Pilot proposal · October 2026 · for discussion
Derby Land Passport Living Lab
A proposed research collaboration between industry, the University of Derby and Derby City Council to test whether one traceable digital site record can reduce duplicated work, improve planning information and preserve knowledge throughout a building's life — starting with one real Derby site, evaluated independently, and designed to complement the city's existing Digital Twin.
Can a persistent, source-traceable digital record reduce information loss and duplicated effort between land appraisal, planning consent, construction and property handover?
01 / Why now
National policy is moving towards digital property records.
The government's Home buying and selling reform roadmap (June 2026) supports digital property logbooks and sales packs, and HM Land Registry's Business Plan 2026+ commits to testing logbooks, common data standards and wider use of Unique Property Reference Numbers. Logbooks already exist for finished homes; Land Passport tests extending the record back to land appraisal and planning.
82% support
82% of consultation responses agreed the government should support wider use of digital property logbooks and packs. The government intends to legislate to make them a standard part of transactions when parliamentary time allows; they are not yet mandatory.
Read the government's full reform roadmap ↗First requirements under consideration
From 2027 the government will consider which government homeownership schemes should require digital logbooks and packs. HM Land Registry will test new ways to access property information, including logbooks, with the Digital Property Market Steering Group.
HM Land Registry Business Plan 2026+ ↗02 / Test-site options
Two ways to run the first pilot.
Both options use a real Derby site with a consenting owner or developer. They test different things, so partners can choose which leads and run the other as a separately scoped study.
City-centre site within the council's Digital Twin area
A development already subject to the council's 3D-model requirement, so the same model can serve the city twin and the site's passport.
Interoperability with Derby's existing city twin; how submissions, revisions and approvals could be kept with the site.
Strongest story for the council and the twin's provider; uses a workflow that already exists.
More parties and approvals; model preparation and import costs are set case by case; agreement from Digital Urban needed before any integration is claimed; city-centre schemes are larger and slower.
5–20 homes within the city boundary, from raw land
A small residential site taken from first appraisal through planning, construction and handover.
The full information chain on one manageable site, with a clear baseline for time saved and records kept.
Simpler governance; one developer; easiest to measure; closest to the national logbook direction.
May sit outside the city model's coverage; construction and occupation take longer than a research period, so the operational-life test uses an existing occupied building.
03 / Record structure
One permanent site record, with linked child records.
A site rarely stays one thing: one parcel can become twelve plots, each with its own address, title and building. The passport keeps a permanent parent record so the land's history survives subdivision, sale and redevelopment.
Illustrative structure. The Land Passport ID is its own permanent identifier, linked to official identifiers rather than replacing them. Surveyed boundaries, title plans and GIS parcel outlines stay separate: title plans generally show general, not exact legal, boundaries.
04 / Data status
Every item says where it came from and how far to trust it.
Appearing in a passport does not make a document approved. Each item carries its source, date, responsible party and one of four status labels.
Verified
Confirmed against an authoritative source by a named, responsible party.
e.g. decision notice checked against the council's planning registerImported
Taken from a stated source but not independently checked.
e.g. a developer's uploaded drawing; open planning dataInferred
Calculated or predicted from other data — useful, but not official.
e.g. development scenario or uplift estimate — not a valuationSimulated
Illustrative or demonstration data only.
e.g. the live twin feed on the briefing page05 / Deliverables and acceptance criteria
What the pilot would deliver and how it would be judged.
Baselines are measured before the prototype is used. Thresholds below are proposals for the University to refine; results would be reported whether or not they are met.
| Measure | Baseline method | Proposed pass threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Information retrieval time | Time to find an agreed set of site documents and facts from current sources | At least 40% faster using the passport |
| Document completeness | Agreed checklist of land, planning and design records for the site | At least 90% of checklist items present, with gaps shown |
| Provenance accuracy | Independent audit sample of items | 100% carry source, date and status; audit error 5% or less |
| Auditability | Change history review | Every change logged with who, when and why |
| Usability | Standard System Usability Scale with officers, developer and researchers | Score of 70 or more |
| Handover usefulness | Structured feedback from the developer and an occupier or asset manager | Majority rate the record more useful than current handover |
Deliverables: a working site passport with provenance, permissions and version history; an IFC model linked to the record; an evaluation report; and a short data specification others could reuse.
