Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

The (badly planned) route to Brexit

There’s an adage that local government is run by those that turn up.

These are often well-intentioned people lacking expertise and further hampered by a dysfunctional system that breeds the exact opposite of collaboratively planned infrastructure.

Yet when infrastructure is badly planned a number of things can happen. Ticking off obvious ones we have project delays, poor delivery, adversarial relationships and clients and construction companies losing money.

But these are business failings; what about the badly performing assets and the poor end users? These were front of mind when Mott MacDonald chief executive Keith Howells kicked off proceedings at an industry gathering hosted by the consultant last Friday.

He outlined three pillars of sustainability – economic, social and environmental – and pointed to social as fundamental, at the firm’s relevantly titled ‘The role of infrastructure in creating socially inclusive outcomes’ event.

Warming to his theme, Mr Howells said infrastructure’s failure to drive social inclusion bred inequality and populism as demonstrated in recent voting patterns. He may not have directly mentioned the US presidential election or the Brexit vote, but I could see the baleful direction of his gaze.

Listening to the various presentations that highlighted community regeneration, Bam Nuttall chief executive Steve Fox was stung into response, laying a portion of the blame with “the transactional approach to project delivery”.

He explained that a lack of coordinated planning alongside a non-existent long-term view was thwarting social inclusion, citing indiscriminate house building without concomitant infrastructure as a prime example.

CN’s Lucy Alderson touched on this theme last week when covering Department for Education head of school places policy Matt Collins’ views that joined-up thinking was the way forward in tackling the homes and schools shortages.

Mr Fox expanded on this idea, warning that improving rail links, for example, without thinking through what else a community needed, was likely to drain it of its bright stars rather than making it easier for them to live there.

Again, this leaves disillusioned communities ripe for political influence.

So what do we want? Collaboratively-planned socially-inclusive infrastructure. When do we want it? Now!

Or something snappier.


Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.