Here Head of Sales for WCS Environmental Engineering at Marlowe Environmental Services, James Greenwood, argues AMP8 is facing failure and a change in approach should be considered.
The UK water sector began AMP8 last April facing a clear contradiction.
Linked to the Government’s commercial water reduction targets of 9% by 2038 and 15% by 2050 from 2019/20 baselines, there is a record investment of £104bn.
There is also a set of priorities for the most ambitious AMP framework yet:
- Addressing storm overflow discharges and the impact they have on rivers and the coast
- Tighter rules around environmental permits for UK water companies, ahead of stricter regulations by 2030
- Enhanced sustainability across the board, requiring upgrades to ageing infrastructure to improve efficiency and environmental performance – assisting business water saving strategies
But there’s a problem – we’re faced with overcoming these challenges with a system and workforce that haven’t been optimised or scaled to deliver them.
Given that England and Wales will need around 5 billion extra litres of water per day by 2055, there is no margin for error in the development of water infrastructure. Which raises a simple question…
Are we trying to deliver a bigger programme with the same capacity and expecting it to work out differently this time?
AMP schedules are doomed to fail
There is no doubt AMP8 is a step change in scale.
But the delivery model still looks and feels very familiar. That means heavy front-end design of the solutions needed to achieve the AMP’s goals. Meanwhile, delivery of these solutions is pushed into the later years of the cycle; likely 2028 onwards. And the supply chain is expected to respond when the work finally lands.
This approach is known to struggle under pressure. It’s something the industry has been complaining about since before AMP7.
Except now there are additional challenges to contend with. For example, there’s a structural skills shortage across design, delivery and commissioning. The industry, including supply chain, is being asked to deliver significantly more, without a meaningful increase in capacity.
In the circumstances, I believe what was already a known issue is beginning to look like a genuine breaking point for AMP8 delivery.
Failing AMP patterns keep repeating
From the outside, AMP8 can look like a funding conversation – but this is a delivery problem rather than a funding one.
The pattern is already emerging:
- Plenty of design and ‘optioneering’ / structured decision-making
- Less clarity on what is actually getting built, with ongoing scope reductions due to increasing costs and decreasing budgets
- A mounting delivery backlog that will become clearer in the later years of AMP8
Related to all of the above is the industry-wide concern that everyone has an opinion on…
When it all lands, will the sector have the people, kit and capacity to deliver what AMP8 has set out to achieve?
The reality is that when everything hits at once, the industry doesn’t just get busy – it becomes stretched to its limits.
Begin with standardisation to improve AMP success
There is burgeoning momentum for regulatory reform, but AMP8 won’t wait.
That means it will be delivered largely within the system we’ve got today.
So, while we wait for transformative change to how AMPs are delivered, what do we change now?
I believe we should standardise where we can. One practical shift would be to move away from fully bespoke design on every site, reducing unnecessary variation.
Standardisation allows:
- Faster decisions
- Earlier equipment selection
- More consistency across programmes
For the supply chain, this provides something critical for the success of each and every AMP – visibility.
Once standardisation has been achieved, it can be repeated. I’ve seen this through standard product catalogues and consistent approaches to the processes behind common upgrades.
There is also an opportunity here: scalability. You can’t scale bespoke delivery, but you can scale modular, repeatable solutions – if they’re agreed early enough.
Bring the supply chain in earlier
Timing also matters. Too often suppliers are brought in once key decisions have already been made. However, earlier engagement allows for:
- Better alignment
- Earlier commitment to manufacturing
- More realistic delivery planning
There is also reduced risk of organisations competing for the same resources at the same time, which is where things typically start to unravel.
Let AMP8 be the turning point for water infrastructure
So, on reflection, is everything currently planned for AMP actually deliverable within AMP8?
Probably not.
I anticipate that we’ll see the same pattern play out. We will see projects stacking up towards the end of the cycle, capacity running out and large chunks of work inevitably slipping into AMP9. Incidentally, AMP9 is already set to be larger than AMP8. We need to put an end to this pattern. As the saying goes, we need to stop doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. We need to set AMPs up for success.
I hope AMP8 proves to be the turning point needed to really secure UK water infrastructure.
