Delivering through change: How can councils sustain infrastructure project delivery?

This LGIU research, conducted in partnership with Scape, gives an overview of the forces shaping local authority infrastructure projects – those typically funded through capital budgets, such as transport, housing, and regeneration, as well as digital, environment and energy projects. 

From October to December 2025, we gained insight from 70 senior local government officers working at the forefront of these projects, including 40 Heads of Service (e.g. Head of Housing) and 30 Top-Level Directors (e.g. Director of Regeneration) across 63 councils in England. These officers outlined their views on:

• The strain on delivery systems.
• The risks facing major ambitions.
• How councils are navigating pressures.
• What councils need to maintain momentum.

These insights have shaped a written report, Delivering Through Change, published earlier this year. This publication distils those findings into a streamlined resource for LGIU members. 

Key findings:

1. Delivery is being shaped more by national volatility than local ambition.
2. Projects stumble at the starting line.
3. The biggest place shaping projects are the most vulnerable.
4. Councils want system fixes, and external support is sought by many.

Research findings:

It is not a level playing field

Our survey suggests that the sector is near-evenly split into two groups: those confident in delivering on ambitions and those who are less hopeful. But what accounts for this difference? Why are some local authorities well positioned to deliver, and some aren’t?

There are some pressures that affect all councils, and the greatest constraints are macroeconomic – or due to uncertainty and delay arising from central government policy. However, issues with in-house expertise and personnel are also significant for a significant proportion of councils. Equally, 1 in 3 respondents identify local government reorganisation (LGR) as a constraint – an issue that, while existential for some councils, is something that many others do not have to contend with. Therefore, some councils are tackling a more wide-ranging set of challenges than others, producing uneven capacity to deliver on ambition. Notably, devolution and political change are only deemed a constraint for a minority (~10%).

Benefits of devolution and LGR are not immediate, nor universally perceived

Over the next two years, the twin track reforms of devolution and LGR are seen by a significant proportion (35%) as a hindrance to capital and infrastructure projects, while just over one quarter see them as unlocking potential in delivery. 

Beyond the next two years, however, most respondents expect a positive impact (58%), though some (21%) still see long-term downsides.

Put simply, this wave of reform to local government may be more disruptive than beneficial in the short term, but is seen as holding potential for broader improvements to delivery in the longer term.

Projects stumble at the starting line – particularly bigger, place-shaping projects

Early project stages are most disrupted by these aforementioned constraints. For instance, business case developments were identified by 81% of respondents as a stage that is likely to be disrupted in local project delivery, while over half (56%) identified procurement and contracting as prone to disruption. Construction/physical delivery is also significantly prone to disruption (43%), while post-delivery stages are minimally disrupted (<5%).

Regeneration, housing and transport projects are most exposed to disruption. Social, digital/smart and energy infrastructure projects are less so. Therefore, the biggest, place-shaping projects – those with the greatest potential to transform local infrastructure – are most vulnerable to the economic, political and organisational constraints identified in our survey.

Consequences of project disruption are largely financial and reputational, with knock-on impacts

Budget overruns (79%), timetable slippage (64%) and reputational damage (40%) are the key consequences of project disruptions. However, actions taken to mitigate these consequences include deprioritising other projects or reducing the scope/quality of other projects. While pragmatic, these measures have knock-on implications for local areas, where slippage in one large project can result in limitations on several others. This highlights the importance of addressing the constraints placed on local delivery, which at present threaten the ability of local government to deliver for residents in line with their ambitions and elected mandates.

Local authorities need greater certainty, flexibility and coordination across central government

When asked what central government could do to improve local capability to deliver infrastructure projects, key demands included: 

• More streamlined, certain and flexible funding.
• Government commitment to clearer long-term policies surrounding the built environment 
• Greater coordination across government departments.
• Greater support for councils to gain access to specialist expertise.

Where is additional support sought?

Early-stage, commercial areas are where additional support is most sought. But, it is worth noting that fewer than half of respondents identified any area as one which would benefit from greater support. Equally, emerging sectors (e.g. net-zero/digital) were also highlighted as areas that would benefit from additional support – but not by vast proportions.

Councils see a range of additional support measures as valuable for building resilience, though in most cases, only a minority see this value. For instance, although long-term frameworks with trusted suppliers/consultants are seen as a valuable type of support for most (57%), just 1 in 3 see standardised toolkits and processes as valuable, while fewer (29%) see shared services/regional partnerships as of value. 

Reflections on the key challenges and opportunities facing council delivery today

When asked to define the key challenges and opportunities facing council projects today, respondents gave a range of responses, though structural change, funding, and delivery transformation emerged as common themes:

Challenges:

“Lack of funding, high interest rates and increased costs” – Top Level Director, South East

“LGR will consume a lot of bandwidth” – Head of Service, East of England

“Funding availability – both grant and lending” – Head of Service, South East

Opportunities:

“[LGR] is an opportunity to re-evaluate… with increased potential to leverage funding and private investment” – Head of Service, South East

“New approaches and explore new delivery models” – Head of Service, South West

“Housing and regeneration” – Head of Service, South East

Key conclusions:

1. It is not a level playing field.
2. The benefits of devolution and LGR are not immediate, nor universally perceived.
3. Projects stumble at the starting line – particularly bigger, place-shaping projects.
4. Consequences of project disruption are largely financial and reputational, with knock-on impacts.
5. Local authorities need greater certainty, flexibility and coordination across central government.
6. Additional support is most sought in early stages of projects, and in emerging sectors – but it is not universally sought.
7. Structural change through local government reorganisation creates both a challenge and opportunity for delivery.