Death by a Thousand Red Tapes

How Britain’s bureaucracy stalls progress, and why real renewal means rethinking risk

The UK government recently announced that the UK Space Agency (UKSA), which was set up in 2010 to centralise civil space activity, will cease to operate as an independent body by April 2026. Instead, it will be folded into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), where it will function as a unit while keeping its name and brand.

This move follows years of criticism that UKSA was too dependent on the European Space Agency, slow in monitoring projects, and weak at securing returns on investment. A 2021 Space Landscape Review and a 2024 National Audit Office report both highlighted structural shortcomings that ultimately led ministers to rethink the agency’s role.

Space exploration has always been one of my passions, and while this news didn’t surprise me, it did tap into that broader sense of discontent I think a lot of us in the UK are feeling right now.

The sad truth is that Britain has developed a curious new national pastime, of not building things. We’re world-class at drawing up plans, producing reams of consultations, and holding endless hearings. But when it comes to actually putting steel in the ground, risk assessments and mitigation measures tend to pile up until the whole project collapses under its own weight.

I speak from experience, both as a former City Councillor and as a former campaigner who once joined activist efforts to block certain developments on environmental grounds (sorry about that).

Everyone knows it’s bad, but I don’t think most people realise how bad it actually is.

One reactor vs one big overreaction

Let’s start with the proposed Wylfa nuclear project in Wales. In 2020, Hitachi called off its £20 billion Wylfa nuclear plant after failing to agree on funding with UK ministers. Wales is close to my heart, and when I visited the community in Anglesey, I was struck by how much local support there was for building new reactors at the old nuclear site. At the time, the government had reassured us that it would go ahead, but instead the deal suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed. I tried to find out why at the time, but nobody involved would give me a straight answer.

Now we know that red tape strangled the project. Planning inspectors recommended against it, partly because they thought that an influx of nuclear workers into the area might dilute the proportion of Welsh speakers in the local community. Or, as they put it, the project could “adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture”. Anyone familiar with anti-nuclear activist tactics will recognise the gish-galloping that comprises this statement. And those who understand economics know what a nuclear project can contribute - and has contributed - to this very community.

How could 300 job losses at the plant, another 1,000 in the supply chain, and around 10,000 more disappearing across the region possibly be bad for the local economy?

Read my post on Wylfa, where I visited and spoke to the workers:

A community in Wales wants more nuclear reactors in their backyard. Why can’t they have them?

That’s right: an area in dire need of industry, a community keen for well paid jobs with opportunities for young people, and a country desperate for reliable, clean energy, actively turned down a new reactor at Wylfa over fears of linguistic imbalance. Simply because a few planning inspectors felt this to be the case, and were likely pressured by activists to reject the plans.

Fishy business = no business

Next we have the fish disco fiasco. Yes, you read that right. At Hinkley Point C last year, tensions mounted over a proposed so-called ‘fish disco’ deterrent. The idea was to install underwater loudspeakers to deter wildlife in the Bristol Channel. As well as the practical value of this being questionable, it also pushed the project’s price tag well into the stratosphere. However, when EDF tried to shelve ‘fish disco’ plans, so-called ‘environmental’ campaigners pushed for them to proceed. If their real aim was to increase ongoing delays in constructing the Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor, they succeeded.

If Monty Python films were still being made, there would be a wealth of valuable material here.

And the war on building things isn’t just about energy.

Off the rails

HS2, or High Speed 2, is the name of a proposed high-speed railway line project that was intended to connect major cities. However, the planned northern extensions to Manchester were eventually cancelled, significantly scaling back the project. The ‘HS2 bat tunnel’, or Sheephouse Wood Bat Protection Structure, is a 900m to 1km long structure in Buckinghamshire that was designed to protect rare bats, including Bechstein’s bats from high-speed trains on the High Speed 2 (HS2) line. While described as a “tunnel,” it is actually a covered structure of concrete arches with mesh, designed to mitigate the impact of the railway on the bats’ habitat in Sheephouse Wood and comply with environmental laws. But many engineers warned that the mesh walls of the structure are not truly bat-proof, raising questions about its ability to keep bats away from the trains. And the cost of this venture? Over £100 million.

