The Department for Transport is proposing cuts to the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) and potentially axing two much-debated East Midlands transport schemes. ACE’s policy executive Laura Doanova explains why changes to infrastructure investment must be carefully managed to protect industry capability, maintain market confidence and support long-term delivery

The long-awaited publication of the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) earlier this year was welcomed across our industry.

The multi-year funding and planning framework from government for operating, maintaining, renewing and enhancing England’s motorways and major A-roads, known as the Strategic Road Network (SRN), is crucial to the infrastructure sector.

With £8.44bn allocated to renewals compared with £3.85bn for enhancements over the next five years, the strategy signalled a clear priority: investing in existing assets to maintain a reliable and effective SRN.

Although the emphasis on renewals remains unchanged, the Department for Transport has proposed to reduce the RIS3 capital budget and to potentially cancel two enhancement schemes: the A38 Derby junctions and the A46 Newark Bypass.

This decision comes in response to the recently published Defence Investment Plan which has asked government departments to reassess their capital budgets to fund an increase in defence spend.

Reprioritising infrastructure investment in response to changing geopolitical, economic and fiscal circumstances will always take precedence – but the wider impact on infrastructure delivery and the industry which enables it must be acknowledged.

Significant changes to an established infrastructure programme affect investment decisions and UK capability. Our sector invests in skills, apprenticeships, specialist capacity, technology and innovation based on a reasonable expectation of future demand. When that demand is reduced or delayed, businesses may defer investment and redeploy capability to other sectors or other markets. Once lost, that capability can take years to rebuild.

Such decisions, particularly on projects where significant planning, design and consenting work has already been undertaken – as is the case in the proposed RIS3 variation – also raises questions about the value of the work already completed. ACE is not arguing that every project must proceed as originally planned. However, where schemes are cancelled or replaced, government should consider whether work already undertaken can be retained or reused, rather than losing value and capability that has already been invested.

In our response to the government’s consultation, we called for a review of investment priorities, funding routes – including where alternative funding and financing approaches might be suitable – and programme affordability to avoid changes later down the line. In some cases, pausing schemes rather than cancelling or significantly rephasing them outright, may provide government with more time to assess options and preserve market confidence.

The publication of the 10-year Infrastructure Strategy and the accompanying Infrastructure Pipeline last year was a significant achievement. It signalled government’s intent to provide greater certainty for our sector.

Yet, project cancellations and other notable changes to programmes can damage market confidence. Where projects are ultimately cancelled or rephased, clarity on alternative investments and future opportunities are paramount to allow industry to invest and plan accordingly.

Equally important is recognising the underlying transport, economic or connectivity need must still be considered and addressed through an alternative intervention where necessary.

Changes to infrastructure investment programmes are rarely about individual schemes. Instead, they must be seen in the context of its wider impact on the sector’s capability, market confidence and the government’s ability to deliver on its ambitions.

Good growth in every postcode requires infrastructure and the sector to deliver it.

The future RIS4 programme will be critical in providing a clear, long-term direction of strategic road investment and enabling industry to plan and invest with greater confidence.

ACE’s full response is available to read here.