{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Article", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/climate-adaptation-evidence-and-local-plan-scenario-manager", "slug": "climate-adaptation-evidence-and-local-plan-scenario-manager", "title": "Climate Adaptation Evidence and Local Plan Scenario Manager", "categories": [ "ClimateTech", "GovTech", "Planning", "Data & Analytics" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom" ], "category_urls": [ "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/category/climatetech", "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/category/govtech", "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/category/planning", "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/category/data-and-analytics" ], "region_urls": [ "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/region/united-kingdom" ], "problem_statement": "Local plans must address overheating, wildfire, drought, flood, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and long-term climate trends, but evidence is scattered across specialist strategies and different time horizons. RTPI's July 2026 research found that more than 70% of emerging local plans appeared to have undertaken no specific climate risk or vulnerability assessment and only 7% had undertaken a carbon assessment to inform plan policies or strategy. That turns a broad NPPF requirement into an evidenced implementation gap.\n\nOperational consequences:\n- Climate evidence can sit across flood, heat, drought, wildfire, water, biodiversity and infrastructure teams with different assumptions and horizons.\n- Allocations may be assessed against one hazard while cumulative or lifetime risks are not carried into the plan record.\n- Policies can state climate ambition without showing the evidence or scenario that informed the requirement.\n- As projections and guidance change, officers can struggle to identify which allocations or policies require review.", "audience": "Planning-policy teams, climate officers, strategic planning authorities and planning consultancies.\n\nBuyer and user context:\nThe buyer is a planning-policy or climate-adaptation lead preparing a Local Plan or SDS, often supported by sustainability and specialist consultants. Senior governance and inspectors need an evidence chain; operational users need a manageable way to update it.", "evidence_summary": "CC1 requires plans to consider multiple climate risks and necessary adaptations for the anticipated lifetime of development. RTPI's 2026 work reports uneven local-plan practice and the need for faster improvement. RTPI and TCPA's 2026 research reports strong stated ambition but weak use of specific climate-risk and carbon evidence. Their fifth-edition planning-for-climate-crisis guidance gives authorities a practical framework, while the NPPF requires consideration of multiple current and future hazards.\n\nEvidence interpretation:\nThe gap is not lack of climate models; it is translating multiple specialist datasets into plan decisions and keeping that rationale current. A coordination and evidence product is more credible than building new hazard science.", "demand_signal": "Every new plan must evidence climate resilience and planners have limited specialist capacity; councils already commission climate evidence and sustainability appraisal. Authorities already commission SFRAs, climate studies and sustainability work. A scenario manager can reduce duplication and make specialist outputs reusable across allocations, infrastructure and policy drafting.\n\nValidation approach:\nPartner one authority beginning evidence scoping. Map existing climate studies to 20 allocations and policies, identify missing or dated evidence and run one update cycle. Ask an independent planning/climate consultant to review whether the audit trail improves plan defensibility.", "competition_signal": "Climate-risk consultants and GIS tools are established, but planning-specific evidence governance across multiple hazards is fragmented. Climate-risk platforms, GIS products and specialist consultancies already model individual hazards. RTPI and TCPA guidance is free. The product must orchestrate evidence, scenarios and decisions rather than sell generic risk scores.\n\nPotential defensibility:\nA planning-specific schema linking hazard, scenario year, evidence source, affected allocation, adaptation action, policy response and review trigger could create durable workflow value. Historical scenario decisions across authorities could become a benchmark dataset.", "suggested_solution": "A multi-hazard planning evidence workspace that links climate scenarios to allocations, adaptation requirements and plan policies with a transparent evidence trail. Use external authoritative models and record how they changed plan choices. Each allocation or policy should show the climate evidence considered, the scenario and the resulting adaptation requirement.\n\nIntended outcome:\nTurn climate adaptation from a narrative aspiration into an auditable, updateable set of plan decisions and actions.", "monetisation_angle": "Pricing classification:\nProxy based — medium confidence.\n\nIndicative pricing:\n£12,000–£35,000/year per authority; £20,000–£60,000 implementation/evidence migration. £10,000-£30,000/year per authority with evidence onboarding is plausible; consultancy partners could bundle it into climate and local-plan commissions.\n\nEvidence basis:\nAgile AI Planning Validator (£15,000–£60,000 per licence) is the closest verified adjacent anchor used here. Its buyer, duration and scope are not assumed to be identical; implementation is separated where the opportunity requires integration, assurance or managed delivery.