How will the new government approach infrastructure?

The summer 2024 edition of Project explores what goes wrong with UK major infrastructure projects. But the experts we spoke to also had some ideas about what might go right.

Remember Project Speed? In the summer of 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson hailed a “new Infrastructure Delivery Taskforce” helmed by Rishi Sunak to “bring forward proposals to deliver government’s public investment projects.”

Alex Chisholm, Permanent Secretary for the Cabinet Office, said: “The PM wants to do things faster – changing methods where necessary, looking for opportunities to lift the regulatory burden, or find other ways to accelerate projects.”

It was an upbeat response to COVID-19 closures on several major projects, recognising the need to kick-start the economy after the first lockdown – and an attempt to finally fix Britain’s problem with infrastructure. The big win? Accelerated planning approvals.

In February 2023, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities published a paper, Nationally Significant Infrastructure: Action plan for reforms to the planning process, which laid out an ambition to make it: “Better, faster, greener, fairer, and more resilient.”

It cited the A66 Trans-Pennine road – a “Project Speed pathfinder project” – as a case study, concluding: “The government found that the quality of the project programme and strength of the promoter’s commitment in driving engagement and problem-solving is central to achieving an accelerated programme.”

But by November last year, almost all searches for “Project Speed” yielded just one story: additional delays to consent for the A66 project.

Are there fixes?

Project spoke to several infrastructure experts for the feature in the summer 2024 edition, and as well as helping diagnose the “British disease” (which, to be fair, afflicts the rest of the free world to a degree), they offered some remedies.

Tunde Ajia is a veteran global megaprojects expert who is currently researching a doctorate at Cranfield. He looked abroad for solutions.

“Several key factors stand out when looking at international benchmarks and what other countries do better for infrastructure projects,” he says. “Countries like Germany and Japan, renowned for their infrastructure efficacy, often have several advantages.”

These include:

Long-term planning: “Japanese planning, for instance, typically transcends political cycles, ensuring continuity and stability in project execution.”
Regulatory framework: “These are designed to be clear and stable, which allows for efficient progress without the hindrance of unexpected regulatory changes.”
Technical expertise: “They invest in building and maintaining high technical expertise within their project management offices and on the ground, ensuring that experienced professionals handle complex infrastructure projects.”
Public-private partnerships: “They also tend to foster strong public-private partnerships, where risks and benefits are shared and the private sector’s efficiency is harnessed without undermining public oversight and interests.”
Cultural factors: “There’s also a cultural dimension, as precision and timeliness in project execution are deeply ingrained values in Japanese society.”

Ajia stresses that project management in successful infrastructure projects is also extremely integrated – weaving operations into the planning and project processes. For example, Japan’s Shinkansen “bullet train” is renowned for punctuality, safety, speed and efficiency.

“Extensive planning goes into every detail, from the train design’s aerodynamics to the scheduling’s precision,” says Ajia. “The success of the network is supported by Japan’s cohesive policy-making and public-private partnerships that prioritise infrastructure development as a key to economic growth. The Shinkansen’s role in connecting major cities has not only been a technological marvel but also an economic catalyst, contributing significantly to Japan’s regional economies.”

The advice to the incoming UK government? Ajia has six recommendations:

Prioritise project continuity: bipartisan agreements on infrastructure could prevent projects becoming politicised, ensuring continuity beyond election cycles.
Streamline regulatory processes: overhaul planning and regulatory approval to be more efficient while still rigorous, reducing unnecessary delays.
Enhance project expertise: invest in domestic project management capabilities through education and professional development; consider a specialised infrastructure academy.
Foster public-private partnerships: place a priority on clearly defining roles, risks and rewards.
Proper strategic oversight: an independent infrastructure body, accountable to Parliament not party, could oversee projects from conception to completion.
Skills shortages: identify and address the yawning skills gaps in the workforce affecting infrastructure projects, ensuring the future pipeline of talent.

Other solutions

A more long-term approach would please other commentators, too. James Corrigan, Turner & Townsend’s UK Managing Director for Infrastructure, wrote in New Civil Engineer that any incoming government should “give greater authority and importance to the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA)… [to] shift the focus to the UK’s next set of long-term goals, rather than risking reversing existing plans and diluting commitments relating to net zero and climate resilience.

“It requires a shift in mentality from government and a commitment to take a longer-term view which looks beyond election cycles and the next fiscal announcement… even if current policy was introduced by different ministers or a different party.”

A long-term strategy that can’t be knocked off course has positive knock-ons for skills, too. Andy Murray at the Major Projects Authority pointed to the tunnelling academy set up to support HS2 that’s built a skills base to support other infrastructure projects around the UK power grid, for example. “That’s one where the pipeline of projects has helped build up capability, and the capacity that goes with that,” he says.

The rolling over of major projects between control periods – within organisations, not just between spending reviews by government – could also prevent the natural instinct to avoid scheduling projects in ways that don’t develop long-term benefits, but do meet the budget cycles for capital investment and benefit realisation.

Turner & Townsend’s Garry Murphy, whom we interviewed for the feature, is another voice calling for a beefed-up, politically insulated NIC and IPA (or whatever these become following the General Election).

He adds: “We need to be more realistic at the outset of major infrastructure projects about cost and time. Politicians make a commitment to these numbers, then project managers are judged by that. Large projects by their nature are so complex that they should be giving a range on cost and time that narrows over time as the project evolves.”

Whether a more strategic approach will address the core problems identified in the feature – and will be any more successful than Project Speed – remains to be seen.