The UK seems to constantly tie itself in knots when it comes to getting infrastructure projects off the ground.
Drawn-out planning applications, compliance with environmental legislation, endless rounds of objections and planning committees present huge barriers to getting any major projects underway, no matter how vital they may be.
We can only look with envy at infrastructure projects in Europe that are built far more swiftly, with less regulatory burden, allowing them to deliver economic benefits faster. As a result, growth and investment in the UK have fallen behind other major economies: the days when we had the best transport infrastructure in the world are far behind us.
And of course, the longer a scheme wallows in red tape, the more the costs are rising, from inflation to construction and the updating of all the required reports. This article considers the Portishead Rail Project as an example of how the UK struggles to build new infrastructure.
The Portishead Rail Project
The Department for Transport announced that the scheme to reopen the Portishead to Bristol branch line had received planning consent via a Development Consent Order (DCO) back in 2022. However, it has been beset by delays and now – with a mountain of paperwork behind it and spades ready to hit the ground – its future is in the balance.
The scheme, which would connect 50,000 residents to the rail network, would be the first passenger railway scheme in the UK to reopen a branch line. It was included in the Department for Transport’s Restoring Your Railway programme which has been cut by the new Labour government: schemes within it are now to be reviewed by the Transport Secretary. The Department of Transport was to fund a major part of the scheme, and this huge planning application now faces the threat of being scrapped.
The £152m project, to be funded by North Somerset Council and the West of England Combined Authority as well as the Department for Transport, involves reconnecting the track, unused since 1964, between Portishead and the Royal Portbury Dock. It would connect Portishead with Bristol via a direct rail link taking 25 minutes and adding two stations at Portishead and Pill.
Once a thriving port town, Portishead’s rail link to Bristol was closed in the 1960s under the Beeching cuts. Local authorities, businesses, and residents have worked to get the line reinstated, believing that it would revitalise the area and ease traffic congestion. Following public consultations in 2015, Somerset Council embarked on a planning application which was submitted in 2019, and the government announced £31m of funding for the scheme.
The application for the scheme, known as the Portishead Project or MetroWest Phase 1, combined with ecological surveys and supporting documents, totals 79,187 pages – all relating to just 3.3 miles of track. It demonstrates the complexity of modern infrastructure projects in the UK which involve environmental reports, engineering reports, transport impact analyses, public consultations, and legal documentation. Its current predicament highlights how uncertain funding makes major infrastructure schemes in the UK so difficult.
The application so far
The project has created 14 miles of paperwork, over 4.5 times the length of the scheme involved, states a Yes and Grow article A train to nowhere, including 17,912 pages relating to the environmental statement, 1174 pages to bat survey work; 215 pages to newt surveys and 1810 pages to vegetation management. £32m has been spent on the planning application and design work, and the scheme could now be cancelled – and if it is reinstated in the future, all the report work will need to be redone, entailing more costs.
Environmental and tree works have already been happening along the abandoned track, according to the North Somerset Times, and in 2023 a new bat corridor was completed, and reptile fencing was installed to protect wildlife from the trains.
North Somerset Council remains committed to reopening the Portishead to Bristol rail line which it has described as being `transformative’ for North Somerset, enabling regional growth. In September 2024, West of England Metro Mayor Dan Norris said he was quietly confident that the scheme would go ahead on the grounds that it is ready to proceed and there is certainty around the £152m costs.
Environmental reports undertaken to date
The area surrounding the line contains protected species and environmentally sensitive habitats, all of which require investigation and mitigation planning to ensure that potential harm is minimised or avoided. Several species of bats roost in woodlands and forage in nearby open spaces and bat surveys have been carried out to calculate bat populations and assess how the scheme would affect them.
The survey results help determine the necessary mitigation measures, such as creating alternative roosting sites or modifying lighting to minimise disruption to bats’ nocturnal activities. These surveys can only be carried out between May and September, so delays to the scheme mean that they must be conducted over consecutive years.
Similarly, great crested newts, another protected species, have habitats near the proposed rail line. As with bats, developers are legally required to conduct newt surveys, which can only be carried out during the newts’ active months, so these assessments can also stretch over several seasons, significantly delaying progress.
As well as individual species surveys, biodiversity surveys are required to assess the potential impact on a wide range of plant and animal life and protected areas such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the Avon Gorge Woodlands Special Area of Conservation.
