Government Evaluation of UK Flexi-Permits Trial Opts to Sit on the Fence

The Government has published an evaluation of recent flexi-permit trials, which is a process that UK mobile and broadband operators have been requesting for some years. But despite most of the feedback being positive, the number of caveats involved meant the evaluation was “not able to make a definitive recommendation either in favour of or against proceeding with flexi-permit legislation“.

The issue of adopting a more flexible permitting system (flexi-permits) for broadband related street works across England has come up several times in recent years and remains a popular request by telecoms operators. Under this approach network builders can apply to local authorities (e.g. highway authorities) for a single permit covering a wide geographical area, instead of numerous separate street applications (i.e. reducing the administrative burden and improving delivery efficiency, as well as lowering costs).

The UK Telecoms Minister, Chris Bryant MP, has previously indicated that he would wait to see the results of their evaluation of recent trials before deciding whether to proceed toward implementation of the system. “Should that demonstrate positive results, we will promptly consult on the necessary legislative changes,” said the minister.

The good news is that the Government have now posted the results of their flexi-permit trials, which finds plenty of positive points. In total, 18 flexi-permit programmes were delivered across 2 local highway authorities (LHAs) – Durham and Lincolnshire. The key findings from this were broadly positive, with “most trial participants” viewing the flexi permit model as “workable and beneficial“.

However, some stakeholders did express mixed views, with many LHAs raising concerns about reduced oversight and co-ordination challenges. Put another way, a final system is likely to need stronger planning, clear boundaries, and robust digital systems to support adoption.

Key Findings from Flexi-Permits Trials

• 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.

Despite the positives, the evaluation concluded that there were several caveats with the trial, which meant they were “not able to make a definitive recommendation either in favour of or against proceeding with flexi-permit legislation“.

Such caveats included the limited sample size, some issues with selection bias, limitations of the trial’s scope (not testing all the scenarios) and the fact that no legislative or digital system changes were permitted for the trial (i.e. a hybrid approach that limited the ability to fully assess the impacts of a true flexi-permit system).

Suffice to say that we must now wait to see how the Government responds, although our suspicion -given the trial feedback – is that they may either opt to proceed with a much larger trial (testing with a wider scope and sample size) or proceed toward a gradual phased introduction, supported by new legislation. But of course, they could still scrap the idea, even if this now seems somewhat less likely.