Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs): Practical guidance and tools

Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs) are essential strategic documents that play a fundamental role in shaping sustainable communities and enabling successful place-making. As a critical planning tool, an IDP provides the framework for coordinating and delivering the infrastructure necessary to support growth. 

While IDPs form a crucial part of the evidence base for Local Plans and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedules, their significance extends far beyond these requirements. They serve as powerful mechanisms for strategic partnership working, securing funding, and ensuring the timely delivery of vital infrastructure across transport, utilities, social and green infrastructure networks. 

By understanding and maximising the potential of IDPs, local authorities can better plan, fund, and deliver the infrastructure needed to create sustainable communities for current and future generations.

Most Local Planning Authorities will have prepared an IDP or related evidence at some point whether to support a Local Plan, underpin a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule, or inform strategic infrastructure priorities. Yet despite its central role in demonstrating deliverability, there’s been relatively little practical guidance available on how to prepare an effective IDP, or how to use one as a tool to support infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.

This guidance aims to fill that gap.

It is not just about producing a one-off document for examination. It’s about helping councils embed the IDP as a live, cross-cutting tool that can coordinate funding, shape investment decisions, and align departments and partners around shared delivery priorities.

The content draws on our direct support to councils across England, meaning it reflects good practice and responds to the common challenges that authorities have told us they face when preparing and using their IDPs.

This guidance is focussed on a number of themes, each one representing a different element of IDP processes and practice. It is supported by a number of practical tools and templates. This guidance will be periodically updated to reflect changes in policy and practice.

The guidance includes sections on:

• The role, purpose & structure of IDP
• Engagement and governance
• Evidence and needs assessments
• Data and digitisation
• Delivery

There are also practical tools and templates which can be downloaded including:

• Commissioning an IDP: A practical guide to writing the brief
• Writing an IDP report: A practical guide
• IDP project schedule template: A practical tool
• Infrastructure prioritisation tool: A framework for scoring and selecting projects that support development.

We held an online Webinar in February 2026 to introduce the guidance. You can watch a recording of the presentations here:

An IDP is a critical tool for turning growth ambitions into real-world delivery. While it plays an essential role in the formal planning process, it also has broader benefits that support strategic decision-making and investment.

Core planning roles of an IDP

An IDP provides essential evidence that supports:

• Local Plan development and examination
  It demonstrates what infrastructure is required to deliver the development and policies within the plan, helping to show that the plan is deliverable.
• Preparing or reviewing a CIL Charging Schedule
  It helps to identify the infrastructure funding gap and provides evidence to justify bringing forward  a CIL as part of the local funding strategy for delivering infrastructure.
• Negotiating planning applications and developer contributions
  It informs negotiation on the form of development and Section 106 discussions by highlighting the specific infrastructure needs that arise from development in different locations.
• Spending decisions for CIL, S106 and other funding
  It provides clear, up-to-date information on what infrastructure is needed, how much it costs, when it’s needed, and what funding sources (public or private) could contribute.

Wider delivery and investment benefits

Beyond its formal role in plan-making, a well-prepared IDP can serve as a practical delivery tool, supporting wider council and partner investment programmes. It can:

• Identify infrastructure projects that support development and growth
• Inform and align council-wide capital investment planning
• Help unlock and coordinate additional funding opportunities, including those beyond developer contributions

By acting as a bridge between planning policy and delivery, the IDP helps councils integrate infrastructure planning with internal delivery teams and external partners.

Other practical benefits of a live IDP

Maintaining an up-to-date IDP provides several wider benefits. It can:

• Identify current infrastructure gaps and future needs in a proactive, strategic way
• Support joined-up policy-making by aligning Local Plans, corporate strategies, service plans, and external partner objectives
• Create a shared evidence base for engagement with infrastructure providers, statutory consultees, service departments, and local communities
• Support meaningful collaboration with private, voluntary, and community sector stakeholders around shared delivery and funding priorities
• Coordinate infrastructure delivery to achieve wider place outcomes and community benefits
• Enable smarter, more efficient public services by identifying opportunities for joint delivery, co-location of services, and innovative funding or delivery models
• Provide clarity and continuity through political, leadership, or organisational change — supporting stable long-term infrastructure priorities

Keeping your IDP up to date

These benefits depend on the IDP being maintained as a live document, reviewed regularly and integrated into wider decision-making across the council.

See the sections on Data and digitisation and Engagement and governance in this guidance for ideas on how to keep your IDP accurate, up to date, and embedded in your delivery processes.

Planning Policy Context

Government are committed to delivering new homes and infrastructure to support economic growth. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) highlights the importance of infrastructure in relation to both supporting new homes as well as to support the economy (for example through National Strategic Infrastructure Projects). At a local level, opposition or objections to new development can often be related to issues relating to infrastructure provision. 

This section provides an overview of how infrastructure planning is reflected in current national planning policy, alongside recent announcements related to devolution, planning reform, and local government reorganisation.

National Policy Context - Local Plans

The NPPF sets out the importance of infrastructure and the requirement that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for housing, employment, infrastructure and community facilities. The NPPF states that Plans should be shaped by “early proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees”.

Planning Practice Guidance states that Councils will need to “assess the quality and quantity of, and accessibility to, green infrastructure, education, sports, recreation and places of worship including expected future changes”, and that “Local Planning Authorities" (LPAs) should work alongside infrastructure providers, service delivery organisations, other strategic bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships, developers, landowners and site promoters.

Planning Practice Guidance also states that policy-making authorities should work with public health leads and health organisations to understand and take account of the current and projected health status and needs of the local population, including the quality and quantity of, and accessibility to, healthcare and the effect any planned growth may have on this. Therefore a collaborative approach is expected to be taken to identifying infrastructure deficits and requirements, and opportunities for addressing them. In doing so Councils will need to:

• assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, and its ability to meet forecast demands. Where deficiencies are identified, policies should set out how those deficiencies will be addressed; and
• take account of the need for strategic infrastructure, including nationally significant infrastructure, within their areas.

National Policy Context - CIL & the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS)

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on new development that helps local authorities fund infrastructure to support development in its area. IDPs are a key source of evidence in the preparation (or review) of CIL Charging Schedules (which set out the CIL rates for different types of development will be charged) as they help to demonstrate infrastructure funding gaps in an area . 

CIL Guidance states that Information on the charging authority area’s infrastructure needs should be drawn from the infrastructure assessment (or IDP) that was undertaken when preparing the relevant development plan for the area. This is because the infrastructure assessment (or IDP) identifies the scale and type of infrastructure needed to deliver the area’s local development and growth needs. 

