£1bn+ recorded / estimatedPipeline snapshot: March 2026
More filters: TIC, dates, planning, organisations and contract form
No plotted project sites in this selection. Source area coverage appears when a record is selected; all records remain available below.
● Published planning geometry○ Approximate area◌ Proposed area★ Registered office
County boundaries: ONS, December 2018 · Neighbouring land: Natural Earth · Project geometry: Planning Inspectorate, 15 October 2026 · Approximate points: published site addresses / OS Open Names via Postcodes.io
* Estimated over £1bn: provisional inclusion; numeric TIC unconfirmed.
Project & programme records
Coverage, missing data and cost basis
182 records: 71 have source-recorded TIC of at least £1bn; 111 are provisional additions selected from the Possible, Likely and Very likely screening bands. Unlikely, Very unlikely and Insufficient evidence entries are excluded. This is a first draft, not complete market coverage.
* Estimated over £1bn is a provisional inclusion category, not a verified valuation or a statistical probability. Numeric TIC stays blank until confirmed. Some additions are broad programmes, policy portfolios or regeneration areas. Spending signals can include operating costs and cannot be substituted for TIC. With the default £1bn minimum, provisional entries remain visible. A higher minimum or any maximum excludes them unless unknown values are included.
TIC uses the source’s total capital cost field: new capital plus maintenance and renewals, at 2024/25 real prices. Raw export values are pounds despite “£m” headings. Sizewell’s 38,000,000,000 is consistent with the official £38bn target. Values are not multiplied by a million.
Records include individual sites, routes and broad programme/sector aggregates. Scope labels are provisional editorial classifications. Parent/child relationships are retained. No overall investment total is shown because records can overlap. The 118 funds/regulatory settlements are excluded.
28 records have plotted locations: 14 use published planning geography and 14 use explicitly approximate site or locality markers. A further 29 records have source local-authority coverage. Hollow markers are approximate; dashed hollow markers indicate proposed development areas. Marker placement does not establish consent or delivery status. Published postcode centres can lie away from a facility itself. Planning envelope centres can include associated works. County shading is coverage, not a route or footprint.
Planning stages and delivery phases come from different snapshots and remain separate. Post-decision does not establish planning approval or completion. “Completed / operational” retains the source’s “In Operation” classification; it does not prove every part of an aggregate is finished.
Completion / in service retains the source’s “Date in Service” meaning. Dates can be programme dates, not asset completion dates. They are not revised automatically when a forecast passes. No historical completed-project inventory has been added.
Unknown is distinct from not applicable and not yet appointed. Unknown values do not match a named filter unless the inclusion checkbox is selected; such results are labelled separately. Blank amounts are not zero. Workforce estimates remain unpopulated until an evidenced estimate or method is available.