This tool provides flexible criteria covering strategic fit, impact, deliverability, and feasibility, all of which can be tailored to reflect local policy context, data availability, and delivery ambitions. Delivered in an easy-to-use Excel format, the tool supports evidence-based, consistent decision-making and can be adapted to suit your weighting preferences or strategic focus areas such as place-based priorities and readiness to deliver.
How to use the infrastructure prioritisation tool
Councils face increasing pressure to deliver infrastructure in a way that is efficient, transparent, and aligned with both local priorities and national planning policy. Yet one of the biggest challenges in infrastructure planning is how to effectively, clearly and transparently compare projects that vary widely in scope, cost, scale, maturity, and intended impact. With limited funding and time, councils must make difficult decisions about what to projects to progress.
This infrastructure prioritisation tool has been developed to support councils in making those decisions more confidently. It is particularly valuable when preparing Infrastructure Delivery Plans and associated outputs such as Spending Plans . The tool provides a framework for a structured, data-informed approach to assessing and comparing projects, helping to ensure that decisions are consistent, evidence-based, and focused on delivering strategic outcomes.
By providing a framework for prioritisation that links directly to local plan delivery, the tool helps identify which infrastructure projects are essential to unlocking development and supporting growth. It offers flexibility where each criterion can be tailored to reflect local context and policy. This guide offers multiple ways to translate each priority area into quantifiable criteria (operationalisation) to support varied data availability or strategic focus.
The following guidance sets out the key criteria, how they can be operationalised, and how the tool can be adapted and calibrated to reflect different local circumstances. The tool has been produced in an MS Excel format which is easy and accessible for scoring, adjustment and calibration. In its basic form, the tool acts as a template but it is intended to be amended by you to ensure it aligns to your requirements. Examples of how the tool can be changed is set out later in this guide.
Infrastructure planning is rooted in enabling sustainable growth and supporting the delivery of your local plan by ensuring new development is served by infrastructure. The primary purpose of this tool is to identify which infrastructure projects are the most essential to supporting development, ensuring sites are deliverable and support sustainable growth.
This tool will help you by ensuring that projects are assessed for their direct relationship with allocated or emerging sites, and that those which unlock or support the viability of planned development are prioritised. The tool is not designed to replace professional judgement, but to aid consistency, transparency and evidence-led decision-making.
The tool assesses projects using two overarching categories: Strategic fit and impact, and Deliverability and feasibility. Each category and its sub criteria are explained below:
Strategic fit and impact
This category considers how well a proposed infrastructure project aligns with local planning policy, corporate priorities, and wider strategic goals. It focuses on the extent to which a project supports the delivery of your Local Plan, particularly the development of allocated sites, and contributes to long term place shaping outcomes. Projects that align with key strategic areas, deliver multiple types of benefit such as transport and health, or help address socio economic or environmental inequalities are likely to score highly in this category. This assessment ensures that infrastructure investment is directed toward projects that not only meet immediate development needs but also deliver broader, lasting value for communities.
|
Criterion |
Description |
Possible Operationalisations |
|---|---|---|
| Alignment with Local Plan | Does the project support or enable site allocations or strategic growth areas? |
Yes/No scoring based on relation to local plan development site allocation. If there is a large list of projects where the relation to site allocations is unknown you may consider a buffer analysis with tailored distances per asset type (e.g. 500m for play areas, 5km for hospitals). This will help estimate the projects position and if it is likely to be related to a site based on distance. |
| Multi-theme Benefits | Does the project offer benefits across multiple service areas? |
A High/Medium/Low assessment can work at a high level. If more detail is available, you may consider a more detailed scoring approach tied to the number of themes. |
| Carbon or Environmental Impact | Does it contribute to carbon reduction/ net zero |
Estimated carbon savings (e.g. kgCO₂/year) High/Medium/Low impact rating based on estimated impact where figures are not known |
| Socio-Economic Impact | Is the project in a high-need /deprived area? |
Yes/No scoring based on location of the project and your knowledge of local need. If you do not know the level of deprivation of an area, consider using deprivation data such as the Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD) or using the latest data from the ONS census. This data is available is spatial formats so you should be able to assess the deprivation level of the projects’ locations. You may consider a High/Medium/Low based on the level of deprivation or other more detailed approaches. |
Deliverability and feasibility
This category evaluates how realistic and achievable it is to deliver a project within a desired timeframe. It considers factors such as funding availability, estimated cost, project readiness and reliability/track record of delivery partners. The aim is to assess whether a project has the practical foundations in place to move forward, whether it can be delivered efficiently, managed effectively, and maintained over time. Scoring within this category helps prioritise projects that are not only desirable but also viable and ready to progress, avoiding bottlenecks or stalled investments due to lack of funding or organisational capacity. It is important to note, while there are several criteria, you should pay close attention to weighting each one while calibrating the tool.
| Criterion | Description | Possible Operationalisations |
|---|---|---|
| Funding Secured | Is funding fully or partially secured? |
Consider using a 4-point scale to start: Full funding = 3 points, Partial = 2, Indicative = 1, None = 0 You may choose a more complex assessment using specific proportions if such information is available. |
| Project Cost | While high-cost projects should not be penalised, relative size is relevant as low-cost projects are usually easier to deliver. Weighting is critical for this criterion in particular and you may choose to exclude it if it is not relevant. |
A High/Medium/Low assessment can work at a high level. If more details are available, you may consider a more detailed scoring approach with cost categories (e.g. <£250K, £250K-£1M, >£1M); |
| Delivery Timescale | What are the timescales for the projects? | Scoring bands: 0-2 yrs = High, 2-5 yrs = Medium, 5+ yrs = Low |
| Delivery Partners | Are capable delivery partners in place? |
Delivery unknown, Solo delivery, or Joint delivery. Score weighted by past track record if available. You can choose to allocation scores based on your preferred delivery approach. You may choose to approach this differently (e.g. High/Medium/Low) if the above method does not translate well for your delivery partners. |
| Design and Business Case | Has the project reached a stage where feasibility or design work has begun? |
Yes/No scoring You may also consider a weighted score depending on stage (e.g. feasibility complete = 1 pt, RIBA Stage 2 = 2 pts) |
| Long-term Sustainability | Can the infrastructure be maintained sustainably over time? | Scored based on planned maintenance model, revenue or lifecycle costing if available. A High/Medium/Low assessment can work at a high level. |
The tool gives you the flexibility to apply weightings to each criterion, allowing you to reflect your local priorities more accurately in the scoring process. While starting with equal weighting is a good way to test the tool, you should calibrate it to ensure the most important factors carry more influence.
You can also use different weighting profiles depending on your focus. If you are assessing infrastructure from a climate or environmental perspective, you might increase the weight for carbon savings or green infrastructure benefits. If your priority is quick delivery, then feasibility factors such as funding secured or readiness to proceed might take precedence. However, when planning infrastructure in support of development, it is recommended that you assign higher weight to criteria directly linked to enabling Local Plan sites such as site alignment, delivery partners, and funding so the scoring helps you identify projects that will most effectively unlock growth.
The infrastructure prioritisation tool
Click the excel file below to download a copy of the infrastructure prioritisation tool and use the guidance above to help tailor it to your local specific requirements.