or revised strategy.

6. Benefits for local authorities

Across the case studies, the benefits of LFFN infrastructure for local authorities fall into three broad categories: cost savings and efficiencies, service innovation and improvement, and wider strategic or organisational benefits. However, the strength of evidence varies across these categories, and in many cases the benefits are qualitative or emerging rather than clearly quantified.

6.1 Cost savings and efficiencies

The clearest and most tangible benefits identified relate to direct financial savings and efficiencies in connectivity provision. The strongest evidence comes from Greater Manchester and Colchester. In Greater Manchester, the GM One Network enabled participating organisations to consolidate Wide Area Network(WAN) provision and generate economies of scale, with one authority reporting savings in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. In Colchester, the council estimated that its WAN contract with Amphora reduced connectivity costs by around 50%, generating savings of approximately £60,000 per year.

However, these benefits depend on how local authorities choose to use the LFFN infrastructure. In both Greater Manchester and Colchester, savings were realised where authorities took the additional step of consolidating or replacing existing WAN arrangements alongside LFFN delivery. Similar patterns are not observed in all case studies, where existing networks were retained or only partially adapted.

This means that cost savings are more difficult to generalise across LFFN projects. While many areas will have had the opportunity to reduce costs through WAN reconfiguration, the extent to which these benefits are realised depends on local decisions, existing contractual arrangements and the appetite to move towards shared or consolidated network models.

Other case studies point to cost avoidance or efficiency gains, rather than clearly quantified savings. For example, in North Yorkshire, interviewees described lower-cost bandwidth upgrades and more efficient connectivity provision through the NYnet network, although these benefits were not formally monetised.

6.2 Service innovation and improvement

A second category of benefits relates to service innovation and improvement, although the evidence here is more limited. As discussed in the earlier synthesis on applications beyond fixed connectivity, some authorities have used the infrastructure to support new technologies and digital services. The clearest examples include CCTV and telecare improvements in Colchester, and public Wi-Fi and LoRaWAN-based applications in North Yorkshire.

However, across the case studies we identified relatively few examples of clear and tangible service improvements at this stage. Many initiatives remain at the level of pilots, early deployments or exploratory projects, particularly in areas such as smart infrastructure and sensor-based systems. This suggests that while LFFN has created the technical platform for service innovation, the process of translating this into sustained service improvements is still ongoing in many places.

6.3 Strategic and organisational benefits

A third category of benefits relates to wider strategic and organisational effects, many of which overlap with the findings from earlier research questions on digital strategy and partnership working.

In Greater Manchester and South Essex, the impact goes beyond increased collaboration. In these cases, LFFN has provided the foundation for more integrated network arrangements, enabling closer coordination between organisations, greater sharing of data, and the joint development of services. This is most clearly seen in the development of shared platforms, such as the GM One Network, and the creation of direct fibre links between authorities in South Essex. These developments are supporting wider agendas around devolution and local government reform by enabling more joined‑up working across institutional boundaries.

There is also evidence of strategic benefits in other contexts. In Shetland, the project has helped strengthen the council’s relationship with key strategic partners, including SaxaVord Spaceport, and has supported ongoing collaboration around the use of digital infrastructure on the islands.

6.4 Quantifying the benefits

Overall, the evidence suggests that only a small proportion of the identified benefits can be robustly quantified or monetised. Direct financial savings are evident in a small number of cases, particularly where connectivity services were consolidated or procured collectively. By contrast, many of the wider benefits, including service innovation, collaboration and strengthened digital capability, are harder to measure and are described mainly through qualitative evidence.

7. Differences between LFFN project types

The table below summarises the extent to which the case study projects reported wider strategic and organisational benefits. A single tick indicates some evidence, while two ticks indicate strong and consistent evidence. The table also shows the LFFN delivery type for each case study; Public Sector Anchor Tenancy (PSAT), Public Sector Asset Reuse(PSAR), or Public Sector Building Upgrade(PSBU).

At first glance, the table does not suggest a clear relationship between project type and these wider benefits. Strong evidence is identified in four case studies, Greater Manchester, North Yorkshire, Colchester and South Essex, which together span all three delivery models. This indicates that project type alone is not a strong determinant of whether such benefits are realised.

Instead, the evidence points to the degree of control over the infrastructure as more important. In Colchester and North Yorkshire, this took the form of public ownership, providing the flexibility to extend and reuse the network. In Greater Manchester and South Essex, long‑term rights of use to dark fibre gave partners similar control. Across these cases, this enabled further network development, wider digital initiatives, and, in Greater Manchester and South Essex, closer integration and data sharing.

However, control does not automatically lead to wider benefits. In Shetland, despite the network being council‑owned, the focus has been on improving connectivity at sites rather than pursuing wider reform, reflecting local context and priorities. Even so, control has supported partnership working, including with an energy provider, improving local service resilience.

In contrast, PSBU projects were generally less likely to report wider strategic or organisational benefits, as local authorities typically do not retain control over the infrastructure. Most focused on improving connectivity at specific sites, with limited evidence of further impacts. The key exception is South Essex, where a 15‑year indefeasible right of use provided a level of control closer to PSAT models, enabling similar benefits.

Overall, the case studies suggest that differences in strategic and organisational benefits are not primarily driven by project type alone. Instead, the extent to which local authorities retain control over the infrastructure, and are able to actively shape how it is used, appears to be the more important factor. This means that while all project types have the potential to support wider benefits, these are more likely to be realised where delivery models provide greater flexibility, require stronger local capability, and create opportunities to build on the network over time. ###Reported strategic and organisational benefits by case study and project type

	North Isles, Shetland (PSAT)	Greater Manchester (PSAT)	North Yorkshire (PSAT)	Colchester (PSAR)	South Essex (PSBU)	North Wales (PSBU)	Essex & Herts (PSBU)	Plymouth (PSBU)
Local authority cost savings and efficiencies	✓	✓✓	✓	✓✓	✓
Delivery of public Wi-Fi		✓	✓✓	✓✓
Expansion of and improvements to CCTV		✓✓	✓	✓✓	✓✓
Sensor-based or smart city initiatives		✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓
Increased public sector collaboration and integration		✓✓	✓	✓	✓✓	✓	✓
Delivering and shaping digital strategies	✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓	✓✓	✓	✓
Building on fibre networks	✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓	✓✓