HS2 has suffered ‘significant cost' from legal challenges by public bodies
The most recent of the nine legal challenges the project has faced from other public bodies since then was launched by North Warwickshire Borough Council in relation to the extension of the under-construction Bromford Tunnel.
In May, the High Court rejected the council's bid for a judicial review.
Since royal assent was obtained, there have also been 25 appeals relating to the HS2 planning regime.
In a six-monthly written update to Parliament on HS2, Ms Alexander acknowledged it is 'right there are checks and balances embedded in our legal and planning systems', but expressed concern these are being used to 'frustrate the delivery of consented projects'.
She wrote: 'The delivery of HS2 has continued during this period to be the subject of both legal and planning challenges, which have added significant cost, uncertainty and potential for delay.'
She added: 'The Government continues to monitor this issue closely and will consider further interventions where appropriate, alongside its wider work on planning reform.'
Ms Alexander also announced that she has lifted safeguarding on the majority of land protected for HS2's former Phase 2b eastern leg between Birmingham and Leeds, which was cancelled in November 2021.
Safeguarding is used to stop land from being developed in a way that would conflict with future schemes.
More than 550 properties were acquired by HS2 Ltd ahead of the planned construction of Phase 2b's eastern section.
Removing safeguarding means the process of selling them can begin.
Former owners of property within the safeguarding zone, which was acquired by HS2 Ltd will be given the opportunity to buy it back at the current market value.
HS2 has suffered repeated delays and soaring costs.
Ms Alexander announced last month there was 'no route' to meet the target date of having HS2 services running by 2033.
In her update to Parliament, the Secretary of State said her department is working with HS2 Ltd chief executive Mark Wild to 'reset' the project, with the aim of providing an 'updated delivery baseline and funding envelope in 2026'.
She went on: 'Until this work is completed, this Government is not in a position to say with confidence how much HS2 will cost or when it will be delivered.
'That is a deeply unsatisfactory position, but it is necessary to complete the hard work we have embarked upon.'
HS2 was originally planned to run between London and Birmingham, then on to Manchester and Leeds, but the project was severely curtailed by the Conservatives in power because of spiralling costs.
The first phase was initially scheduled to open by the end of 2026, but this was later pushed back to between 2029 and 2033.
In 2013, HS2 was estimated to cost £37.5 billion (at 2009 prices) for the entire planned network, including the now-scrapped extensions from Birmingham.
In June last year, HS2 Ltd assessed the cost for the line between London and Birmingham would be up to £66 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Syria expected to hold parliamentary election in September, official says
July 27 (Reuters) - Syria is expected to hold its first parliamentary election under the new administration in September, the head of the electoral process told state news agency SANA on Sunday. Voting for the People's Assembly is expected to take place from September 15-20, added the official, Mohamed Taha.
South Wales Argus
4 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Tories would ban doctors' strikes, Badenoch says
The Tory leader said that her party would introduce primary legislation to block medics from taking widespread industrial action, placing the same restrictions on them that apply to police officers and soldiers. Thousands of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors, began a five-day walkout on Friday after relations between the Government and British Medical Association (BMA) soured over a dispute about pay. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said the union will not be allowed to 'hold the country to ransom' after receiving a 28.9% pay award over the last three years, the highest across the public sector. The BMA says, despite this uplift, pay for resident doctors has declined by a fifth since 2008 once inflation is taken into account. NHS resident doctors outside Bristol Royal Infirmary (Ben Birchall/PA) On Saturday, the Conservatives said they would reintroduce minimum service level requirements, which were brought in by the previous government and scrapped by Labour, across the health service. Mrs Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. 'Medicine is a vocation, not just a job. 'That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too.' She said the Tories were 'making an offer in the national interest, we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Patients have been urged to attend appointments unless told otherwise while the action is ongoing, with NHS England saying hospitals are aiming to reschedule any cancellations due to strikes within two weeks. Mr Streeting has warned of a challenging few days for the health service but said 'we are doing everything we can to minimise' harm.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Kemi is right. We must clip the BMA's wings
Kemi Badenoch's announcement that the Conservatives would ban strikes by doctors represents a clear break with the consensus of the recent past. It is a determined response both to the Government's slow progress with NHS reform and to the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it much easier for unions to call damaging public sector strikes. At present the 'right to strike' – formally an immunity, dating from 1906, from being sued for breach of contract – is almost universal amongst UK employees. The only significant exceptions are the Armed Forces, the police and prison officers. The military are banned from industrial action in every country in the world, and police strikes have been banned here since 1919. Prison officers have at various times had the freedom to strike, but since the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, brought in by the last Labour government as it happens, that right has been removed. Many countries have wider restrictions on strikes. Civil servants, university staff and many teachers are banned from striking in Germany, for example. Air traffic controllers, fire and rescue workers can't withdraw labour in Czechia. No federal employee can strike in the US, or even belong to a union which asserts the right to strike. We know that the current Government has made a fetish of international human rights legislation, but the International Labor Organization – to which we are signed up – specifically permits strike bans in 'those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health' of the population. This would certainly seem to include our militant resident doctors. In practice complete bans on striking by doctors – not always and everywhere the most militant of unionists, to be fair – are confined to authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. But many more liberal jurisdictions place considerable constraints on the right to strike. In some US states – including New York, Florida and Texas – doctors in public hospitals cannot strike. The same applies in several Australian states, while any industrial action in other states must go through complicated Fair Work Commission procedures. Where doctors' strikes are permitted there are usually requirements for notice and for minimum service levels – the latter is being abolished here by the Employment Rights Bill. In Canada, doctors in some provinces may be obliged to submit to binding arbitration. Mrs Badenoch justifies her headline-grabbing proposal by pointing to the frequency of resident doctors' strikes and their intransigence in demanding another extraordinary pay settlement despite the government stuffing their mouths with gold last time round. 'The BMA is out of control' she claims. That may also be true of some other militant unions – the RMT is gearing up for more action on our newly-nationalised railways, for example – but they do not generally threaten lives. I rather doubt that a new Conservative government would completely ban doctors' strikes, an action which would prompt massive opposition from the trade union movement as a whole and no doubt provoke the now-inevitable explosion of lawfare. But it would certainly be possible to clip the BMA's wings by tightening ballot requirements and reintroducing the power to impose binding arbitration, something which British governments used in the past. More important, however, would be reform to break up the monolithic structure of the NHS. This would have the side-effect of introducing a genuine market for the services of doctors rather than the current bilateral monopoly. Of course, the prospect of a Conservative government in the near future seems as likely as snow in August. Nevertheless Kemi Badenoch has performed a useful service in opening up debate about the future conduct of industrial relations in the health service, while putting Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting firmly on the spot. Reform should join in the action: we have yet to hear anything of significance about their position on the doctors' strike. Labour needs to abandon its ineffectual bleating about the moral responsibilities of doctors and get tough with these strikers, who do not have massive public backing: nobody is bashing pans outside their doors these days. Another capitulation to the demands of the BMA will only produce knock-on demands from other NHS workers, threatening both the prospects for genuine health reforms and the country's dire fiscal position.