From December 2020, local authorities have been required to publish an Infrastructure Funding Statement that provides annual reporting on the collection and expenditure of CIL and S106 developer contributions. Whilst the IFS and the data it reports on is not taken from an IDP, IFSs should set out future spending priorities on infrastructure by setting out the projects or types of infrastructure that a council intends to fund by CIL or other developer contributions. An up to date IDP can support how these priorities are identified and feed into the narrative on spending priorities to be included in an IFS.

Devolution & Spatial Development Strategies

One of the most significant aspects of the devolution agenda is the re-introduction of strategic planning, which will be achieved through Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs). SDS's will provide the spatial framework to support the growth and investment identified in Local Growth Plans (which are created by Mayoral Strategic Authorities) by identifying key locations for housing or economic growth, and the strategic infrastructure required to support it. Once Mayoral authorities have an SDS in place, they will (as is currently the case in London), be able to raise a Mayoral CIL. 

It is intended that this level of strategic planning will become universal, and so where there is not currently a Mayoral Authority in place, it will be through groupings of upper-tier councils or unitary councils .

As we wait for further detail on SDS's through regulations and guidance, and the impact this will have on the preparation of infrastructure evidence, it is worth considering now how the work you may be doing in preparing an IDP for your Local Plan can put you in a good position to support any sub-regional planning approach you will be part of in the future. 

Many councils may be doing this already through joint Local Plans, the Duty to Cooperate, or through working with other councils on infrastructure projects or matters that are relevant to more than one LPA. This work provides a strong platform on which to build from when strategic planning in your area. Further guidance on preparing evidence to support strategic planning is provided in the Evidence and needs assessment section of this guidance.

For further information on the work that we are doing to support Strategic Planning visit our Strategic Planning webpages here. 

The scope of an IDP 

There is no nationally prescribed list of what an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) must include. National policy and guidance intentionally allow flexibility, so councils can tailor their IDPs to local needs and priorities.

That said, most IDPs include a broad range of infrastructure types from transport, utilities and education to health, green infrastructure, and emergency services. An overview of common infrastructure categories can be found in:

• The Practical tools and templates section of this guidance, and
• Our companion guide: Navigating Infrastructure Planning: Types, Approvals, and Funding

What to include in your IDP

When deciding which types of infrastructure to include, consider: 

• Is the infrastructure relevant to delivering your Local Plan policies and objectives?
• Does your council have a role in influencing its funding or delivery, for example through developer contributions, capital investment, or partnerships?

If the answer to either question is yes, it’s likely the infrastructure type should be included in your IDP.

Your IDP does not need to cover everything in equal detail but it should be clear, prioritised, and focused on what matters most for delivering development and growth in your area.

Commissioning support to produce your IDP?

Some councils choose to commission consultants or technical specialists to support part or all of the IDP process. Others draw on internal expertise from within their, or an upper-tier, authority.  

To help with this, we have developed a Template Commissioning Brief, available in the Practical tools and templates section. It sets out:

• Key issues to consider when procuring support
• Suggested tasks and scope areas
• Advice on how to get the best from commissioned work

This can help ensure your IDP is robust, aligned with policy, and genuinely useful as a delivery tool and not just an evidence document produced for examination.

Stages of production of an IDP

When producing an IDP (to support a Local Plan) your IDP is likely to include a number of stages of production which should broadly align to your Local Plan process. 

It is recommended that you consider infrastructure issues early in the Local Plan process, particularly through scoping the work required and planning your engagement. Stakeholder engagement planning is particularly important as the involvement of stakeholders from the outset and through the process will result in a better outcome (see Engagement section). 

The key stages of IDP production, and the activities and outputs of each stage of the current plan-making system is provided below. This will be updated for the new plan-making system when Regulations are in place:

In this section we outline the different elements of an IDP, and what these elements can include, linking back to the different roles and purposes an IDP can have. Depending on its role, IDPs can be made up of different elements including:

• An IDP Capacity Assessment / Report
• An IDP Project Schedule
• A Spending Strategy
• A Spending Plan

An IDP Capacity Assessment / IDP Report sets out the baseline of infrastructure provision in your area, how this will be impacted by anticipated development growth and what infrastructure will be required to support it. See as an example, case study: Portsmouth IDP, 2024. 

An IDP Capacity Assessments / Report is useful in that it can provide an overview of the process, method and engagement undertaken when producing an IDP, and so is useful to demonstrate compliance with policy & guidance as part of the Local Plan process. An IDP Capacity Assessments / Report could include:

• A description of the methodology and process use to produce the IDP (including how stakeholders were engaged)
• A baseline position setting out the current provision of infrastructure
• A capacity assessment setting out an understanding of the future demand for and delivery of infrastructure, and how this relates to the Local Plan
• The evidence and sources of information used to inform the capacity assessment and Infrastructure Schedule (without seeking to repeat information available elsewhere),
• Monitoring arrangements, including how the IDP is being delivered and kept up to date. 

An IDP Project Schedule is helpful to capture in a simple format planned or ‘pipeline’ projects See case study: Croydon IDP, 2025. The Exact structure of the project schedule can vary depending on the requirements of each council but would generally cover:

• What the infrastructure project is
• When it will be delivered
• Where it will be located
• Who will deliver it
• How It will be delivered, in terms of procurement / delivery route and cost.

A template for a ‘model’ IDP Project Schedule, and how it can be digitised, forms part of this guidance and can be found in the Practical tools and templates section. Further advice on how digitisation can support the production and monitoring of your IDP project schedule can be found in the Data and digitisation’ section.

Whilst the core elements of an IDP in relation to the Local Plan can be met through an IDP Report and Project Schedule, an IDP Spending Strategy can be used to set out the approach to funding infrastructure through CIL as well as other funding sources, including existing S106 and CIL receipts. See case studies: Westminster's CIL Spending Policy Statement, 2022 and East Suffolk’s CIL Spending Strategy, 2024. This can then inform CIL spending decisions (and other forms of developer contributions). An IDP Spending Strategy can also set out how uncertainty over funding for and delivery of infrastructure can be managed through the monitoring and updating of your IDP.

An IDP Spending Plan can set out in more detail the specific infrastructure priorities or projects that will be funded by CIL or other funding sources in a given period, and may focus on a shorter period of time (eg. up to five years). See case studies – Chichester Infrastructure Business Plan and Greater Norwich Growth Board's Greater Norwich Five Year Infrastructure Investment Plan.

Effective engagement is central to the successful development and implementation of an IDP. It ensures that infrastructure planning is not carried out in isolation, but instead reflects the coordinated input of all relevant partners, including internal council departments, infrastructure providers, and other stakeholders.

Establishing clear and consistent governance arrangements helps you manage the IDP process and embed it within the wider system of infrastructure planning and delivery. It creates a structured forum for collaboration, decision-making and accountability. Without this, engagement can become fragmented, relying too heavily on individual relationships or irregular meetings, which risks undermining the effectiveness of the IDP.