06 / Partner roles
Different reasons to take part.
| University of Derby | Derby City Council | |
|---|---|---|
| Main interest | Applied research, knowledge exchange, publishable evidence | Better planning information, efficiency, digital transformation |
| Contribution | Research design, ethics, methodology, independent evaluation, students | Workflow requirements, planning context, officer feedback |
| First step | Research scoping and feasibility discussion | Exploratory meeting with planning and digital officers — no procurement or endorsement asked |
| Main constraint | Academic capacity and financing | Procurement, security, capacity, public accountability |
| Later role | KTP or wider applied R&D | Formal public-sector pilot, if value is shown |
A developer or landowner provides the site, permitted drawings and reports, feedback and, ideally, a contribution to pilot costs. The Land Passport team provides the prototype and built-environment coordination. No organisation is an agreed participant yet.
07 / Roadmap
Prove one site before scaling.
| Period | Delivery | Proof of progress |
|---|---|---|
| Oct – Nov 2026 | Refine the briefing; confirm the operating company; build one real, sourced site record from public data | Working passport with provenance, permissions and version history |
| Nov 2026 – Jan 2027 | University scoping, council conversation, developer recruitment, KTP eligibility review | Research questions, pilot roles, outline budget and a suitable site |
| Feb – Apr 2027 | Build the land-to-planning prototype with public GIS and project records | Testable end-to-end record, with missing information visible |
| May – Oct 2027 | Independent evaluation of planning and design workflows; IFC and document handover tests | Measured baseline-versus-prototype results |
| 2028 onwards | Paid developer pilots, interoperability partnerships, asset-management features | Repeatable product and data-governance arrangements |
A new development will not complete planning, construction and years of occupation within a research period. The live site covers land and planning; an existing occupied building covers the operational-life test. Public data would start from the government's Planning Data platform and other licensed sources — not every council document, utility record or title is available through one API.
08 / Funding — realistic view
Where the money could come from, and the conditions.
| Programme | Opportunity | Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| Innovate UK KTP | Round 4 opens 19 Oct 2026, closes 20 Jan 2027. Illustrative total project cost ~£204k over 24 months. | University-led; the company co-funds about a third (~£67k on that budget) and needs at least two full-time-equivalent staff, financial evidence and an IP agreement. Round 4 terms to be checked when published. |
| Geovation Accelerator | Up to £20k equity-free, with Ordnance Survey and HM Land Registry data and mentoring. | Competitive; next application dates not yet confirmed. |
| PropTech Innovation Fund | MHCLG interest in planning technology; Round 6 shared £2.4m across 11 consortia. | No new round confirmed; past rounds needed at least two planning authorities. |
| EMCCA Local Growth Fund | £107m regional plan across several priorities. | Not an open grant for this project — a route for strategic alignment. |
The pilot does not depend on winning a KTP. The first steps are research interest, a small working demonstrator, one development partner and a check of company eligibility. No application has yet been made. Full funding register ↗
09 / Governance
Set out before any real data is used.
To be confirmed in a pilot agreement
- Data controller and processor roles for each organisation and project (see the governance framework; intended operator: FOX Intelligence, to be confirmed)
- Ownership of intellectual property and research outputs
- Data custody, portability and continued access if a party withdraws
- Information security and professional liability
- Permissions for each record and each partner
Building safety records
The statutory "golden thread" under the Building Safety Act applies to higher-risk buildings. A typical 5–20 home scheme falls outside that regime; the pilot would apply the same principles — accurate, traceable, kept up to date — voluntarily.
A developer-funded creation fee plus ongoing record hosting and transfer, rather than asking councils or homeowners to fund a new service from the outset.
Start with one real site.
A 30-minute conversation to agree the lead option, the research questions and a realistic route to funding.
Request a scoping call →One-page briefing (PDF) ↓