Why the UK is falling behind
The UK’s recent systemic failure of infrastructure delivery is a key reason why investment and growth have lagged other major economies, according to Professor Tim Dixon, Emeritus Professor (School of the Built Environment, University of Reading) and Visiting Fellow/Research Associate (Kellogg College/Global Centre on Healthcare and Urbanisation, University of Oxford). He said:
In the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries Britain had probably the best transport infrastructure in the world underpinned by strong national legislation and a desire in the Victorian era to build new settlements, homes, and industries alongside the tracks, and linking them financially to new rail infrastructure. However, recent analysis has shown that the UK has some of the highest railway costs per mile in the world, which makes many schemes unviable. Also, it hasn’t helped that the Beeching cuts of the 1960s eliminated railway lines that today would be seen as important urban commuter routes.
The UK’s deficiencies in infrastructure delivery were recently highlighted by a National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) report and an Arup/Urban Transport Group report both of which suggested that improved infrastructure policy was needed, including removing barriers and accelerating planning decisions, alongside other reforms such as increased local devolution.
The scale of the issue in the UK is highlighted by the fact that urban transport networks will need to accommodate a substantial number of extra passengers by 2055: in Bristol for example this could be 5000-7000 extra peak hour passenger journeys into the city centre. This will require major national investment: something like £22 billion to improve public transport in the largest regional English cities to unlock economic growth.
As a result, making good decisions at speed is paramount. These findings also chime with the incoming Labour government’s focus on creating greater economic growth by removing ‘planning barriers’, and fast-tracking appropriate new development, as the issue of delivery failure is also pervasive in the UK housing and energy supply sectors.
Tackling the barriers that projects encounter
Professor Dixon added:
Excessive environmental constraints are often highlighted as a cause of infrastructure delays. Rail infrastructure can, for example, result in higher emissions and more noise and vibration if it is non-electrified, and biodiversity and habitat loss may also be a problem.
For example, in the case of the Portishead scheme, the 18,000 pages of environmental impact assessment seem excessive for the short length of ‘reclaimed’ track involved. Yet environmental concerns are not the only drag on development, and it should also be understood that infrastructure and the environment are interdependent making investment even more complex; as the NIC suggests, infrastructure reliability is threatened by environmental risks such as flooding and climate change, while infrastructure systems can also affect the environment.
Ultimately it is not only concern over environmental impact that is holding up rail and other infrastructure in the UK today. We need a national long-term vision for transport and a smarter planning system that creates more certainty and balances economic growth targets and infrastructure delivery while maintaining biodiversity and mitigating habitat loss.
Tackling the UK’s outdated backlog of infrastructure is complex and will require much greater cooperation and increased state and private sector funding, underpinned by devolved powers so that local authorities and national and regional agencies can put much needed new infrastructure into place.
Missed opportunities for growth and development
Opportunities for economic growth, employment, and regeneration in the Portishead area have been lost due to the scheme’s delays. Portishead is a commuter town, with many residents traveling to Bristol for work; currently, they must travel by road, enduring the particularly severe congestion on the A369 and M5, consequent longer journey times, and increased pollution.
The reopening of the rail line would have reduced commute times, making it easier for residents to access jobs in Bristol and at the Royal Portbury Dock, which would benefit from enhanced transport links, enabling it to move goods more efficiently. These missed opportunities mean that Portishead has not fully realised its potential for attracting new businesses and encouraging the local economy through improved connectivity.
The wider impact of the UK’s lengthy planning processes
The Portishead Rail Project is just one example of the time it takes to gain approval for major infrastructure projects in the UK. The exhaustive planning process, while necessary to ensure environmental and legal compliance, often stifles progress and undermines the potential for economic growth. Delays caused by protected species surveys, biodiversity assessments, and public consultations slow down vital developments.
While environmental protection is crucial, the balance between safeguarding natural habitats and delivering essential infrastructure needs to be reassessed. Streamlining planning regulations, without sacrificing environmental responsibilities, could help expedite project timelines, leading to faster economic regeneration and improved national connectivity. Failing to address these delays risks holding back the UK’s growth at a time when efficient transport infrastructure is vital for both local and national prosperity.
Speeding up the system would mean that schemes like the Portishead Rail Project would face less exposure to governmental changes of mind: another problem is that contractors will be inclined to increase their risk premiums in anticipation of more project reviews.
The comment above about the Victorians building railway lines next to housing developments which helped to fund the railways is apt. If we were to link rail projects with adjacent new housing the railways could capture the value uplift from the new homes, creating a win-win situation, enabling the homes that we need and improved transport links.
It should not be beyond the wit of a willing government and a properly functioning planning system to accelerate the process. Environmental reports can be carried out swiftly and efficiently: next-day surveys are offered by some ecological consultancies. If the planning process for vital infrastructure projects can be made fit for purpose, the UK may not have to envy the bridges, rail networks and reservoirs so efficiently constructed by our European neighbours.
By Tom Fenton 
By Annie Button 