Strong governance also supports continuity of engagement over time. Regular and formalised involvement from key stakeholders helps to maintain momentum, build trust, and ensure that the IDP is treated as a live and evolving resource. This is particularly important for keeping the IDP up to date, ensuring it remains relevant and responsive to changes in evidence, funding, or delivery circumstances.

Establish an engagement framework. 

Begin your IDP process by mapping out a clear and practical framework for engagement. This should set out:

• Who you need to engage with
• When engagement should take place (linked to Local Plan and IDP milestones)
• Why you are engaging — what insight, data or commitments you need at each stage
• How engagement aligns with other planning processes, such as:
  • Local Plan preparation and consultations
  • Major planning applications
  • Capital programme cycles
  • Infrastructure funding opportunities (e.g. bids, grants, partnerships)

A well-planned framework helps you:

• Use time and resources efficiently
• Communicate clear expectations to partners
• Get the most value from stakeholder input
• Keep infrastructure conversations joined up with wider planning and delivery work

Make sure to treat your engagement framework as a live document

Be clear and consistent with stakeholders 

Successful engagement depends on transparency, communication, and trust. As part of your process, make sure to:

• Clearly explain the IDP process, purpose, and timeline to all stakeholders
• Set out roles and responsibilities — what you need from each partner, and when
• Share how their input will be used — and what they can expect in return
• Allow sufficient time for effective engagement, without compressing it into final stages

Being upfront about your process helps avoid misunderstandings, reduces duplication, and increases stakeholder confidence in the IDP as a useful, shared tool.

Consider using existing or new governance to deliver your engagement.

Establishing new governance arrangements or using existing ones for your Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Local Plan can help strengthen support for the process and improve understanding of the IDP through more consistent engagement. These governance processes should set out how stakeholders will be involved and how often, helping to ensure transparency and sustained participation. This approach can continue after the IDP is completed, supporting its monitoring and future updates.

Consider what information needs to be available to providers to ensure engagement is meaningful.

Different types of information at different levels of detail will be appropriate at each stage of the process. If you are expecting providers to undertake needs assessments, then sufficient detail will be required from your Local Plan. If possible, consistent assumptions of sources of data on housing and population projections should be used by all providers. Consider the methods by which you share information, for example with appropriate maps, plans or tables of data. Some infrastructure providers publish annual plans or reports. Engaging early can help you understand their timelines and encourage them to consider Local Plan needs in future reports.

Consider the methods you use for engagement based on the output you require.

Through your IDP, there are various ways to engage infrastructure providers, including briefing notes, one to one meetings, workshops, and digital/online methods such as virtual collaboration boards. At the start of the process, identify which approaches will be most effective and efficient for each stage, taking into account the outputs you need as well as the time and cost implications.

Avoid considering infrastructure providers & types in isolation 

Engagement on your IDP provides an opportunity to have joined-up conversations across different providers and types of infrastructure. Considering how they inter-relate, and how they can be brought together in the process, can provide you with a better understanding of the issues, how they can be addressed in your IDP, and how this will feed through into your Local Plan. This can support a more effective consideration of the issues than dealing with them in isolation. For example, engaging stakeholders from community services, green infrastructure and active travel in a joint workshop can help identify shared priorities and encourage more integrated thinking.

Consider how engagement can continue after IDP production so your IDP can be kept up to date.

A lot of time and resource is put into producing an IDP. Periodic updates to your IDP to keep it relevant and up to date can be done more efficiently if you consider how engagement can continue after its initial production, rather than starting from scratch each time it needs updating. This can also feed into your process for managing and allocating developer contributions and wider infrastructure planning processes. This will establish consistent lines of contact and build in resilience.

Governance should be established early in the IDP process, ideally during the initial scoping or inception stage. Strong and well-defined governance provides the structure needed to coordinate contributions across departments and organisations and ensures that the IDP remains aligned with the Local Plan and other strategic objectives. It also creates a platform for ongoing collaboration, accountability, and informed decision-making throughout the lifecycle of the IDP.

When inviting colleagues and partners to participate, it can be helpful to make a clear and compelling case for their involvement. For officers, this may include both the opportunity to influence how infrastructure funding is prioritised and the need to demonstrate that infrastructure planning is sound and deliverable.  Highlighting the role of the IDP in unlocking investment and supporting plan delivery can help secure engagement from key stakeholders.

You should consider whether to establish a new group specifically for the IDP or expand the remit of an existing governance structure. This decision may depend on the level of coordination already in place across infrastructure and planning functions. Governance is important because the IDP is more than just a technical evidence base. It is a strategic tool that can guide decisions on infrastructure delivery, prioritisation and investment. A well-structured governance group can support alignment between infrastructure planning and broader place making objectives, coordinate input from different providers, and ensure that decisions are made in a clear and accountable way. Whichever approach you take, it is important to ensure that the group has a clear reporting line so that progress and decisions are visible and can be acted upon at the appropriate level.

The Project Initiation Document (PID) for the IDP is a key tool in setting the framework within which governance will operate. It should outline the programme, key milestones, roles and responsibilities, stakeholder involvement, and the intended outcomes of the IDP process. This document helps to formalise expectations and ensure that all contributors are working towards a shared goal.

Effective governance includes both internal and external stakeholders. The degree of involvement should reflect the stakeholder’s relevance to infrastructure delivery and their wider role in the planning process. In some cases, it may be helpful to establish a dedicated external infrastructure provider group focused on operational delivery, which can include both public and private sector partners.

The frequency of governance meetings should align with the key stages of IDP production, helping to ensure that participants’ time is used effectively, and decisions are made when most needed. While many meetings can be held virtually for efficiency, it is valuable to schedule occasional in-person workshops. These sessions can be particularly useful when reviewing site allocations and considering the potential location of infrastructure, as they allow participants to work collaboratively with maps and plans.

In the longer term, it may be appropriate to formalise the governance structure into a standing group with direct responsibility for overseeing infrastructure planning and delivery. This group would not necessarily include all infrastructure providers but should bring together key decision makers who can coordinate priorities, monitor progress, and help resolve delivery challenges. It can continue beyond the adoption of the Local Plan to take collective responsibility for maintaining and updating the IDP, aligning developer contributions, and making best use of public sector assets. This is distinct from broader stakeholder engagement for evidence gathering. A clear focus on delivery and shared community outcomes will help sustain momentum and build trust between partners.

Whatever form your governance takes, it is essential to have a clear Terms of Reference. This should set out the purpose of the group, the roles and expectations of its members, practical details such as meeting frequency and format, and how agendas, papers, and minutes will be shared. A well-defined governance structure with shared understanding and accountability will significantly strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of your IDP.

