Opportunity
Planning Social Value Delivery Exchange
Major developments can promise local jobs, apprenticeships, training and local supply-chain spend at application stage but struggle to find delivery partners, evidence participation and maintain commitments through contractors and project phases.
Decision snapshot
- Primary user
- - Liverpool residents seeking apprenticeships, training and quality local employment. - Local SMEs, social enterprises, colleges and voluntary organisations that are difficult for large developers to discover and onboard.
- Why now
- - A defined planning submission and condition create compulsory workflow steps if the policy is adopted. - Developers need delivery evidence at commencement and occupation, so value persists beyond application approval.
- Initial wedge
- A two-sided exchange connecting each development's agreed social-value commitments with verified Liverpool providers, colleges, SMEs and resident-support organisations.
- Key uncertainty
- Evidence 25/25 + severity 18/20 + buyer urgency 18/20 + market gap 13/15 + timing 9/10 + delivery feasibility 7/10 = 90/100.
The problem
Major developments can promise local jobs, apprenticeships, training and local supply-chain spend at application stage but struggle to find delivery partners, evidence participation and maintain commitments through contractors and project phases. Councils then receive inconsistent spreadsheets and narratives, making it hard to distinguish activity from outcomes or intervene before a condition is breached.
Liverpool's draft Policy STP13 would require every major development to submit a Social Value Statement and an employment and skills statement. Agreed measures would be implemented through planning conditions, including confirmation before commencement and occupation. This converts social value from a bid narrative into a multi-year delivery workflow.
Who is underserved
- Liverpool residents seeking apprenticeships, training and quality local employment. - Local SMEs, social enterprises, colleges and voluntary organisations that are difficult for large developers to discover and onboard. - Developers and tier-one contractors accountable for planning commitments. - Council planning, employment-and-skills, inclusive-growth and regeneration teams. - Funders and investors needing credible place-based impact evidence.
Evidence
Local evidence: - Draft Policy STP13 requires a Social Value Statement for all major developments. - It expects on-site employment and apprenticeships for Liverpool residents, training opportunities and local supply-chain use, supported by an employment and skills statement. - A planning condition would secure implementation and require confirmation before commencement and occupation.
Wider evidence: - The UK Social Value Model gives public buyers a standard menu of outcomes and criteria. - Social Value Portal already sells measurement and reporting at scale, validating buyer spend while highlighting the need to differentiate around delivery and local matching.
Commercial implication: - Each major development creates a project-level subscription opportunity, while councils can buy the local ecosystem and assurance layer.
Demand
- A defined planning submission and condition create compulsory workflow steps if the policy is adopted. - Developers need delivery evidence at commencement and occupation, so value persists beyond application approval. - Local job, training and supply-chain commitments involve real budgets and subcontract opportunities. - Existing social-value platforms demonstrate that organisations already pay for measurement and reporting.
Competition
Social Value Portal, Impact Reporting and Thrive offer strong measurement, valuation and reporting. Tender portals, employment brokers and supplier directories cover parts of delivery. A new entrant would fail if it offered only another calculator.
Differentiation should be place-based fulfilment: verified local partner capacity, resident pathways, opportunity reservations, evidence at planning-condition gateways and integration to recognised reporting platforms.
The opportunity
A two-sided exchange connecting each development's agreed social-value commitments with verified Liverpool providers, colleges, SMEs and resident-support organisations. The platform converts commitments into deliverable work packages and pathways, tracks outputs and outcomes, and assembles the evidence needed for developer governance and council condition monitoring.
A local needs layer prioritises wards and cohorts without exposing sensitive personal information.
Commercial model
Pricing classification
Proxy based — medium confidence.
Indicative pricing
Illustrative commercial model: - Developer project licence: £5,000-£25,000 per development per year, tiered by value and phases. - Council ecosystem and assurance licence: £40,000-£120,000 per year. - Independent evidence review: £1,500-£5,000 per gateway report. - Matched training or supplier package: disclosed 3%-6% success fee where procurement rules allow, or fixed £250-£1,000 fulfilment fee. - Large regeneration portfolio: £100,000-£250,000 per year.
Evidence basis: Social Value Platforms (Thrive/SVP/Loop) (£5,000–£75,000 per unit per year on the cited Thrive G-Cloud listing) 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.
Commercial test
Ask one funder, council, developer, investor network or programme sponsor to fund a paid test of Planning Social Value Delivery Exchange lasting 8–12 weeks, using an opening price of £5,000-£25,000 and covering 10–20 live organisations, projects, commitments or funding cases through one decision cycle. Paid scope: A two-sided exchange connecting each development's agreed social-value commitments with verified Liverpool providers, colleges, SMEs and resident-support organisations. Charge by organisation, sponsored cohort, development/project or annual portfolio and compare the fee with adviser, grant/contract administration, due-diligence and impact-reporting effort. Measure completion, evidence quality, review time, adviser hours, funded/contracted outcomes and reporting acceptance. Continue only if at least 70% complete, a tangible funding/procurement outcome is achieved and the sponsor buys the next cycle. Stop or reprice if evidence is not accepted, no outcome is attributable or sponsor willingness to pay is absent.
Monetisation models and pricing estimates are research-informed and indicative only. Where direct pricing evidence is unavailable, estimates may use comparable products, procurement data, adjacent market benchmarks and stated assumptions. They are not financial advice, forecasts or guarantees of commercial viability. Independent market, legal and financial validation is recommended before acting.
Score rationale
Underserved score 90/100
Evidence 25/25 + severity 18/20 + buyer urgency 18/20 + market gap 13/15 + timing 9/10 + delivery feasibility 7/10 = 90/100. Confidence is 88/100 because the policy creates explicit submission and implementation steps and competitors validate spend; the main unknowns are marketplace liquidity and council acceptance of evidence standards.
The score is evidence-informed editorial judgement based on manually reviewed sources. It is not a forecast or guarantee. How we score →
Evidence sources8
- Liverpool Local Plan 2026-2043 - Policy STP13 Social Value
liverpool.gov.uk
- Social Value Portal - Procurement and Reporting Platform
socialvalueportal.com
- Liverpool City Council - Social Value Policy 2026
liverpool.gov.uk
- UK Government - PPN 003 Public Services Social Value Act guidance
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
- Liverpool Local Plan 2043 - Monitoring Framework
liverpool.gov.uk
Some evidence sources may require an account or sign-in to view the original content.