Cost focused Strategic Case prompt

Cost focused 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:

• 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.
• A service improvement tool: A new system to improve an aspect of the planning service, such as a planning alerts system or a publicly accessible map of planning constraints.

 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

[Include at least two SMART risk- or compliance-removal targets]

3. Case for change

[This is the core of your argument. Quantify the financial pain and show how the intervention unlocks cash or income.

Some examples are set out below:

Inefficient processes consume cash and suppress income

• Legacy systems we can retire: We currently pay [£X/year] for [system(s)] that the new tool would replace. Ending these contracts from [Month/Year] yields [£X] cashable savings.

• Agency and overtime in Planning: Last year agency/overtime cost was [£X]. The new tool enables a [Y%] reduction = [£X × Y%] cashable saving (to be removed from the [Planning] pay budget).

• Pre‑application advice income: Last year pre‑apps generated [£X] from [N] cases. The new tool is expected to increase completed, chargeable pre‑apps by [Y%] = +[£X × Y%] income within existing FTE (cost‑recovery basis).

Additional suggestions (use only if evidence is readily available)

• Additional PPA income

• Invalid application rates and rework reduction.

• Pre‑application no‑shows/cancellations and refunds avoided.

• External consultancy for tasks the tool replaces (e.g., transcription/visualisation).

• FOI/EIR volumes related to planning datasets reduced via proactive publication.

• Programme slippage costs (consultancy extensions, overtime for extra committees).]

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.)

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.

Option 1: Business as Usual / ‘Do Nothing’. This is your baseline. Describe the current approach and its associated costs, risks, and (dis)benefits.

Option 2: ‘Do Minimum’. What is the smallest credible change you could make? This might be a tactical, short-term enhancement to the existing process.

Option 3: The Recommended Option. Describe your proposed course of action. This should represent a more significant change designed to deliver optimal value.

(Optional) Option 4: A more radical/alternative option. This could be a much larger-scale transformation to show the boundaries of what was considered.

The detailed analysis of these options will follow in the Economic Case.]

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.