Engagement on your IDP will evolve through the IDP production process and can be aligned to your local plan process. In the context of engagement, we have suggested that there are five main stages of your IDP engagement process, which can be aligned to the current system Local Plan process. These five stages are as follows:

• LDS (Local Development Scheme) / Scoping
• Issues and Options / Baseline Vision and spatial strategy (Regulation 18)
• Preferred Option - Draft Plan (Regulation 19)
• Submission Draft
• Ongoing monitoring & evaluation

The table below sets out the type of information you should collect at each stage, and some of the appropriate methods of engagement to undertake at each. This will be updated to reflect the new plan-making system when regulations are in place.

As you develop your IDP, it is important to recognise that it sits within the wider socio-economic context of your place, and that it relates to different policies, strategies, and investments led by your council or other infrastructure providers. The supply and demand for infrastructure, shifting policy priorities, and wider socio-economic and demographic change all influence how infrastructure is planned and delivered. These factors often interact in different ways, requiring a strategic and adaptable approach to ensure that infrastructure continues to meet the needs of communities.

To ensure that your IDP is robust it must be underpinned by appropriate and up-to-date evidence. This evidence could include information on the need for infrastructure, costs, delivery timescales, and funding sources; or policies or strategies relating to infrastructure. Engaging with a wide range of published data sources early in the process will strengthen the credibility of your IDP. These sources should include information from infrastructure providers, evidence produced as part of the Local Plan, and other relevant technical studies, in addition to the engagement activities outlined in the Engagement and Governance sections.

At the same time, the use of evidence should remain proportionate to the scale and complexity of the project. Not every element will require the same level of detail, and a balanced approach will allow for effective use of time and resources. Well-structured and targeted evidence will support a clearer understanding of the planned infrastructure projects and enable informed decision-making, particularly in relation to prioritisation and delivery.

The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance highlights that a robust and proportionate evidence base is essential to producing effective and justified local plans. This evidence should underpin the policies set out in your local plan and helps ensure they are based on clear and credible analysis.

Although much of the evidence will be provided by infrastructure partners or drawn from other planning processes, it is your responsibility to collate, assess, interpret, and synthesise this information for inclusion in the IDP. This includes preparing a comprehensive directory of existing and planned infrastructure to establish an accurate and up-to-date baseline. It could also involve carrying out spatial distribution assessments to identify areas of potential deficit or surplus. Lastly, you should compile detailed project information for inclusion in the IDP project schedule which should be done in a manner consistent with the advice detailed in the Data and Digital section of this guidance.

Evidence to support infrastructure planning and the development of Infrastructure Delivery Plans is drawn from a wide range of sources and presented in various formats. These sources include data produced specifically for the Local Plan, such as Strategic Flood Risk Assessments, as well as broader evidence used in both local planning and wider service planning, such as green infrastructure strategies. A list of commonly used evidence sources is provided in the annex to this section of the guidance.

It is advisable to spend some time at the beginning of the process gathering relevant evidence. This allows you to develop an early understanding of the infrastructure context, assess the quality and availability of existing data, and ensure your work is grounded in credible and up to date information. It also gives you an opportunity to identify any gaps in you may have in your evidence base. When producing an IDP as part of your Local Plan bear in mind that this evidence may change and update through the process, so you will need to account for this as you progress your IDP, either through factoring in iterations to the IDP or by future updates outlined in the monitoring arrangements. 

Gaps in evidence can be addressed in a number of ways. Some may be resolved through engagement with infrastructure providers or stakeholders, allowing you to capture insights or not-yet-published information that can be included in your Infrastructure Delivery Plan outputs. In other cases, additional evidence may need to be commissioned separately as part of the Local Plan process. This could relate to specific issues such as burial space or more comprehensive topics such as open space assessments.

Evidence on infrastructure costs is particularly important and should be treated with care. Cost estimates may come from infrastructure providers, internal project data, feasibility studies, or benchmarking against similar projects. This information can support delivery planning. Any cost figures that are published or shared as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should be as robust as possible and clearly caveated.

Relevant evidence may include spatial data such as maps and plans, tabular summaries, charts, and qualitative information from stakeholder engagement. Presenting evidence in a clear and accessible way, including mapped information, will help inform your report and delivery schedule, and support transparency throughout the planning process. 

The needs assessment section of your Infrastructure Delivery Plan should identify gaps in infrastructure by analysing current provision, existing capacity, and future growth plans based on engagement with infrastructure providers. It should consider not only the new infrastructure required to support growth, but also any infrastructure that will need to be replaced due to age, condition or adopted policies such as green policies and initiatives.

The responsibility for producing needs assessments generally lies with the relevant infrastructure providers. For example, pupil place planning is typically undertaken by the appropriate department within the local education authority. As the IDP lead, it is your role to work closely with infrastructure providers to obtain relevant evidence. This should be achieved through meaningful engagement and established governance processes, whether conducted specifically for the IDP or more broadly as part of the Local Plan process.

Infrastructure providers often conduct their own demand and supply modelling independently, which may lead to inconsistencies in projections or assumptions—particularly regarding future population and housing growth. To promote consistency across different infrastructure types, providers should be encouraged to align their modelling with the population and housing projections used in the Local Plan. This alignment helps to ensure a coherent and integrated approach to infrastructure planning across sectors. 

Needs assessments are frequently carried out independently of Local Plan processes. As a result, they may not fully align with the specific requirements or timeframes of the IDP. It is therefore important for the IDP to acknowledge this potential misalignment and reinforce the need for periodic review. Updating the IDP in response to new or revised evidence ensures that it remains current, relevant, and reflective of actual infrastructure needs over time.

Sometimes, existing evidence will be outdated and may no longer reflect current circumstances. This should be discussed with the relevant infrastructure provider as part of your engagement activities. During these engagements, you should assess whether the evidence remains fit for purpose or whether further updates are required. The need for new or updated evidence should be considered in relation to the importance of the infrastructure in question and its role in delivering planned growth. Where infrastructure is critical to delivery or has significant investment implications, it is particularly important that the supporting evidence is current, reliable and clearly documented.

You should provide new or updated information as it becomes available and ensure that this is communicated to relevant stakeholders. This should be done through the engagement and governance mechanisms described in the governance section of this guidance.

When presenting evidence within the IDP, it is important to focus on material that is directly relevant to its purpose. Avoid including information that is already well established or widely understood, and do not repeat contextual content that has been addressed in other planning documents. Where appropriate, use signposting to refer readers back to original source documents instead of duplicating their content in full. This approach helps to maintain a focused, accessible, and proportionate document. By carefully managing the use and presentation of evidence in this way, you can ensure that the IDP remains a clear, practical, and effective tool for guiding infrastructure delivery.

