Consultation outcome

Government response to the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) consultation

Updated 24 October 2022

Government response to the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) consultation

A consultation response on potential legislative reform and the proposed future operating model of NUAR to maximise the benefits to the UK economy

This response is published on 24th October 2022

Response to a consultation carried out by the Geospatial Commission, an expert committee of the Cabinet Office.

Introduction and contact details

This document is the post-consultation report for the consultation paper, The National Underground Asset Register.

It will cover:

• the background to the report
• a summary of the respondents to the report
• a detailed response to the specific questions raised in the report
• the next steps following this consultation.

Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by contacting The NUAR Delivery Unit at the address below:

NUAR Delivery Unit
The Geospatial Commission
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU

Email: nuar-futuremodel@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from nuar-futuremodel@cabinetoffice.gov.uk.

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact Cabinet Office at the above address.

Background

The Geospatial Commission published a public consultation paper ‘The National Underground Asset Register’ on 7th April 2022. It invited views to shape the future operating model of NUAR and should be read alongside this document.

The consultation was split into three sections and asked a total of nine questions. The first section looked at current experiences of those working in the sector who share/ gather data relating to underground assets. The following section concerned the potential need to legislate and what the scope of such legislation should be. The final section asked one question regarding the potential funding mechanism to support the ongoing service.

The consultation period closed on 2nd June 2022 and this report summarises the responses, including how the consultation process is influencing further development of the policy consulted upon.

We have also published a Welsh language summary/consultation paper.

Summary of respondents

A total of 164 responses to the consultation paper were received and analysed with the majority (146) being received through the online survey site. A small number (18) were provided by alternative formats such as completed responses sent in via email. Not all responses answered every question, so breakdowns will be provided for each question.

Respondents represented a wide range of interested groups including local authorities, utility companies, surveyors, regulators and members of the public. Whilst the number of responses from across all stakeholders was high, there were smaller sample sizes within some stakeholder groups which means that responses should not be seen as fully comprehensive / representative on all questions. A breakdown of the respondents is set out below:

Respondent Type	Count	%
Individual	50	30%
Local Authority	36	22%
Utility Company	30	18%
Other Organisations	48	29%
Total	164	100%

In support of the consultation, the Geospatial Commission held a series of webinars with relevant stakeholders and members of the public to promote awareness and to answer questions about the technical nature of the questions posed.

The NUAR team maintains a regular dialogue with other government departments, local authorities, utility companies, regulators, and relevant technical experts in regards to the current build phase of the project. Care has been taken to ensure that these discussions have not unduly affected the conclusions of the consultation.

Responses to specific questions

The main body of the consultation was split into three sections which totaled 9 questions. Four questions included a closed response (yes/no) whilst the remainder asked for specific information. All included a free text box where respondents could elaborate further on their position.

Section 1: The case for NUAR

The purpose of the questions in Section 1 was to gather further information about the current practice for those that work in the sector. This section was not directly relevant to all groups and some responses were left blank so the number of responses on this section is lower. Further, a number of answers demonstrated that some respondents may have misinterpreted the question and provided answers which were less relevant to the question asked.

The Geospatial Commission has previously worked closely with those in the sector to understand their current experience and will continue to ensure the evidence base to support NUAR remains as up to date as possible.

Q1: Approximately how much does it cost your organisation to provide data on the location of underground assets each month?

The purpose of this question was to understand how asset owners comply with the current legislation which sets out the requirements in regards to data sharing relating to underground assets. Asset owners must make their data available to certain companies or agencies undertaking work around the highway network (known as statutory undertakers) free of charge.

44 responses were provided on this question with a wide range of costs and varying degrees of detail about current data provision costs to meet this obligation. Whilst commercial sensitivities and the quality of some of the answers mean we cannot provide reliable detailed analysis of the responses to this question, a general picture showed that large utility companies reported some of the highest costs for sharing data whilst local authorities reported some of the lowest. Responses also showed that there are a number of hidden costs associated with this depending on the exact systems organisations use to share this data.

Q2: Approximately how many organisations do you contact in order to get access to a complete dataset of underground infrastructure on average per project?

Number of companies contacted	Total
1	9
2-5	25
6-10	27
11-20	9
20+	5

Whilst there are a limited number of existing search providers that offer a service to manage queries regarding underground assets in partnership or on behalf of asset owners, these offerings are incomplete. As such, statutory undertakers often need to contact multiple relevant asset owners to confirm underground apparatus in a given area in order to support safe working.

This question asked statutory undertakers about this process and 75 responses were provided with a significant range of responses, from 1-100 organisations being contacted. Companies have various internal processes which may include consulting records already held, contacting search providers as well as directly contacting asset owners. From the analysis, the majority contacted under 7 organisations per project which was largely consistent across organisation types.