The UK also faces persistent challenges in delivering sufficient housing to meet demand. Planning restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and lengthy approval processes often slow construction. Local opposition to large-scale projects, or NIMBYism, further complicates expansion. Meanwhile, we have a crippling shortage of housing and escalating property prices, which especially puts pressure on first-time buyers and renters, and altogether raises already-high tensions.

I think you get the picture, and that’s enough complaining for now.

In a moment of fairness - in February of this year the UK government announced its Plan for Change including removing barriers to building new nuclear power plants in Britain, stating:

“This is the latest refusal to accept the status quo, with the government ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs, to prioritise growth. It comes after recent changes to planning laws, the scrapping of the 3-strike rule for judicial reviews on infrastructure projects, and application of common-sense to environmental rules.

For too long the country has been mired by delay and obstruction, with a system too happy to label decisions as too difficult, or too long term. The UK was the first country in the world to develop a nuclear reactor, but the last time a nuclear power station was built was back in 1995. None have been built since, leaving the UK lagging behind in a global race to harness cleaner, more affordable energy.”

These new plans include adding small nuclear power stations to planning rules for the first time, allowing firms to start building them where they’re most needed. They also scrap the fixed list of eight approved sites, meaning nuclear plants could now be built anywhere across England and Wales. The government is removing the expiry date on nuclear planning rules, so projects won’t get timed out and the industry can plan for the long term. And finally, a new Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has been created to streamline regulations and make it easier for companies to build here, reporting directly to the Prime Minister.

So, there has been some effort to address the problem, but I want to look at it from a different angle.

The risk of poor risk assessment

All of these examples come down to one thing: our ability to assess risk. And frankly, from planning officers to environmental campaigners, we’re not very good at it.

What if, in assessing risk, we are ignoring the elephant in the room - that extreme risk aversion is itself a major risk?

Britain needs clean energy, cheaper housing, and better infrastructure yesterday. Instead, projects are smothered by a precautionary culture where the mere possibility of harm outweighs the certainty of stagnation. No nuclear plant is built, no railway is finished, few homes materialise. This is how you get decline: not through making bold mistakes, but through endless timidity. At some point, we need to admit that there’s no such thing as zero risk, that trying to aim for it is unnecessary, and the bigger danger is paralysis.

And we are in that danger zone.

Instead, what if we consider weighing the risks of not building things? Rejecting a power plant doesn’t eliminate risk - it drives up energy bills, increases reliance on imports, and weakens the economy. Saying no to new railways doesn’t automatically preserve the countryside - it means more cars on congested roads, higher pollution, and communities left isolated.

Again, Monty Python would have had a field day with this. But if a planning inspection included these broader, bigger risks, all the other concerns - fish disco and bat tunnel included - would immediately be discarded. The risks we ignore bring important context to the decision-making process.

Ultimately, the real danger lies in inaction, not in building. Every time a project is blocked or delayed, there are hidden costs that no one is considering or assessing. Including - ironically - environmental risks. Obsessing over every potential downside of development blinds us to the cumulative costs of doing nothing.

In a country already struggling with an aging infrastructure, an aging population, and challenging climate commitments, paralysis is itself a form of risk that threatens economic competitiveness, social mobility, and even national resilience.

Prime Minister Starmer keeps calling for “national renewal,” but this isn’t just about cutting red tape. It’s about recognising what we lose every time a new infrastructure project gets blocked, and putting the burden on decision-makers to show that loss is justified. That’s the real renewal we should be talking about.

Apologies for not posting as often as I’d like - a looming book deadline has me fully occupied. In the meantime, please consider supporting my work by subscribing. I’ll be back to regular posts once the manuscript is off my desk.

If you want to stay ahead of the energy transition, this is your must-read. Subscribe now to get it first.

Already subscribed? Thanks for helping this newsletter grow, and feel free to forward it to one curious friend who cares about the future of reliable clean energy.