Maps, diagrams, charts and tables can all help communicate evidence in a more accessible way. Visual formats are especially useful for showing the geographic distribution of infrastructure needs, identifying clusters or gaps, and illustrating phasing over time. Used effectively, these tools can enhance understanding for a range of audiences and strengthen the overall clarity and impact of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Any work with neighbouring authorities (for example through the Duty to Cooperate or Joint Local Plans), or with regional infrastructure providers, will put you in a good position for the preparation of infrastructure evidence for the new strategic layer of planning being introduced through Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs). For example this could be by sharing housing and population data between councils and key infrastructure providers such as energy and utiltiies companies, where forward-planning will help to address constraints on the grid. 

Practical steps you could take to facilitate this could include establishing a common, updateable database of housing and population projections that can be shared with infrastructure providers. Spatial data can be stored in various formats, depending on intended use cases and the amount of the data being stored and analysed. This often results in different organisations / councils storing data in different ways for different purposes. In order to ensure maximum accessibility, we propose using a consistent spatial data format across the different users. It might be possible for one organisation to host the information on behalf of the other organisations, and for them, to grant access to other parties. 

A helpful framework to categorise the various types of evidence that can be used to inform IDPs are provided below.

The table below outlines the key infrastructure items you may need to feed into an IDP, and the common sources of evidence that this information can be found in. Please not that this list is not exhaustive and should be used as a guide. Further guidance on infrastructure planning types, approvals and funding sources can be found here. The Planning Inspectorate maintains data and information about Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) on the NSIP Website.

Traditional IDPs are often treated as static documents - fixed snapshots that quickly become outdated in a fast-moving planning and infrastructure landscape. While it’s true that a 'moment in time' version is needed as evidence to support Local Plan submission, councils should maintain a live, actively managed IDP. A modern, data-driven and digital approach enables local authorities and infrastructure providers to create adaptable IDPs that respond to change efficiently. A dynamic IDP not only strengthens stakeholder engagement but also supports more transparent and effective use of developer contributions. Regularly updated project schedules and funding profiles help ensure that infrastructure planning remains relevant, joined-up, and ready to support infrastructure delivery.

Many local planning authorities are at different stages of using digital tools and data in their infrastructure planning. The approaches set out here are designed to be flexible and accessible. 

Digitised IDPs

Digitised IDPs are plans that are created, maintained, and accessed through digital formats. Rather than being produced as static documents, such as PDFs, digitised IDPs can be hosted on websites, making them easier to update on a regular basis and more accessible to a wider range of users. This increased flexibility allows for the content to remain current and relevant as circumstances evolve.

Data-informed IDPs

A data-informed IDP is one that draws on a range of data sources to support evidence-based planning and decision-making. These data sources might include housing and population data, which provide a foundation for understanding current and future needs across different communities. This information can help infrastructure providers to better align their planning and investment with expected patterns of growth and change.

Geospatial data can be a valuable source of insight for IDPs. Location-based infrastructure data can enable planners and other stakeholders to visualise existing and future provision, identify gaps, and explore potential future demand across different areas. Examples of this type of data might include details of infrastructure and service subtypes, capacity levels of existing assets, projected demand linked to future development and site allocations, and contextual indicators such as neighbourhood-level statistics.

While data can play a powerful role in informing IDPs, it is important that it is used alongside other forms of evidence. Qualitative input, such as insights gathered through engagement with stakeholders or communities, can provide essential context and nuance. 

IDP Project Schedules

As mentioned above, project schedules greatly benefit from visualisation, and this is strongly supported by consistent data collection. The IDP project schedule collates all the planned projects, their locations, budgets, timelines and more information to help you understand what is being delivered and when.

There is a growing need to modernise IDPs to make them more flexible, accessible, and responsive to change. Traditional static documents are often difficult to update, hard to navigate, and quickly become out of date. By adopting digital tools and using high-quality data, IDPs can better support infrastructure planning, improve collaboration, and enable more timely and informed decision making.

It is useful to distinguish between the IDP’s strategic needs assessment (the IDP Report) and its project schedule, as each benefit from digitisation in different ways. The needs assessment relies on input from infrastructure providers, which can quickly become out of date. A digital IDP allows sections to be updated more easily as new evidence becomes available. The project schedule, meanwhile, benefits from interactive visualisation and periodic updates, supported by better data management.

Most IDPs are static PDFs, making updates difficult and limiting accessibility, especially on mobile devices. Information is frequently presented in inconsistent formats, making analysis slow and complex. Timelines between evidence submission and IDP production often do not align, resulting in outdated inputs. Digitised IDPs allow for more flexible updates and better integration of new evidence over time. Where a PDF document is required, it could be exported from the latest version of the digital or web-based version.

Digitisation and data use bring several key advantages. They improve accuracy and consistency, reduce human error, and support scenario testing. They enable better stakeholder engagement through clearer, more accessible information. They also provide contextual understanding of project schedules which is difficult to achieve in static formats. Digital IDPs can be maintained as live documents, adapting to evolving needs and integrating essential data sets such as housing growth and population projections.

However, to realise these benefits, data must be well structured and consistent. Currently, poor formatting and variation in how data is presented make it difficult to analyse at scale. Considerable manual effort is often needed to make it machine readable. Addressing this will be key to enabling more effective, data-informed infrastructure planning.

Many councils already use digital tools provided by different suppliers to support infrastructure planning. However, this guidance has been designed to remain platform neutral, allowing the core principles of data standardisation and digitisation to be applied regardless of which systems or tools are in use. This ensures flexibility and wider relevance across different local contexts.

Supporting the digitisation of your IDP

To make your IDP more effective and dynamic, there are several steps you can take.

Start by standardising how you collect data. When data is captured in consistent formats across all infrastructure types and projects, it becomes much easier to analyse, compare, and share. For example, infrastructure costs might be presented in different ways across submissions where some may use abbreviations such as “£1m” while others list full figures like “1,000,000.00”. This is the type of issue which standardisation seeks to prevent. You will find a suggested structure for this in the model IDP schedule in the Practical tools and templates which sets out the guide to ensuring consistency across your data.

Next, work closely with your  data and digital teams to explore how you can make better use of the information you already hold. Instead of viewing the IDP as a static, one-off document, treat it as a live tool that evolves over time. A digital IDP allows you to update sections regularly as new evidence becomes available, supporting more accurate and responsive decision making.

You might also consider developing interactive dashboards to support internal engagement and communication with stakeholders. Dashboards can present key information visually, using charts, maps, and summaries that make it easier to interpret. You can design them to filter by infrastructure type, delivery timeline, location, or estimated cost. Spatial features can also help you and your colleagues understand how projects relate to each other geographically. Sharing these tools with partners or the public can strengthen collaboration and improve transparency. For the dashboard, you may choose to use readily available commercial solutions or develop your own in house. Each option will have advantages and disadvantage you should consider which solution would best fit your needs in collaboration with your data team.