Q3: Approximately how long (in hours or days) on average does it take to receive all the data on the location of underground infrastructure you require from asset owners following the initial request?

Organisation size	Large (250+)	Medium (50-249)	Small (10-49)	Micro (0-9)
Average Number of days	3.7	7.2	7.2	4.3

Once statutory undertakers have requested data from the various providers, they have to wait to receive this data. 67 responses were provided on this question with a significant amount of variation between respondents. Analysis of these responses looked at the different experiences based on organisation size (measured by the number of employees). On average, organisations had to wait 4.7 days to receive all the data they require. Larger organisations had to wait the least time to receive underground asset data on average per project. Small and medium organisations experienced the longest time to wait to receive this data.

Q4: Once received, approximately how long (in hours or days) does it take you to process the data from the various sources into a useful standardised format or information pack for use on a job?

Statutory undertakers receive data from asset owners at different times and in various formats due to individual processes by asset owners / intermediaries. In order to use the data effectively, it needs to be collated and standardised. From the 60 responses provided for this question, the average time taken to do this was 1.4 days - which was largely consistent across most groups. Smaller companies were the exception, taking nearly twice as long on average compared to large and medium sized companies.

Section 2: Assessing the need for legislation

The next four questions asked respondents for their views on potential legislative reform.

Q5: Do you believe 100% participation is achievable without legislation?

Response	Count	%
Yes	34	21%
No	117	71%
Blank	13	8%
Total	164	100%

We asked this question to identify if respondents believed legislation was required in order to ensure all asset owners participated in NUAR (i.e. contributed their data), thus ensuring that it contained all the data users need, when they need it, to carry out their duties effectively and safely.

The majority view (71%) was that 100% participation would not be achievable without legislation (i.e. responded ‘No’). Over one third of those who responded ‘No’, indicated that without legislation some organisations would not provide their data voluntarily. Some respondents stated that they might not take part due to perceived effort and cost associated with providing data voluntarily. Other reasons included the fact that some organisations currently generate an income by providing this data to third parties or have commercial concerns regarding sharing this data.

Approximately half of the respondents who  answered ‘Yes’ (i.e. that 100% participation is achievable without legislation) felt that the expected benefits of NUAR are incentive enough to encourage asset owners to provide their data voluntarily. A smaller proportion (4 responses) expressed that 100% participation was not necessary. A further 5 responses answered ‘yes’ that it is possible to achieve 100% participation without legislation but noted in their comments that legislation could be beneficial and should still be pursued.

It was also highlighted that Scotland has already legislated in a similar way.

Q6: To what extent do you agree that the government should require data ingested into the platform to be consistent with the data model?

Response	Count	%
Strongly Agree/Agree	115	70%
Neutral	15	9%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree	23	14%
Blank	11	7%
Total	164	100%

A standardised NUAR data model has been created, which ensures data accessed via the platform is in a standardised format and a data transformation service is currently centrally provided as part of the delivery phase. Whether and / or how this centralised provision continues in the future operational phase of NUAR is yet to be determined. 70% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that data ingested into the NUAR platform should be consistent with the data model.  In addition to this, some respondents noted the benefits of having standardised data on the platform.

Of those that agreed, some commented on how the data model could be implemented. Some respondents wanted to see asset owners involved in the specification design and others suggested a phased approach is taken to introduce the data model to support compliance.

14% of respondents strongly disagreed/ disagreed that standardised data was required. Of these, there were two main comments: (a) that because data is stored in a variety of formats there is a cost and associated work; or (b) consistent data standards are not necessary.

The remaining 16% of respondents left the question blank or were neutral.

Q7. Do you agree that it could be beneficial to expand the prescribed use cases for NUAR in the future?

Response	Count	%
Yes	123	75%
No	26	16%
Blank	15	9%
Total	164	100%

The core reasons for delivering NUAR are to improve efficiencies in construction and development, reduce disruption and improve workers’ safety. Through continued stakeholder engagement other potential improvements have also been identified including the rollout of fibre broadband and electric vehicle charge points, coordination of streetworks, emergency response, flood risk planning, resilience planning and alternative energy production and distribution.

Overall, 75% of responses were supportive of future expansion beyond the current prescribed use cases of NUAR. Many commented on the benefits of expanding access to maximise value of the data and enable wider use cases. In their comments, over 40 respondents identified specific additional use cases where NUAR data could add value, such as coordination of street works, assisting in planning projects and supporting climate action.

Approximately one third of those that responded ‘No’,commented that they would support potential expansion after NUAR’s core objectives had been delivered. This sentiment was also echoed by some who responded ‘Yes’.

Across both groups there were some common themes that arose including concerns about commercial sensitivities of the data and security of the system if access was widened. Some responses also requested that asset owners be involved in decisions about expanding access.

Q8. Do you have any views about how NUAR should be run once it is fully operational including the status and remit of the responsible body?

