Base Strategic Case prompt

Base Strategic Case prompt

Strategic case

[This section explains why the project is needed. It must present a robust and compelling case for change, grounded in evidence of current service limitations and strategic priorities. A clear, well-evidenced strategic case is vital for securing initial buy-in from senior management and elected members, especially when introducing new technology or ways of working.]

1. Project description

[Provide a high-level overview of what you are proposing to do. Be specific about the type of digital intervention, referencing the problem it solves. Your project could be:

• An AI-driven data extraction and analysis tool: Using artificial intelligence to automatically read unstructured documents like PDFs and maps and turn them into structured data.
• A development management process improvement tool: Introducing technology to improve the efficiency of the development management process. This could be an AI-powered validation tool that automatically checks planning applications for validity and completeness, or a modern, fit-for-purpose back office case management system to replace a legacy platform.
• A public engagement and consultation tool: An interactive, map-based platform to consult on a Local Plan, masterplan, or planning applications, designed to increase and diversify public participation.
• A communication and visualisation tool: Using 3D models, VR, or fly-through videos to better communicate proposed changes to the public realm, helping residents understand the real-world impact of development and provide more informed feedback.
• An internal process and data management tool: A new digital workflow to improve the efficiency of a statutory process, such as a ‘Call for Sites’ or site allocation, by broadening the sources of data and automating manual analysis.

 Explain the core activities (e.g. procurement, pilot, in-house development) and key stakeholders (e.g. Planning Policy, Communications, IT, Regeneration, community groups).]
 

2. Project objectives

[List the SMART objectives for the project. These should be outcomes-focused. 

Here are some examples to get you going:

• For process efficiency: To automate X% of the manual data entry for the [Call for Sites / Regulation 18] consultation, reducing officer time on this task by an estimated Y hours.
• For better communication and understanding: To increase resident comprehension of [e.g. spatial trade-offs in the masterplan], measured by a pre- and post-experience survey showing an X% increase in understanding of key design principles.
• For broader and more diverse engagement: To increase the number of unique participants in the [X] consultation by Y% compared to the 20XX baseline, with a specific target to increase responses from the 18-35 age demographic from A% to B%.
• For creating a new evidence base: To create a new, geo-located dataset of community infrastructure priorities, with at least X data points, to directly inform the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Service Plans.
• For building in-house capacity: To establish a corporate, reusable digital engagement platform and upskill X officers in its use, creating a sustainable, long-term asset for the council beyond the initial project.
• For better decision making: To access X more live data points to reach decisions Y times faster on planning applications.]

3. Case for change

[This is the core of your argument. Clearly articulate the ‘burning platform’ by describing the problems with the current ‘status quo’, as much as possible drawing on evidence that reflects both internal and external challenges. 
 
Examples from previous projects the PropTech programme has funded:

The external problem – ineffective public engagement: Current methods often fail to engage a broad cross-section of the community. This leads to:

• Low and unrepresentative participation: Decisions are often based on feedback from a small, consistent demographic, with younger people and other seldom-heard groups significantly underrepresented. This creates a democratic deficit and can lead to a lack of trust. This lack of engagement at the early stage of plan making often leads to entrenched opposition to new development later in the process. This increases planning risk, can cause delays and ultimately acts as a barrier to delivering new homes.

• Poor user experience: Presenting complex planning information in non-interactive, text-heavy formats (like PDFs) is “off-putting and hard to engage with” for many people, creating a barrier to participation.

The internal problem – inefficient processes: Current systems and workflows are often outdated and resource-intensive. This results in:

• Significant officer time on low-value tasks: Highly skilled planning officers spend a large amount of time on manual, administrative work like data entry, transcription, and basic analysis. Several past projects demonstrated that new digital tools delivered significant reductions in this type of work.

• Budgetary pressures from process breakdown: The high level of manual work and system inefficiencies directly leads to processing backlogs. To manage statutory deadlines and prevent service collapse, the service is forced into reactive, expensive spending. For example, last year, the service spent [e.g. £80,000] on agency staff and overtime to keep up with demand. This is not a sustainable solution and diverts funds that could be invested in permanent service improvement.

• Reliance on unsuitable corporate tools: While the council has invested in corporate platforms, these general-purpose tools are not equipped to handle the specialist requirements of the planning service. This results in a lack of essential functionality, poor public-facing experience, and hidden costs and complexity.

• Difficulty communicating complex issues: Relying on 2D plans and technical reports makes it difficult for officers to effectively communicate the real-world impact of spatial proposals to non-experts, including residents, businesses, and even elected members.

• A fragmented evidence base: Data is often held in separate systems and formats, making it difficult to analyse holistically and build a robust, integrated evidence base for plan-making and decision-making.

The risk of inaction (the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario): Frame this as a costly option. Continuing with the status quo means accepting:

• Decisions based on an incomplete evidence base and unrepresentative feedback.

• Continued inefficient use of skilled officer time, creating a hidden cost and preventing them from focusing on higher-value work.

• A growing disconnect and lack of trust between the council and its communities.

• Potential for delays and challenges to the soundness of plans due to inadequate or poorly evidenced consultation.]

4. Strategic fit

[Explain how this project helps deliver the council’s key priorities. Here are some prompting questions to guide your response:

• How does this project support the council’s Corporate Plan? (e.g. Does it align with priorities around being a more digital, transparent, or resident-focused council?)
• How does it enable wider transformation programmes? (e.g. Does it support a Customer Experience Strategy, a Digital Strategy, or a channel shift programme?)
• Which service objectives does it help deliver? (e.g. The need to produce a sound Local Plan, deliver a successful regeneration scheme, or improve the efficiency of the Development Management service.)
• How does it address known political or strategic challenges? (e.g. A history of low public trust in the planning process, or a corporate commitment to improve how the council uses data in decision-making.)
• How does this link to broader government digital transformation goals/planning reform/housing delivery targets?

Projects positioned as catalysts for wider, positive change (e.g. building new skills, creating corporate assets) are more likely to secure long-term support.]

5. Options appraisal

[Briefly introduce the main options considered to meet the project objectives. A robust business case appraises a range of credible options to demonstrate that the chosen path has been thoroughly tested. A common and effective way to structure this is to show a logical progression of ambition, ensuring the “Do Nothing” option is always included as the baseline for comparison.]
 

Disclaimer: This template is provided for illustrative planning purposes only. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Digital Task Force for Planning (DTFP) make no warranty as to accuracy or fitness for purpose, and the estimates do not constitute financial, legal, procurement, technical, or other professional advice. Users must verify all inputs and outputs and obtain appropriate professional advice before making decisions. The MHCLG, DTFP, and their representatives are not liable for any loss arising from use of the template. Do not enter personal or confidential information; ensure use complies with your organisation’s governance policies.