Make sure you also consider the full data lifecycle which includes the whole process from collection and storage to how it is shared. Collect your data in formats that are machine readable so that it can be processed quickly and accurately. Work with your data teams to ensure that storage systems meet the council’s internal standards and policies.

Using data to inform your infrastructure needs assessment

A needs assessment identifies what infrastructure will be required to support planned growth in line with your local plan. It brings together information about future demand and existing capacity to highlight where new provision, upgrades or replacements may be needed. For example, an assessment might show that a new primary school is required to support housing growth in a specific location tied to a site allocation. The needs assessment should be closely linked to the Local Plan by using the same housing and population data and projections to ensure that infrastructure planning aligns with the scale, type and location of set out in your local plan.

To create an accurate picture of infrastructure need, you will need robust and consistent data. Where possible, use shared assumptions and data sources that align with your Local Plan. This particularly important when considering population growth projections. This helps ensure a common understanding across all services involved.

You should aim to gather detailed development pipeline information, including the number of units, size, and tenure. This allows infrastructure providers to assess the impact of growth at both a strategic and site-specific level. For example, the demands placed on services by a one-bedroom private flat will differ significantly from those of a four-bedroom affordable home. The more granular your data, the more targeted and effective your planning will be.

Publication 

Finally, consider how you present the IDP. Instead of publishing it as a static document, aim to make it available as a set of web pages. This improves accessibility, allows easier updates, and ensures that stakeholders can engage with the information from different devices. The case studies section shows an example of a web-based IDP and schedule for Greater Norwich.

You should also make sure the IDP meets accessibility requirements so that everyone can access and understand the content. To reach a broader audience, consider including a non-technical summary that clearly explains the key infrastructure challenges, the risks to delivering the Local Plan, and any recommended actions. Use the executive summary to highlight what matters most, so that councillors, stakeholders, and members of the public can quickly grasp the headline issues and take meaningful action. You may also choose to publish your project schedule in the form of a dashboard as mentioned above. 

We recognise that adopting a data and digital approach to infrastructure planning requires a specific set of technical skills and knowledge, which may not be readily available within your immediate team. This can include expertise in data management, analysis, visualisation, and digital tools. However, many of these capabilities often exist elsewhere within the council. We recommend exploring opportunities to collaborate with teams such as IT, business insights, or GIS, who may already hold valuable knowledge, tools, or systems that can support your work. Establishing these connections early can help build a more joined-up and efficient approach. A starting point for identifying relevant teams and how they can support is outlined below.

The Greater Norwich Infrastructure Plan

Greater Norwich Partnership 

The Greater Norwich Infrastructure Plan is a digital platform that offers a high-level overview of infrastructure projects required to support growth across the three district authorities. It presents a sortable list of projects, covering key information as shown in the images below. Although it does not assess the viability or deliverability of each project, the plan is designed to be regularly updated, ensuring it reflects the most current local context and infrastructure needs. 

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) plays a central role in supporting a Local Plan through examination. It provides the evidence that planned growth can be effectively supported by the timely provision of infrastructure. Local Plan Inspectors will assess whether the plan is "positively prepared," "justified," "effective," and "consistent with national policy", and the IDP is a key document in demonstrating these tests of soundness, particularly effectiveness and deliverability. 

A well-prepared IDP must demonstrate that there is a realistic and deliverable strategy for infrastructure provision that aligns with the proposed development trajectory. This means clearly showing what infrastructure is required, when it is needed, how much it will cost, who will deliver it, and how it will be funded. 

The IDP is more than just a technical list of projects. It should also provide a clear narrative that demonstrates how the council has engaged with infrastructure providers, considered challenges such as funding, delivery constraints, and gaps in evidence, and brought these elements together in a coherent plan. This narrative should show how infrastructure is expected to come forward in a timely, coordinated, and sustainable way.

This section of guidance outlines key considerations for the IDP within the Local Plan examination process. It explains how specific elements of the IDP can demonstrate deliverability - through the supporting evidence base, meaningful engagement with infrastructure providers, and a clearer understanding of costs and funding.

The IDP should provide a clear, comprehensive overview of the infrastructure required to support the Local Plan. The IDP should be spatially aligned with proposed development sites and strategic allocations, showing how infrastructure requirements vary across the plan area and over time. It should also address any uncertainties by identifying gaps in evidence, potential delivery risks, and key dependencies. Importantly, the IDP should explain how these will be managed, such as through ongoing monitoring, engagement, and future updates, so that the Local Plan remains deliverable and adaptable throughout its lifecycle. 

A core test of soundness is whether the plan is deliverable, and this applies equally to infrastructure as it does to housing or employment growth. The IDP must set out a clear and realistic trajectory for infrastructure delivery, aligned with the phasing of development. It should also provide cost estimates, identify responsible delivery partners, and outline confirmed and potential sources of funding. 

A robust and credible IDP relies on meaningful engagement with infrastructure providers, statutory consultees, and neighbouring authorities. The IDP should clearly reflect this engagement, demonstrating that it is based on up-to-date information and input from service providers. Where necessary, Statements of Common Ground should be used to confirm agreement on infrastructure responsibilities and dependencies. Inspectors will expect this engagement to be well-evidenced and ongoing, not a one-off exercise.

IDPs provide key evidence during Local Plan examinations. Inspectors will look for clear evidence that infrastructure has been properly planned, is deliverable, and supports the scale and distribution of proposed development. The following are some of the most common issues raised during examinations including areas where clearer information or stronger evidence can make a significant difference.

Lack of alignment between the IDP and site allocations

A common concern is when the IDP does not clearly link infrastructure needs to the proposed site allocations in the Local Plan. Each significant development site should have associated infrastructure requirements set out in the IDP. If there is no obvious relationship between the planned growth and the infrastructure planned to support it, Inspectors may question the deliverability of the Plan.

The link between site allocations and infrastructure may vary depending on the geographical context of your area. For example in some areas with large development sites or strategic allocations there may be a clear link between development and the provision of infrastructure to support it, as there is little or no existing infrastructure provision. 

In urban areas, this relationship may between development and infrastructure demand may be less direct, as there is often more existing infrastructure that can support new growth. Urban site allocations also tend to be smaller in scale, meaning they may not generate significant infrastructure requirements on their own. Instead, infrastructure needs often arise from the cumulative impact of multiple developments. In such cases, site allocations remain valuable, as they help identify potential locations for new or upgraded infrastructure to support planned growth. 

Vague or out-of-date information from infrastructure providers

Infrastructure evidence that is vague, outdated, or lacks confirmation from delivery partners can significantly undermine the credibility of the IDP. If the IDP relies on generic statements without up-to-date input or clear commitment from relevant stakeholders, Inspectors may consider infrastructure delivery to be uncertain or insufficiently planned. To avoid this, it is essential that the evidence base is current, robust, and supported by well evidenced engagement with infrastructure providers. 

