HS2 has suffered ‘significant cost' from legal challenges by public bodies
HS2 Ltd was given the power to construct the railway when the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act received royal assent in February 2017.
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
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
Tory modernisation has failed
We at the New Statesman are not neutral observers of the politics of this country. We may be critical of this Labour government when we think it deserves criticism. But we also do not want to see the country move to the populist right, under a Tory government or one led by Reform. This should be obvious: we are a magazine of the left, which wants to see progressive reform. And yet what happens in the Conservative Party and Reform matters because it often affects the political direction we are all forced to travel. One of the most important developments in British politics today, therefore, is the extraordinary implosion of the Conservatives under Kemi Badenoch. Its scale is remarkable in its own right, but it also has profound implications for how Britain is governed. Think about how Labour behaves as it shifts its focus from the Conservatives to Reform ahead of the next general election. Without the collapse in support for the Tories – and the corresponding rise in the polls for Nigel Farage – would Starmer ever have uttered the words 'island of strangers'? The Prime Minister's mistake reveals a deeper truth: he and his government have yet to develop a strategy for how to deal with Farage The rub of Will Lloyd's cover story this week is simple: Kemi isn't working. For those who may (understandably) take some joy from this, Will's piece offers pause for thought. While it is absolutely the case that one of the reasons Badenoch is failing is her own limitations, there is no getting away from a deeper truth: she is also struggling because of nastier currents in society. Badenoch is not struggling because she is too right wing. Quite the opposite, in fact. For many of those agitating against her leadership, she represents the failed project of modernisation (as they would see it) of the David Cameron years. Today, the 'New Right' wants a far more Trump- (or Farage-) inflected conservatism than the one Badenoch is offering. Another reason the mood has soured is that a growing segment of the New Right has become dangerously fixated on questions of race, ethnicity and demographics. For some young Tories, it seems, Badenoch will never be British enough. This is a grim trend that we at the New Statesman feel a duty to expose. One final lesson from Will's piece is the continued failure of our political class to meet the challenges before it. As a friend put it to me recently, the problems the country now faces are at least as acute as any we have faced for decades, while the quality of our leaders seems to deteriorate from one parliament to the next. As our problems become bigger, our politicians get smaller. And so we enter a doom loop of hopelessness and despair, as one government after the next fails to rise to the challenge before it. Badenoch, in other words, may simply be a symptom of a deeper structural problem in Britain (and the West) today. Of course, Badenoch is not the only party leader in Westminster struggling in the polls. Andrew Marr delves into the disquiet bubbling just below the surface in Labour. As ever, his column is a must-read for those who want to understand the inner workings of the government. Meanwhile, Oliver Eagleton examines the lasting legacy of the war in Afghanistan, which continues to cast its shadow over British politics. Will Dunn looks at the extraordinary inertia of our governing class and Pippa Bailey casts her eye over Labour's (sensible) changes to sex education in schools – some good news at last! We have expanded Correspondence to reflect the huge number of letters we have received following last week's cover story about war crimes in Gaza. In the New Society, we have compiled our list of the best summer reads (including Don't Forget We're Here Forever by the New Statesman columnist Lamorna Ash), Finn McRedmond decamps to Chianti, and Michael Prodger reviews a book by the artist David Gentleman (he of those beautiful murals at London's Charing Cross Underground station). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before I sign off, I'd like to draw the reader's attention to one final piece in this week's magazine. Hannah Barnes reflects on the devastating death of her brother in a motorcycle crash. Life is precious and fragile. Perhaps it is so precious because it is so fragile. I hope that we at the New Statesman try to live it with vim and vigour while we can, bringing you life in all its pain and joy, glory and tragedy: a magazine reporting on our world as it is, while always having an eye on how we want it to be. Related This article appears in the 23 Jul 2025 issue of the New Statesman, Kemi Isn't Working
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Tories accuse Reeves of covering up £10bn of borrowing
The Conservatives have accused Rachel Reeves of covering up an extra £10bn of debt after loans to state-backed entities were allegedly 'buried' in spending documents. Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, claimed Ms Reeves hid the figure in her June spending review, when more extra spending was announced for financial transactions. The £9.6bn of extra spending includes 'loans and equity investments to support growth', the spending review said, with money going to the British Business Bank (BBB) and Great British Energy (GBE). But because Ms Reeves rewrote the borrowing rules to target public sector net financial liabilities rather than net debt, these loans and shareholdings have little impact on the debt limit. Public sector net financial liabilities is a more forgiving measure of debt because it subtracts financial assets such as loans and equity investments against the debt pile, making the debt appear lower on paper. Including the loans and investments for BBB and GBE in the calculations artificially reduces the debt load, but the Government still has to borrow to fund the spending – and so will rack up a larger interest bill. Mr Stride also accused the Chancellor of failing to seek the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) assessment of the impact of the additional debt on the Government's interest bill. 'Rachel Reeves said her spending review included 'not a penny more' in new spending, but buried in the small print was an extra £10bn to be quietly added to the national debt,' said Mr Stride. 'The 'spend now, tax later' Chancellor is moving the goalposts to cover up the cost of her own decisions. 'Worse still, Rachel Reeves hasn't even asked the OBR what this means for taxpayers. More debt, no plan – that's Labour's answer to everything.' In March, before this additional £9.6bn was disclosed, the OBR estimated the annual cost of debt interest would rise from £105.2bn last year to £131.6bn by the end of the decade. In an answer to a written question from Mr Stride, Emma Reynolds, the Treasury minister, said the £9.6bn will go 'to good value-for-money investment opportunities identified through the spending review process, subject to the robust guardrails set out in the financial transaction control framework'. 'In its March forecast, the OBR confirmed that the Government is on track to meet its fiscal rules, thanks to decisive action taken by the government to put the public finances on a sustainable trajectory and grow the economy. 'The OBR will publish an updated forecast later this year in the usual way.' The Labour Party had previously attacked the Conservatives for leaving the public finances in a dire state, and for failing to seek the OBR's view at the time of Liz Truss's mini-Budget in 2022. 'Unlike the Conservatives, Labour will never sideline the OBR for political convenience,' Labour's manifesto read last year. 'Instead, we will strengthen the role of the OBR. Every fiscal event making significant changes to taxation or spending will be subject to an independent OBR forecast.' The OBR is expected to assess the spending review changes, as well as other increases to spending including the about-turn on benefits reforms, in its forecasts at the time of the autumn Budget. In its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report this month, the OBR said the £9.6bn of transactions highlight the extent to which the new debt rule 'creates an additional incentive for the acquisition of loan and other financial assets by the public sector, relative to previous debt rules which have not counted these assets'. It also noted that its own estimates of the value of the assets on the Government's balance sheet would affect debt on the Chancellor's chosen metric. A Treasury spokesman said: 'This change to the fiscal rules was made almost a year ago. Our non-negotiable fiscal rules, for the first time ever will recognise financial assets held by government meaning all of these investments are consistent with them. They will also all be scored with the OBR at future fiscal events.'
