Construction delay expert Lizanne Linde shares five lessons that Levelling Up schemes can learn from UK and international mega projects.
The Levelling Up Fund is a £4.8bn government scheme intended to boost regeneration throughout the UK. However, a recent review by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) revealed that out of 177 projects, 95% of projects were overdue.
On average, 38% were a year late, 40% were more than a year behind schedule and 10 projects were over two years overdue.
Analysts attributed the leading causes to inflation and unexpected cost increases. However, the study observed that bids were often based on “half-baked” rough estimates, with only 3 % of schemes being “construction ready” at the time of submission.
Consistent pattern
Having worked on the causes of project delays for decades, this pattern not only repeats across different countries and sectors but also persists over many years. The same mistakes resurface, and lessons remain unlearned.
A global study by the World Bank and the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST) looked at 480 infrastructure projects. It found that about 70% of these projects faced delays. They took, on average, 73% longer to complete than originally planned. Crucially, 60% of the identified delay drivers originated in the preparation phase rather than during tendering or construction.
Weak feasibility studies, vague scope and inadequate financial planning lead to delays. Those delays, in turn, ripple through procurement and execution. This echoes the Levelling Up Fund, which showed that many UK bids were submitted without detailed designs. High-level costings are simply not a reliable foundation for timely delivery.
Wider forces at play
Post-pandemic surges in global infrastructure spending have clashed with inflation, supply chain disruptions and labour shortages. Construction leaders also warn that labour shortages now threaten the ability to build even when funding is in place.
All these supply chain issues lengthen lead times and only worsen delays.
In both the UK and the US, funding uncertainties, supply chain disruptions and inflation continue to extend timelines and reduce margins. Rising construction costs put pressure on re-scoping or halting projects altogether. CBRE’s cost index increased by 4.9 % in 2023 and JLL forecasts costs to rise 5–7 % in 2025.
Mega projects cautionary tales
From HS2 to California’s high-speed rail, overconfidence in early costings and arguably weak governance have had notable consequences. Examples include:
- HS2: labelled “a casebook example of how not to run a major project,” HS2 remains without a confirmed cost or completion date. MPs warn that its total cost could approach £80bn.
- Stuttgart 21 (Germany): budget ballooned from €4.5bn (£3.87m) to over €8bn (£6.88bn) due to labour shortages and rising costs, with delays exceeding four years.
- California High-Speed Rail (US): initially budgeted at $33bn (£24.5bn) for an 800km route, costs for a 275km segment have already hit $35bn (£26bn) and the whole system may reach $128bn (£95bn).
- Berlin Brandenburg Airport (Germany): opened nearly a decade late, tripling its original budget, primarily due to poor planning and fragmented contracting.
These case studies remind us that poor preparation, weak governance and political indecision can decimate project value.
Material and labour estimates are often too optimistic because global market fluctuations and labour shortages drive up prices. Disruptions such as strikes and contract disputes cause further delays.
Five important lessons
- Upfront rigour beats wishful thinking: projects should begin with a greater focus on maturing designs, realistic feasibility studies, accurate costings and robust risk assessments. Most delays are avoidable if preparation is taken seriously.
- Factor in market volatility: government programmes should adjust their funding to reflect market realities better. Otherwise, projects falter when their budgets are outpaced by inflation.
- Build capacity, not just budgets: workforce planning, anticipating skill shortages and nurturing talent pipelines are vital. NISTA’s role in coordinating workforce and infrastructure delivery must be matched by action on the ground.
- Governance and accountability are essential: clear accountability, transparent reporting and flexibility to adapt scope should be non-negotiable. HS2’s spiralling costs highlight the dangers of indecision and poor oversight.
- Learn fast, and from others: independent reviews, like CoST’s studies, provide valuable lessons. The recurring issues seen across California, Stuttgart and Berlin are not unique – they are warnings.
The delays in the Levelling Up Fund projects exemplify a broader, global issue. We often underestimate complexity, overpromise on timelines and budgets, and neglect systemic constraints.
Experience analysing troubled projects shows that successful delivery depends on honesty in planning, agility in execution and a relentless focus on building both financial and human capacity.
For the UK’s regeneration ambitions to succeed, it should heed cautionary tales unfolding around the world and apply far greater rigour to project preparation, design maturity and labour capability, treating them as essential investments, not optional extras.
Lizanne Linde is a partner and construction delay expert at Oryx Consultants.
Comments
Comments are closed.
Cognizance of profiteering at ridiculous amounts of land purchase for required mega projects need to be considered and government intervention needs to be implemented at fair market value
Additionally and typically UK mega projects have a high reliance on mercenaries who are the type of “professional” who move from contractor to contractor for the highest wage with very little to zero company responsibility or pride in their employer which in turn results in a reduced commitment or desire for the project to be completed anywhere near budget or cost. This isnt boots on the ground this is Middle to Senior Management.
You would think this would prevent those individuals from getting further work on similar schemes or at Tier 1 Contractors / Joint Ventures but it does not and each time they get paid the same or more.
This is why the rail industry is currently dead and focusing on maintenance rather than blockbuster projects to deliver significant infrastructure development
Most of the LUF went to Local Authorities who don’t have the spare cash to pay for a ‘mature’ design to sit it on the shelf in case funding arrives from central government. There was also not time in the LUF bidding process to produce a reasonable estimate, a matter of weeks to push over a feasibility, that means no time to undertake basic groundwork, leading to unrealistic expectations. No wonder the bids were inaccurate. Start the change from the top please and make the bidding process realistic.