Levelling Up Fund: At least 168 projects delayed
A recent study by The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government found that 95% of the projects it had data on were behind schedule, with unexpected costs and inflation listed as the chief reasons.
MHCLG had recruited SYSTRA and Frontier Economics to evaluate the Levelling Up Fund, a £4.8bn programme from the previous government that awarded funds to 216 bids through its first two rounds. Of those schemes, 27 were in the North West, 16 in Yorkshire, and 11 in the North East.
These 216 bids equate to 380 individual projects. When it came to the study, the analysts received responses regarding 177 projects from 131 of the bidders, or roughly 61% of those who had been successful in their applications to the fund.
Of those 177 projects, 95% are delayed. The delays average around a year, with 38% (equating to 64 schemes) more than a year behind schedule. There are 10 projects that are delayed by more than two years. MHCLG was unable to provide information in time for publication regarding the location of these specific projects when asked.
In addition to the chief reason of cost rises, the study reported that delays were due to schemes being half-baked, so to speak – having been in the early design or planning processes.
“Many LUF bids were therefore developed on the basis of high-level costings with more detailed design work and costings required post-award,” the report states. “This led to delays in many instances, and in some instances further cost increases/rescoping exercises.”
In some cases, LUF timescale of delivery within three years was too ambitious – especially with only 3% of schemes listed as construction-ready at the time of the bid submission. The study stated: “While some projects are officially reported as ‘delayed’, they are progressing at a reasonable pace for those types of projects under typical delivery conditions.”
The next round of LUF evaluation is set to take place from now until 2027. This will look at specific projects.
And who is it that is responsible for all of the extra costs? The far left Labour Party .
By Anonymous
Anonymous 12.45, we haven’t had a far left Labour Party in power since about 1979. Inflation is a major problem when it comes to construction which tends to run higher than “normal” Inflation but to blame the current Government is laughable. Inflation was out of control under the previous Government mainly as a result of Covid19 and the subsequent shutdown, however the shockingly poor management of public sector projects by the tories was a scandal in particular HS2 and the allocation of leveling up funds.
By Anonymous
12:45 pm By Anonymous – having worked on some this projects they were doomed by the usual stupid bidding process the last Govt loved to play with to scattered money into the regions to drive votes. Only way to get money was to overpromise in terms of cost and programme and now this is the result. Proper devolution of spending which is whats happening is whats needed, not throwing crumbs for the odd community centre here, public realm project there.
By J
The LUF programme was flawed from the outset due to the way the Conservative government set it up. To have any chance at getting funding you were pretty much forced to indicate that plans were already well developed and that money could be spent by March 2026 – even when the proposals being submitted were often nothing more than a good idea that had not yet been looked at in any technical detail. The conclusion that ‘many projects are progressing at a reasonable pace for those types of projects under typical delivery conditions’ sounds about right. The problem was the idea that areas could take schemes from start to finish within such a quick turnaround and the reason that expectations were inflated was all down to the way the funding competition was setup.
By Anonymous
@anonymous they may be incompetent but it’s laughable to suggest the labour government is far left
By Levelling Up Manager
Investment will always be welcomed, and it’s critical in this current economy because viability is so difficult, however, government funding seems too focused on getting spend out the door and less focused on building quality places, neighbourhoods and businesses. Funding needs to be holistic and carefully allocated to projects with a more flexible deadline. This allows time for a proper options analysis and community engagement to make sure that schemes are truly right, and not rushed to get spend out the door.
By Anonymous