The UK has Industrial and Infrastructure strategies

A plan is only the start

Recent transport infrastructure projects show how a sound proposition can become increasingly difficult to realise when its delivery timeframe is elongated. Delay exposes a project to changes in political leadership, public opinion, regulation, material costs and wider market fluctuations. Put simply, the longer the programme, the greater the opportunity for the original business case to be overtaken by events.

For this reason, the Infrastructure Strategy focuses on the discipline it can create around delivery rather than simply listing projects. There is no absence of identified need: the Infrastructure Pipeline identifies 734 projects, at a cost of £718 billion of public and private investment, which are expected to be executed over the next decade.

Significantly, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) estimates that delivery will require an annual average construction and infrastructure workforce of between 629,000 and 706,000 over the next five years. So capital is not the only constraint: we also need enough engineers, planners, project managers, contractors and public-sector specialists to turn programmes into physical assets.

Infrastructure alone does not create growth

A new railway can connect A to B; additional grid capacity can provide power, but neither creates economic growth in itself - the economic value comes from what those assets enable.

Hence the need for the two symbiotic strategies. Once a credible growth cluster has been identified, infrastructure should be planned alongside it, not added afterwards. For example, if an advanced manufacturing location needs a new grid connection, freight capacity and serviced employment land, those requirements should form part of the proposition from the outset. The same applies to other growth areas: life sciences, digital infrastructure or clean energy, for example.

Working in Manchester, I can see how this logic has played out to date. The North West has established strengths in advanced materials, life sciences, digital technology and health innovation, supported by universities, the NHS and a growing commercial base. Those strengths create the business case for further infrastructure and development. It would make little sense to start with spare infrastructure capacity and then attempt to invent an economic cluster around it, as this approach may simply replace one constraint with another, such as a shortage of skills.

Importantly, regions must understand their own strengths - whether they be research institutions, established industries, labour-market skills or connectivity - and build from them. Otherwise, we risk creating a “beige” national economy in which every area chases the same sectors, skills and occupiers and we subsequently fail to nurture sectoral excellence and authentic growth.

Planning is part of the infrastructure system

Infrastructure provision cannot stop at rail, roads and utilities: land must be available, schemes need consent and infrastructure connections must be timed to be provided when occupiers and developers need them.

Unfortunately, planning delay remains a commercial risk. Even the best industrial policy will struggle if sectoral opportunities cannot capitalise upon expedient decision-making or suitable supporting infrastructure – a problem in part due to the lack of local authority capacity.

Housing has an important place in the equation too. Growth clusters must be supported by suitable homes, amenities and transport. A successful economic strategy cannot treat jobs, housing and infrastructure as separate outputs but should strive to deliver high standards in placemaking.

The early numbers are encouraging. The Government's first-year Industrial Strategy update points to more than £380 billion of private investment and £38 billion of export announcements across priority sectors, supporting more than 155,000 jobs, yet each project is still at a very early stage.

Political continuity will also play a key role in ensuring that these embryonic projects are delivered. Local politics should strive to coalesce around good growth propositions. Reopening the fundamental case after every election will invariably make delivery slower, more expensive and less certain, and so strategies must be maintained regardless of the political calendar.

Measure projects, not strategies

I am optimistic that within ten years, we should be able to point to projects which would not have happened without the benefit of these two strategies: industrial and innovation locations with the power, transport and skills they require; new homes in the right places; stronger regional economies; higher GVA and more jobs.

Of course, some regions will move faster than others because they have specific economic potential, strong regional leadership or a combination of both. The objective should not be identical levels of growth everywhere, but overall stronger places built around genuine regional advantages with connections that spread the benefits of that growth.

The Industrial and Infrastructure strategies give the UK a more coherent framework than it has had for some time. Whether they reverse the UK’s infrastructure decline will depend not on what is promised but what is delivered. This will require consistent political support, capable delivery bodies, a properly resourced planning system and the sustained determination to deliver.