Response	Count	%
Provided a response	123	75%
Blank	41	25%
Total	164	100%

Responses to question 8 covered a wide range of topics including ownership of NUAR, access, charging, as well as general comments and views.

One fifth of respondents stated NUAR should be run by the Government/another public sector body. This was three times the number of respondents who noted a preference for private ownership. Whilst there were other approaches identified such as a public/private partnership, the total number of these responses was much lower.

On the topic of charging and accessing the NUAR service, these are covered in more detail in other questions (Q6 & Q9) but, 14% of respondents felt NUAR should be free to access, at least for some parties. Support for open access to the data, whether for safe digging purposes or otherwise was also referenced in 9 responses.

There were a number of comments related to earlier questions on the need to ensure commercial and security requirements continue to be addressed. A number of responses also detailed opportunities for NUAR to work with the wider market to support the delivery of value added services.

Section 3: Accessing NUAR

Q9. To what extent do you agree that NUAR should charge;
a. Asset owners
b. Statutory undertakers
c. Users for non-statutory purposes

Response	Charge Asset Owners	Charge Statutory Undertakers	Charge Non-statutory users
Strongly Agree/Agree	64 (39%)	62 (38%)	76 (46%)
Neutral	30 (18%)	31 (19%)	31 (19%)
Strongly Disagree/Disagree	58 (35%)	59 (36%)	42 (26%)
Blank	12 (7%)	12 (7%)	15 (9%)
Total	164	164	164

Responses to this question were relatively evenly split, with some preference in favour of charging asset owners (39% in favour, 35% against) and charging statutory undertakers (38% in favour, 36% against). There was a slightly stronger preference for charging users for non-statutory purposes (46%). A notable minority (approximately 20%) had no preference for or against charging any of the groups identified.

Those in favour of charging asset owners noted that the proposed benefits of NUAR will mostly be felt by asset owners as they will see efficiencies in data sharing and would no longer need to manage their own individual systems to make data available for statutory purposes. As such, it is thought that they could be charged a fee to support the system. Conversely, other respondents commented that utility companies may pass on the cost of providing their data to consumers. Additionally, a number of responses recommended engagement with asset owners prior to any fee being implemented to ensure it is proportional.

Similarly, those in favour of charging statutory undertakers for access to data noted that the expected benefits of NUAR in terms of expected time savings for excavations provides a rationale for why statutory undertakers could be charged. However, for statutory undertakers, some respondents noted that current legislation provides statutory undertakers with the right to access data on underground assets for free. There were concerns that by charging them, statutory undertakers would either bypass NUAR and continue to go directly to asset owners for data on underground assets, which would undermine the expected efficiencies of NUAR; or would limit their searches on NUAR in order to cut costs which would have knock-on consequences for safe digging. Again, some responses stressed this should be proportional to the expected savings.

Finally, on users for non-statutory purposes, many of those in favour of charging these users commented on the number of groups that could be charged for various purposes which could cover costs of providing the NUAR service. Those not in favour of charging non-statutory users noted that the revenue generated by non-statutory users alone would unlikely be sufficient to cover the full cost of the service. Additionally, some respondents noted that charging users for non-statutory purposes could be viewed as an attempt to dominate the market and stifle innovation for third parties.

Conclusion and next steps

The number and variety of responses to the consultation have provided helpful insights into the views of those working in the underground asset sector as well as other interested parties.

Having reviewed all of the responses, they can be summarised as follows:

1. Large utility companies reported some of the highest costs for sharing data with statutory undertakers, whilst local authorities reported some of the lowest;
2. The majority of respondents stated that it takes several days following the initial request to access the data to receive all the information they require from asset owners
3. Most respondents agreed that legislation is likely to be required to achieve 100% participation;
4. There is a preference for the database containing all of the data to be controlled by government due to significant commercial and security risks of any data misuse or breach, but an understanding of potential roles for the private sector in other elements;
5. Respondents noted a potential opportunity for non-statutory users to be charged for access to NUAR data, e.g. conveyancers / property developers;
6. There is no consensus on who should fund NUAR in the operational phase but general agreement that those who benefit from the service should contribute.

Following the conclusion of this consultation, there is further work to be undertaken:

• Developing a charging framework that takes into account the comments raised by respondents;
• Continued exploration of potential legislative reform;
• Considering opportunities for the wider market to enhance the NUAR service.

As part of this further work on the future operating model of NUAR, the Geospatial Commission is committed to continuing engagement with relevant parties to ensure the adoption and value of the service is maximised. This will be done through further workshops and the establishment of a new advisory group. The Geospatial Commission will also share future policy updates when appropriate on GOV.UK and with relevant parties.

Finally, the Commission thanks everyone who took the time to provide a response to the consultation, and looks forward to keeping you informed as the delivery of NUAR progresses.