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
Who is accountable in privatised Britain?
Illustration by Andy Carter / Ikon Images 'New, unadopted estate.' The Hitchin MP, Alistair Strathern, pointed. Then he gestured to a building site where diggers were enthusiastically getting to work. 'New estate that will be unadopted… Unadopted estate… Unadopted estate.' During the 20-minute drive from Shefford town centre to Hitchin Station, we passed at least six examples of the phenomenon Strathern had invited me to his constituency, which straddles the Bedfordshire-Hertfordshire border, to explore: new-build housing estates their councils have refused to adopt. Much has been written about leasehold, the peculiarly British 'feudal' system in which homebuyers own a property but not the land it sits on, leaving them liable for spiralling ground rent and management fees. After decades of advocacy, some improvements were made under the Conservatives in last year's Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, and Labour has promised to go further with protections for leaseholders in this parliament. But even when new-build homes are sold with the freehold, hidden costs can sneak in. Known as 'fleecehold' housing, the estates Strathern pointed out are those where the responsibility for maintaining the roads, street lighting, drainage and communal areas has not been adopted by the council, as it deems development not to have been completed to a high enough standard. Until a development is adopted, the residents must pay for the services the council would usually provide, in addition to council tax, via yearly fees paid to private management companies. The fees themselves may not sound large – £200-£300 a year. Or, at least, that's the level at which they start out. At a new estate I visited, fees had been hiked by 41 per cent in a year, with vague explanations. Calls and emails to the management company went largely unanswered; correspondence was limited to scarily worded 'final demand' letters. If owners refuse to pay, management companies can go direct to their lender to have the charges added to their mortgage, tanking the owner's credit rating. Residents I met spoke of finding it impossible to determine what they were paying for, or to hold the management company accountable for the work it was – or wasn't – carrying out. Fleecehold is now the norm across the country. Whereas councils used to adopt new estates, the Competition and Markets Authority has found that 80 per cent of new homes built by the 11 largest developers in 2021-22 were sold under the fleecehold system, with £260m in estate management charges paid out in 2022 alone. There are stories of owners being assured their estate would be adopted as a formality, only to still be paying fees a decade on. Meanwhile, the government is pushing through planning reform to meet its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament. The problem may not be as visceral as the issues with build quality that owners of new-builds often face: cracked walls, dodgy plumbing, damp and mould. But the two are inextricably linked. Every owner I spoke to about fleecehold charges also had a horror story of how their 'dream home' had turned into a nightmare of construction faults that developers were reluctant to rectify. One showed me a brimming lever-arch folder of his correspondence with the developer – 200 pages in 20 months. The question is one of accountability. When things go wrong, whose job is it to fix them? What happens if they fail to do so? And how are they seemingly able to charge what they like, with no cap on costs or any obligation to show how the money is spent? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe You might imagine the council would step in. But, as I found out in Hitchin, cash-strapped local authorities have little incentive to ensure developments are built to standard, as adopting them means adopting additional costs. The developers, meanwhile, have little incentive to come back to complete repairs once the houses have been sold. Strathern, who worked on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill committee, is hoping to change this and has introduced a debate in parliament on ensuring new estates are adopted on schedule. But it's hard to fix a problem most people don't even know exists until after they've bought their homes. Passing the accountability buck can be an art form. In Shefford, I visited Old Bridge Way: a 220m stretch of road through an industrial park connecting an estate of some 1,000 homes to the centre of town and a Morrisons. I stood there for ten minutes watching non-stop traffic navigate a maze of potholes six inches deep. Central Bedfordshire Council says this is not its responsibility, as it doesn't actually own that part of the road. Who does own it is an open question: the company responsible for it was liquidated in 2024, leaving it effectively ownerless. But I noticed double yellow lines along the kerbside. I asked the council if it was issuing parking fines for a road it claimed it had no responsibility for, but it did not offer an answer. A council that won't adopt a thoroughfare used by thousands of people is unlikely to adopt estates full of new homes. Strathern described both situations as 'hollowed-out councils retreating from the public realm'. To me, they resembled what the satirical science-fiction author Douglas Adams once termed a Somebody Else's Problem field, a way of concealing inconvenient things that utilises 'people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain'. For residents placed in fleecehold limbo the issues of rising fees and the lack of accountability are impossible to ignore. For everyone else, they are Somebody Else's Problem. [See also: GMB chief Gary Smith: 'Oil and gas is not the enemy'] Related