Where infrastructure providers have been unresponsive, it is important to clearly document all attempts at engagement and use the best available evidence to inform the IDP. In such cases, the IDP should acknowledge any uncertainties, explain how these will be monitored over time, and set out contingency measures where possible. Flexibility in delivery assumptions, supported by clear governance and review mechanisms, can help demonstrate that the Local Plan remains realistic and responsive despite gaps in provider input.

Assumed infrastructure delivery without funding certainty

Some IDPs assume the delivery of major infrastructure projects without clearly explaining how they will be funded. While full funding does not always need to be fully secured at plan-making stage, the IDP should set out a credible and realistic pathway to delivery. This includes identifying potential funding sources, anticipated timelines, and responsible delivery partners. Unsupported assumptions – particularly for critical infrastructure – are likely to be challenged during examination and can undermine the Local Plan.

Unclear links between infrastructure delivery and development phasing

Effective infrastructure planning requires a clear alignment between infrastructure delivery and the timing of new development. IDPs should demonstrate how this coordination will be managed through the Local Plan. Where IDPs fail to indicate when key infrastructure will be delivered, particularly in relation to the phasing of major sites, Inspectors may question whether the proposed growth is sustainable or deliverable. Including clear timetables, phased IDP Schedules, or maps that link infrastructure and development trajectories can help address these concerns and strengthen the evidence base.

Insufficient evidence of engagement with key infrastructure providers 

Inspectors frequently seek reassurance that the council has engaged meaningfully with infrastructure providers and neighbouring authorities. If the IDP has been developed in isolation, or Statements of Common Ground are missing or weak, this can undermine the plan’s deliverability. Documenting early, ongoing engagement is essential to demonstrating that infrastructure planning is robust.

A robust IDP should be underpinned by clear evidence of infrastructure need and a structured approach to prioritisation. This helps ensure that resources and delivery efforts are focused on the infrastructure most critical to supporting planned growth. It also provides a clear narrative that links infrastructure delivery to the creation of sustainable, well-supported communities, reinforcing the coherence of the Local Plan.

We have provided below some suggested definitions for different categories of prioritisation based on good examples from practice. These can be adapted to suit the needs of different places or situations. 

• Infrastructure that is critical  – infrastructure that is fundamental to the delivery of the plan. Without it, development cannot proceed. This might include primary access roads, strategic utilities, or a new health facility on a large strategic site with no existing provision.
• Infrastructure that is necessary for development – Infrastructure that is required to ensure specific developments are viable, acceptable, and sustainable. While it may not need to be in place before development begins, it must be delivered in step with growth to meet policy requirements and avoid placing unacceptable pressure on existing services. Examples may include primary school expansions, bus service enhancements to support site accessibility, local waste and recycling facilities
• Infrastructure that is integral for placemaking – This infrastructure plays a central role in creating sustainable, inclusive, and high-quality places. It is closely aligned with wider Local Plan objectives and although development may not be wholly dependent on this infrastructure being in place from the outset, it is integral to delivering the full vision and policy ambitions of the plan. It should be clearly identified in the IDP and prioritised for delivery alongside or shortly after development. In many cases, planning policy will seek or require its inclusion through developer contributions or design standards. Examples may include green infrastructure, public realm improvements, community spaces, and digital infrastructure.

Importantly, infrastructure prioritisation should be informed by local context and geography. The role and significance of a piece of infrastructure may vary based on the scale, location, and existing provision in an area. For example, a new health centre could be classified as “critical” on a strategic site or new settlement with no existing provision, but “necessary” in a well-served urban location where existing facilities can accommodate some growth. 

The IDP should reflect these local distinctions clearly, drawing on up-to-date infrastructure capacity assessments, evidence of planned growth, and engagement with infrastructure providers to justify the categorisation used.

This prioritisation framework can help inform funding strategies, guide developer contributions, and shape infrastructure phasing decisions. It also strengthens the Local Plan by demonstrating a proportionate, evidence-led response to infrastructure needs and delivery in different places, spatial contexts, and development typologies.

Clear presentation of infrastructure delivery information is essential for making the IDP an accessible and effective tool, both for examination and for implementation. It should be easy for stakeholders, decision-makers, and Examiners to understand what infrastructure is required, when and where it will be delivered, and how it supports development across the plan period.

One of the most effective ways to present this information is through infrastructure delivery schedules. These can take the form of simple tables or Gantt-style charts, showing:

• The name and description of each infrastructure item.
• The location and site(s) it supports (which could include relevant site allocations)
• Its prioritisation (e.g., critical, essential, integral).
• The infrastructure provider, delivery body or responsible agency.
• Estimated costs and funding status (committed, identified, gap).
• Timing of delivery, aligned with development phasing.

A template infrastructure project schedule is included in the Practical tools and templates section of this guidance. It is provided in a digitised format but can be exported and when completed ‘fixed’ as an Excel or PDF document for inclusion in the evidence base for submission.

These schedules play a key role in demonstrating how infrastructure delivery is coordinated with planned growth. They help to clarify dependencies, highlight potential risks or funding shortfalls and provide more transparency. By serving as a practical tool for decision-making and monitoring they also support effective plan implementation.

In addition to project schedules, mapping can be a valuable way to show how infrastructure delivery relates to the spatial strategy and site allocations. For example, maps that overlay key infrastructure proposals on areas of planned growth or strategic development sites can help convey the spatial delivery and aid stakeholder understanding. 

Engagement with infrastructure providers is fundamental to the soundness, credibility and effectiveness of an IDP. Examiners will expect to see clear evidence that the IDP has been developed in collaboration with those responsible for delivering key infrastructure, that it reflects up-to-date information on capacity, investment plans, and delivery commitments.

Early engagement is essential. Infrastructure providers should be involved from the start of the IDP process, and should also be engaged as part of the wider development of the Local Plan not solely through the IDP. Their input should inform site selection, growth options, and spatial strategy choices, particularly where infrastructure capacity or investment timing may be a constraint.

The IDP should be developed iteratively through the different stages of the Local Plan and policy development. This allows infrastructure requirements to be properly considered in light of the plan’s evolving content. More detail on engagement and governance for IDPs is available in a separate section of this guidance. 

Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) are a key tool that can be used to demonstrate agreement between the local planning authority and infrastructure bodies. SoCGs should summarise what has been agreed, areas of ongoing discussion, and the implications for the Local Plan. Where appropriate, SoCGs can also help demonstrate compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, particularly for cross-boundary infrastructure.

