Will the UK’s 10-year infrastructure strategy deliver for communities?

The UK had long been waiting for a 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy (10YIS).

2025 was finally the year for it.

It arrived as the UK, like many countries, faces rising living costs, challenges with healthcare, productivity, climate change, and more.

The solutions are complex and costly. But one thing most people agree is that infrastructure will play an important part.

We've spoken to some of our Enabling Better Infrastructure (EBI) experts about what makes a good strategy, and whether the 10YIS fits the bill.

It’s a proper strategy

EBI steering group member and infrastructure advisor, Richard Threlfall, says the 10YIS is the most credible infrastructure strategy he’s seen in his career.

It's long-term in its thinking, technical over ideological in its proposed solutions, and comprehensive rather than focused on just a handful of political priorities, he says.

So, what makes it a truly strategic document?

According to fellow steering group member Andrew Rose, it shouldn’t just be a “high-level list of objectives, targets, and projects”.

Drawing on the EBI principles, our experts argue that a strategy must include:

• A robust needs assessment;
• Clear, long-term objectives and plans to achieve them;
• Ruthless prioritisation of projects, recognising limits around affordability; and
• An honest assessment of trade-offs.

Long-term view

The strategy does well at setting long-term objectives.

It includes planned investments in hydrogen, carbon capture, and nuclear.

These will never be short-term vote winners, but they are critical for the country’s future competitiveness.

The strategy covers a comprehensive list of infrastructure – from defence to schools, railways to water, energy grid to local transport – rather than ‘picking winners’.

It’s technocratic (focused on technical detail) rather than ideological (a political statement of what the government thinks should be built).

Setting out priorities

The new strategy is clear about how it will prioritise different sectors and offers welcome clarity on the government’s approach to spatial planning.

It also recognises the impact of years of underinvestment in infrastructure.

But it lacks enough detail on affordability, and an honest assessment of the need for trade-offs, which is something the EBI guidance recommends.

Rose reflects that while the strategy might not be the right place for it, this discussion needs to happen.

Addressing this openly and transparently is a significant challenge in the current political environment.

But the government must recognise these constraints or run the very real risk of over-promising and under-delivering. 

The role of private finance

Before publication, our experts called for more clarity on funding models to encourage private investment.

And the commentary around the use of private finance in the document is helpful.

But it reads more like a summary of the different mechanisms at the government’s disposal and a description of new institutions.

It’s missing a clear statement to the market of how private investment will be most successfully used.

Risks to delivery

The government established the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) last year to improve how major projects are planned and carried out.

But NISTA isn’t responsible for the actual delivery of the government’s infrastructure programme.

And, it may lack the clout to compel departments and delivery bodies to operate more effectively.

Instead, the organisations tasked with funding and delivering the strategy – including the National Wealth Fund, NISTA and the Office for Investment – aren’t well enough coordinated.

As a result, we’ll get siloed activity, rather than systems thinking.

The government is also relying heavily on economic growth to make its ambitious programme of work affordable.

If this doesn’t come through quickly enough, it may be in trouble.

Tackling some of the blockers

Many things that the UK infrastructure community have sought for many years, such as planning reform, are included in the strategy

Ahead of publication, our experts highlighted the importance of having a “credible pipeline that the construction sector can plan around”.

This online pipeline came shortly after the 10YIS, outlining a £530bn commitment of infrastructure investment covering 780 projects over the next 10 years.

What’s next: closing the gap between strategy and delivery

Aligning the strategy with delivery is critical for ensuring the government’s goals are actually achieved.

The ICE recently identified a series of ‘pinch points’ the government needs to address in order to succeed.

These include skills planning, the availability of materials, the fragmented nature of infrastructure supply chains, and the need to unlock more investment.

All elements which our EBI experts also highlighted.

The strategy provides a strong platform to deliver the infrastructure that the UK requires, but without addressing some of these challenges, the government will fail to deliver.

The EBI programme provides a roadmap for the way forward.

Did the strategy meet expectations?

In January 2025, five months before the government published the strategy, our experts told us what they’d like to see from it. Looking back now gives us a chance to see how those priorities measure up against the final document.

As well as Rose and Threlfall, we spoke to then-ICE President and steering group chair, Professor Jim Hall, and Bridget Rosewell, a director at the National Wealth Fund.

Here’s what they said.

Strategy means strategy

After six months in office, the government had clearly stated its ambition. But, as Rose observed, it was “inevitable that some of its targets will conflict”.

“The government would do well to review the core EBI principles for guidance,” Rose suggested.

“Backing this up should be quality data, evidence-based decision-making, effective regulation, and planning reform.”

Much of the thinking already exists. Rose cited the needs assessments from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) – now NISTA – as “excellent examples” of thought leadership.

“And yet the UK still doesn’t always deliver infrastructure successfully,” he said.

A good time to face reality

Threlfall wanted three themes to emerge from the strategy.

“First, the government must embrace partnerships in everything it’s trying to do,” he said.

“Only by guiding investors, businesses, and individuals can the UK hope to achieve what it needs.

“Second, it must welcome private finance. Public funding will remain tight for at least the next parliament. Private sector skills can complement the government’s own capabilities.

“Third, it must accept that not everything is achievable.

“Hard choices are necessary – but also hard conversations had about what really matters.

“The second national infrastructure strategy would be a good time to start to face reality.”

Keeping pace with change

Rosewell stressed that infrastructure must adapt to economic and societal change.

“This requires a mix of innovation, experimentation, and central organisation,” she said.

“But this can be a hard balance to strike. Central planning can miss feedback and innovation, while businesses may end up repeating market research and duplicating efforts.”

She suggested that the government should make better use of the UK’s engineering talent – allowing the market to find new solutions.

“[The strategy] should set out wider outcomes – but not be too prescriptive about either the detail or the methods,” she said.

“Instead, it should create a challenge for the best solutions to drive efficiency.”

HS2, she argued, was “an object lesson” in the result of being too definitive, too early.

“It also showed us what happens when you aren’t clear enough about the objectives of investment and how it links to wider needs,” she said.

Building for long-term success

Prof Hall agreed that the strategy should clearly link investment to outcomes.

“The 10-year strategy needs to make a very clear case for how and where infrastructure will contribute to growth,” he said.

“While 10 years is a long time in politics, it’s a relatively short time in infrastructure.

“The strategy needs to set out a long-term vision and demonstrate exactly how we get there – in a range of future scenarios – to help manage inevitable uncertainty.”

Andrew Rose concurred.

“It’s hard to combine long-term infrastructure planning with five-year political cycles,” he said.

“We need to challenge ourselves to bring some level of cross-party support to the strategy.

“It’s critical to the country’s fortunes that we succeed – and succeed together.”