\n\nCommercial test:\nAsk one planning authority, developer or planning consultancy with a live case pipeline to fund a paid test of Climate Adaptation Evidence and Local Plan Scenario Manager lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £20,000–£60,000 and covering 20 live applications, sites, conditions or evidence packs from one planning workflow. Paid scope: A multi-hazard planning evidence workspace that links climate scenarios to allocations, adaptation requirements and plan policies with a transparent evidence trail. Charge by authority, professional team, development site or assessed case and compare the fee with planning-officer and consultant time, avoidable invalid submissions and repeated evidence assembly. Measure validation time, missing-document rate, rework, officer overrides, applicant resubmissions and decision lead time. Continue only if handling or rework falls by at least 25%, at least 90% of required evidence is correctly identified and no material planning issue is suppressed. Stop or reprice if experienced officers find material false assurance, the workflow does not beat current practice or the buyer will not renew.", "underserved_score": 79, "score_rationale": "NPPF creates a broad mandatory evidence need and RTPI identifies capability gaps. Strongest as orchestration/governance rather than a new climate model. RTPI's 2026 data directly evidences an implementation gap, raising confidence. The market remains consultancy-heavy and scientific inputs must come from authoritative sources.\n\nWhat would change the score:\nRaise above 86 if authorities identify recurring update and coordination pain after the initial climate audit. Reduce below 65 if the problem is primarily lack of specialist studies rather than evidence management.", "score_scale": { "min": 0, "max": 100 }, "sources": [ { "name": "National Planning Policy Framework – MHCLG", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2", "publisher": "gov.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "RTPI – State of the Profession 2025: England", "url": "https://www.rtpi.org.uk/policy-and-research/state-of-the-profession-2025/state-of-the-profession-2025-england/", "publisher": "rtpi.org.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "RTPI – Local Plans and the Climate Crisis", "url": "https://www.rtpi.org.uk/new-from-the-rtpi/local-plans-and-the-climate-crisis/", "publisher": "rtpi.org.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "GOV.UK – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment guidance", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-prepare-a-strategic-flood-risk-assessment", "publisher": "gov.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "GOV.UK – Water resources planning guideline", "url": "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-resources-planning-guideline/water-resources-planning-guideline", "publisher": "gov.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "RTPI – Climate policy/evidence gaps", "url": "https://www.rtpi.org.uk/new-from-the-rtpi/93-of-local-plans-prioritise-climate-change-but-more-than-one-in-four-lack-a-strategic-climate-policy/", "publisher": "rtpi.org.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null }, { "name": "TCPA/RTPI – Planning for the Climate Crisis", "url": "https://www.tcpa.org.uk/collection/planning-for-the-climate-crisis/", "publisher": "tcpa.org.uk", "source_type": null, "date": null, "note": null } ], "related_opportunities": [ { "title": "Regional Social Economy Intelligence Platform", "slug": "regional-social-economy-intelligence-platform", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/regional-social-economy-intelligence-platform", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/regional-social-economy-intelligence-platform.json", "underserved_score": 92, "categories": [ "GovTech", "Data & Analytics", "Economic Development" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom" ] }, { "title": "VCSE Contract Readiness Platform", "slug": "vcse-contract-readiness-platform", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/vcse-contract-readiness-platform", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/vcse-contract-readiness-platform.json", "underserved_score": 91, "categories": [ "GovTech", "Procurement", "B2B SaaS" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom" ] }, { "title": "Critical Infrastructure Dependency and Blast-Radius Mapper", "slug": "critical-infrastructure-dependency-blast-radius-mapper", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/critical-infrastructure-dependency-blast-radius-mapper", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/critical-infrastructure-dependency-blast-radius-mapper.json", "underserved_score": 91, "categories": [ "Infrastructure", "Data & Analytics", "GovTech", "Safety & Security", "Energy & Utilities" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom", "Greater Manchester", "North West England" ] }, { "title": "Drainage-Ready Planning and Development Copilot", "slug": "drainage-ready-planning-development-copilot", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/drainage-ready-planning-development-copilot", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/drainage-ready-planning-development-copilot.json", "underserved_score": 91, "categories": [ "ClimateTech", "PropTech", "GovTech", "Data & Analytics", "Property & Built Environment" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom" ] }, { "title": "Texas Data-Centre Audit Submission and Evidence Workspace", "slug": "texas-data-centre-audit-submission-and-evidence-workspace", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/texas-data-centre-audit-submission-and-evidence-workspace", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/texas-data-centre-audit-submission-and-evidence-workspace.json", "underserved_score": 91, "categories": [ "Compliance", "Energy & Utilities", "B2B SaaS", "Data & Analytics" ], "regions": [ "Texas", "United States" ] }, { "title": "Technical Skills Retention & NEET-to-Energy Transition Platform", "slug": "technical-skills-retention-neet-to-energy-transition-platform", "url": "https://undersrvd.com/opportunities/technical-skills-retention-neet-to-energy-transition-platform", "api_url": "https://undersrvd.com/api/public/opportunities/technical-skills-retention-neet-to-energy-transition-platform.json", "underserved_score": 90, "categories": [ "EdTech", "HRTech", "Trades & Construction", "ClimateTech" ], "regions": [ "United Kingdom" ] } ], "license": "https://undersrvd.com/data-license" }