Finally, it is important that infrastructure providers confirm that planned infrastructure is either already included in their investment programmes, or is expected to be incorporated in future iterations. Inspectors will look for confirmation that infrastructure providers are not only aware of their expected role, but have aligned their future plans and capital investment programmes accordingly.

Providing cost and funding information within the IDP is a key part of demonstrating how infrastructure delivery has been actively considered in the Local Plan. While estimates do not need to be definitive, they should give a clear indication of the scale of investment required and the extent to which it is financially feasible.

It is recognised that cost estimates may be drawn from existing evidence or secondary sources,  such as infrastructure providers, previous studies, or national cost benchmarks, rather than commissioned specifically for the IDP. This is acceptable, provided the methodology and sources are clearly explained and appropriately caveated. Transparency around how costs have been calculated is important for credibility and scrutiny.

The level of detail provided for each infrastructure item should reflect both the timing within the plan period and its importance to delivery. For infrastructure anticipated in the later stages of the plan period, indicative costs may be appropriate. However, for infrastructure required early in the plan, or identified as critical to delivery, more detailed and robust costings should be included. In such cases, a clear explanation of estimated costs, delivery responsibilities, and the intended funding strategy should be provided, even if full funding has not yet been secured.

Each item of infrastructure could be accompanied by a clear statement of funding status, using classifications such as:

• Committed – funding is secured and allocated.
• Identified – likely sources of funding have been identified, but confirmation is pending.
• Unfunded  – no funding source has yet been identified.

Whilst not compulsory, and open to adaptation to suit the structure of a given IDP, this classification helps to distinguish which elements of the IDP are deliverable in the short term, and where delivery risks or funding gaps exist.

Where delivery relies on third-party infrastructure bodies (e.g. National Highways, Integrated Care Boards or utility providers), it is important to reference their capital investment programmes and regulatory cycles. These timelines may not align with the production or review periods of your IDP . Referencing key frameworks, including the Road Investment Strategy (RIS), water company Asset Management Plans (AMP), or energy sector planning frameworks, and explaining how these will be monitored and integrated into future versions of the IDP, can demonstrate active coordination and effective management of uncertainty.

An IDP represents a snapshot in time, capturing the best available evidence and stakeholder input at the point of publication. However, infrastructure requirements, costs, funding streams, and delivery timescales are all subject to change over the lifetime of a Local Plan. To remain effective, the IDP must include a clear and proactive approach to monitoring and updating, ensuring it functions as a live and credible document throughout the Local Plan period.

To manage the risks associated with outdated or incomplete information, councils should set out within the IDP how it will be regularly reviewed and updated. This includes identifying:

• Responsibility - Who is responsible for monitoring  and updating the IDP;
• Frequency - How often it will be updated (e.g. annually, alongside the Authority Monitoring Report);
• Triggers - What events or changes would prompt an update (e.g. new infrastructure commitments, significant funding changes or changes to site delivery trajectories).

Regular and structured engagement with infrastructure providers is essential to keeping the IDP current. This can be supported through agreed governance arrangements – for example, ongoing forums or working groups  where councils and delivery bodies meet to share updates, identify and discuss emerging issues, and agree any changes to infrastructure planning assumptions. 

By building in transparent and ongoing monitoring processes, councils can maintain confidence in their infrastructure planning and respond more effectively to delivery challenges as they arise. More details on engagement and governance for IDPs can be found above.

A well-prepared IDP plays a critical role in demonstrating the soundness of the Local Plan. To support a smooth examination process, councils should take proactive steps to present infrastructure evidence clearly and build confidence in the plans deliverability. The following steps can help ensure the IDP stands up to scrutiny and provides a robust foundation at examination.

Use statements of common ground

Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) with key infrastructure providers, such as NHS bodies, education authorities, transport operators, and utilities, can provide Examiners with confidence that delivery responsibilities are clearly understood and shared. SoCGs should set out the infrastructure requirements that have been agreed, identify any unresolved issues, and confirm alignment with relevant funding or investment plans. They are particularly useful where infrastructure delivery crosses administrative boundaries or depends on multi-agency coordination.

Provide supporting technical notes or appendices

Where more detail is required, such as for cost estimates, delivery schedules, or assumptions around phasing, technical notes or appendices can be used to supplement the main IDP document. These can help councils to clarify complex evidence and pre-empt potential examination questions, especially where infrastructure items are critical to the spatial strategy.

Consider involving infrastructure providers at examination

Where appropriate, councils may invite key infrastructure providers to participate in examination hearings. Their direct input can support the evidence base and demonstrate strong active partnership working and offer further assurance that infrastructure requirements are understood, resourced and aligned with wider investment planning.

Maintain a live evidence base between submission and examination

Given the time lag that can occur between plan submission and examination hearings, councils should be prepared to update aspects of their IDP to reflect any significant changes. This might include revised programme information, updated delivery schedules, new funding announcements or changes in provider investment plans. Where appropriate, councils can publish updates to the IDP or submit short update notes in advance of relevant hearing sessions to ensure the Inspector has access to the most current position.

This guidance is focussed on helping councils prepare a clear, fit-for-purpose brief when commissioning an IDP. Whether you are appointing external consultants or drawing on internal expertise, this note outlines the key issues to consider so that your IDP supports your Local Plan, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and wider infrastructure planning and delivery. It includes a helpful checklist to guide the scope and structure of your brief. Whatever your procurement process, this guidance will help ensure you commission the right support and secure a focused, effective IDP.

This guidance is focussed on helping councils write a clear, focused and robust Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) report as part of their Local Plan and / or CIL Charging Schedule evidence base. It complements the broader PAS infrastructure guidance by zooming in on the structure, content and presentation of the IDP document itself. It sets out suggested sections, provides tips for aligning with the Local Plan strategy, and links to the model IDP project schedule to streamline drafting. Whether you're creating an IDP in-house or commissioning external support, this resource is designed to help you produce a user-friendly, policy-compliant report that supports delivery and plan soundness.

This editable project schedule template is designed to help councils capture, organise and present infrastructure requirements as part of their IDP. It supports the drafting of the IDP report by providing a structured format for identifying what infrastructure is needed, when and where it is required, who is responsible for delivery, how it will be funded, and what level of prioritisation it holds. The template complements the PAS guidance on writing an IDP report and can be tailored to fit your local context, whether by infrastructure type, spatial area, or delivery phase. It is a flexible tool to support evidence gathering, phasing, monitoring, and engagement with internal teams and infrastructure providers.

Councils often face difficult decisions when prioritising infrastructure projects with limited funding, time, and capacity. This Infrastructure Prioritisation Tool has been developed to help you compare and assess diverse projects through a structured, transparent, and locally relevant scoring framework. Whether you are preparing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), updating a Spending Plan, or supporting Local Plan delivery, this tool will help you focus on what matters most - unlocking growth, enabling development, and delivering long-term value for communities.