In the narrow lanes around Aldham in Essex the countryside is close to the English ideal.
On an unseasonably warm mid-October day the fields recede to a low horizon, broken only by hedgerows and the spire of the parish church, the tallest landmark this side of Suffolk.
If National Grid has its way it won’t stay that way for long.
Aldham is on the route of a new pylon line that will run more than 110 miles, from Norwich to Tilbury on the Thames Estuary, carrying electricity generated on wind farms in the North Sea via high voltage cables suspended from 50-metre tall towers.
National Grid, the listed company that owns and runs the UK’s electricity network, says it’s crucial to a massive grid upgrade without which the transition from fossil fuels to low carbon power cannot happen.
For locals and campaigners it’s an unnecessary intrusion that will bring steel giants marching through some of the most scenic countryside in the east of England.
More from Business
This is more than just a local planning dispute.
It’s a story about the most important national infrastructure project you have probably never heard of; about a glacial planning system that fails communities and builders; and the balance between local and national interests as the UK strives to hit its climate goals.
Advertisement
The great grid upgrade
On the road to net zero Britain is like a traveller who remembered their laptop and adapter but forgot to pack the plug cable.
For years we have been preparing for a low-carbon future by focusing on supply and demand, without thinking enough about the bit in between.
While supply has focused on phasing out fossil fuels, chiefly using offshore wind power, consumer and business demand has begun shifting to lower carbon options like electric vehicles and heat pumps.
This has transformed not just where we get our power, but how much we will need.
Demand for electricity will double in the coming decade as natural gas, petrol and diesel are phased out and a world reliant on digital data consumes vastly more power.
The expansion of offshore wind and, in time, nuclear, will meet demand, but those new power sources need to be connected to a grid originally built for the fossil fuel age.
The bones of the national grid were built in the 1960s and 70s, connecting power stations largely clustered around the coalfields of the north and midlands to cities and towns using ‘motorways’ of high-voltage pylons.
With most of our power coming from the coast in the future that has to change.
National Grid has identified 17 new or upgraded lines required, including undersea cables to link Scotland and the east of England and several onshore pylon routes, the largest of which is Norwich-Tilbury.
It will cost up to £19bn and most of it has to happen in seven years to meet the government’s target of decarbonising the grid by 2030.
Image: Carl Trowell, President of strategic infrastructure at the National Grid
“There’s no energy transition without a massive upgrade to the transmission system. It’s an enabler for everything we want to do,” said the man in charge of delivering it, Carl Trowell, National Grid’s president of strategic infrastructure.
“Over the next seven to eight years we’ve got to build five times more infrastructure than has been built in the last 30, so it’s quite an upgrade.”
Fight the power
For Adam Scott, owner of Church House Farm in Aldham, the great grid upgrade means three 50-metre pylons planted on his land, and £6,000 each in compensation.
“You would happily pay £6,000 not to have them,” he said.
“There are many impacts. You’ve got to go round them with machines, you can’t irrigate land near them, if we want to grow trees to help climate change we wouldn’t be allowed to, so there’s a lot of separate impacts the pylons will have if they arrive in our village.”
Image: Sky’s Business correspondent, Paul Kelso with farmer Adam Scott in East Anglia
Mr Scott and residents along the entire route have been galvanised by perhaps the most effective local campaign group in the country, the Community Planning Alliance, founded and run by Rosie Pearson.
Dubbed the “Queen of the Nimbys”, a term she loathes, Ms Pearson has been hugely successful in helping community groups maximise their influence to oppose infrastructure projects, primarily housing.
She believes the pylons are unnecessary and should go under the sea, referring to rough drawings of an alternative offshore plan she says would be cheaper.
“We don’t see why the pylons should be built across East Anglia when the wind farms are offshore and the power is needed down south. It’s offshore, keep it offshore,” she said.
National Grid utterly rejects this, saying campaigners have misrepresented their figures and insisting an offshore route would cost £4bn as opposed to £1bn for the pylons, with consumers ultimately paying the difference.
“The first thing to say is that Norwich to Tilbury is part of a wider system, some of which is offshore and some onshore. Going offshore is four to five times more expensive, and it comes with its own environmental issues,” said Mr Trowell.
“And you can’t put all your infrastructure offshore. It takes hours to repair a pylon but it can take months to years to try and fix a problem or a fault offshore. Ultimately we have to strike a balance, and that’s what we’ve done.”
Image: Local campaign groups oppose National Grid’s Norwich to Tilbury proposals
If the pylons are built, Ms Pearson says communities should be compensated for hosting in the same way as if Norwich to TIlbury was a train line.
Currently the grid, and the government’s electricity commissioner have said only that they should receive “benefits” from hosting infrastructure, such as cheaper bills.
“That’s patronising,” she said. “Full compensation needs to be paid to any farmer that’s having his business disrupted, any homeowner who can’t sell, any business that can’t run in the same way, not sweeteners.”
Planning problems
Where she and the grid agree is that the planning system is not working.
It can take a decade for major projects to pass through a system ill-designed to cope with the net zero infrastructure boom.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
De-carbonising Britain’s electricity grid
Rosie Pearson may have helped around 600 local groups challenge various building projects, but she rejects the accusation that they stand in the way of progress.
“I think people look at it the wrong way.
“The system creates the objector, the planning system even calls us ‘objectors’. If the system involved communities right from the beginning, presented them with options or alternatives, with facts and pros and cons, then you’d end up with decisions being made much faster.
“I can certainly say with this pylons campaign, if we’d all been consulted at the beginning we’d probably be working towards a better solution for everybody.”
For National Grid and other infrastructure developers the problem is a lack of clarity. Major planning decisions are guided by National Policy Statements, many of which are out of date and leave many decisions open to interpretation.
Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Committee and the government’s senior adviser, told Sky News they need urgent rewriting and regular updating.
“The process gets bogged down partly because there isn’t clarity of direction from the outset that enables an inspector to judge a project against the importance of the project to the nation, much more than to a locality,” he said.
“What we have to do over the next 20 years does require boldness, it requires clarity, it requires a sense of leadership and a sense that this is very important for our country in terms of the economy, our ability to grow jobs to spread that wealth around the country, our ability to compete.
“If we don’t make the changes to our infrastructure that’s necessary, we risk being left behind.”
Sir Martin Sorrell, the advertising mogul, has received a number of merger approaches for S4 Capital, the London-listed marketing services group he founded seven years ago.
Sky News can reveal that Sir Martin has been contacted in recent weeks by potential suitors including One Equity Partners, a US-based private equity firm which focuses on acquiring companies in the healthcare, industrials, and technology sectors.
This weekend, analysts suggested that One Equity would seek to combine S4 Capital with MSQ, a creative and technology agency group it bought in 2023.
Further details of the possible tie-up were unclear on Saturday, including whether a formal proposal had been made or whether S4 Capital might remain listed on the London Stock Exchange if a deal were to be completed.
S4 Capital is also understood to have attracted recent interest from other parties, the identities of which could not be immediately established.
In March 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sir Martin had rebuffed several offers from Stagwell, an advertising group led by Mark Penn, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.
New Mountain Capital, another American private equity firm, was also said at the time to have held talks about buying parts or all of S4 Capital.
News of One Equity’s approach puts the venture founded by one of Britain’s most prominent business figures firmly in play after a torrid period in which it has been buffeted by macroeconomic headwinds and a number of accounting issues.
Sir Martin founded S4 Capital in 2018, months after his unexpected and acrimonious departure from WPP, the group he transformed from a manufacturer of wire baskets into the world’s largest provider of marketing services.
The businessman, who has voting control at S4 Capital, used his deep network of institutional relationships to raise money for an acquisition spree at S4, which included technology-focused agencies such as MediaMonks and MightyHive.
S4’s clients now include Alphabet, Amazon, General Motors, Meta, T-Mobile, and Walmart.
Sir Martin’s decision to target acquisitions in the digital content and programmatic media arenas reflected the priorities of what he described as a marketing services group for a new era.
At WPP, he was the architect of a now-widely replicated strategy to assemble hundreds of agency brands under one holding company.
By the time he stepped down, WPP was the owner of creative agency networks such as JWT and Ogilvy, while its media-buying muscle was channelled through the global subsidiary GroupM.
The latest approaches for S4 Capital come during a period of profound change in the global marketing services industry, as artificial intelligence dismantles practices and creative processes that had evolved over decades.
Sir Martin has spurned few opportunities to criticise his successor at WPP, Mark Read, as well as the wider advertising industry, in the seven years since he established S4 Capital.
Last month, WPP announced that Mr Read would be replaced by Cindy Rose, a senior Microsoft executive who has sat on the company’s board as a non-executive director since 2019.
“Cindy has supported the digital transformation of large enterprises around the world – including embracing AI to create new customer experiences, business models and revenue streams,” the WPP chairman, Philip Jansen, said.
“Her expertise in this landscape will be hugely valuable to WPP as the industry navigates fundamental changes and macroeconomic uncertainty.”
WPP has also forfeited its status as the world’s largest marketing services empire to Publicis, and will be shunted even further behind the sector’s biggest players once Omnicom Group’s $13.25bn (£9.85bn) takeover of Interpublic Group is completed.
At the time of Sir Martin’s exit from WPP in April 2018, the company had a market capitalisation of more than £16bn.
On Friday, its market value at its closing share price of 367.5p was just £4.23bn.
Last month, the advertising industry news outlet Campaign reported that WPP had held tentative discussions with the consulting firm Accenture about a potential combination or partnership, underscoring the pressure on legacy marketing services groups.
This weekend, it remained unclear how likely it was that Sir Martin would consummate a deal to combine S4 Capital with another industry player such as One Equity-owned MSQ.
Shares in S4 Capital closed on Friday at 21.2p, giving the company a market capitalisation of £140m.
The stock has fallen by nearly 60% during the last 12 months, and is more than 90% lower than its peak in 2022.
At one point, Sir Martin’s stake in S4 Capital was valued at close to £500m.
A spokeswoman for S4 declined to comment, while a spokesman for One Equity Partners said by email: “OEP is not commenting on this matter.”
The owners of Visma, one of Europe’s biggest software companies, are close to hiring bankers for a £16bn flotation that would rank among the London market’s biggest for years.
Sky News understands that Visma’s board and shareholders have convened a beauty parade of investment banks in the last fortnight ahead of an initial public offering (IPO) likely to take place in 2026.
Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley are understood to be among those in contention for the top roles on the deal, City insiders said on Friday.
Several banks are expected to be appointed as global coordinators on the IPO as soon as this month.
Visma is a Norwegian company which supplies accounting, payroll, HR and other business software to well over one million small business customers.
It has grown at a rapid rate in recent years, both organically and through scores of acquisitions, and has seen its profitability and valuation rise substantially during that period.
More from Money
The business is now valued at about €19bn (£16.4bn) and is partly owned by a number of sovereign wealth funds and other private equity firms.
The majority of the company is owned by Hg, the London-based private equity firm which has backed a string of spectacularly successful companies in the software industry.
Visma’s owners’ decision to pick the UK ahead of competition from Amsterdam represents a welcome boost to the City amid ongoing questions about the attractiveness of the London stock market to international companies.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, used last month’s speech at Mansion House to launch a taskforce aimed at generating additional IPO activity in the UK.
Spokespeople claiming to represent Visma at Kekst, a communications firm, did not respond to a series of enquiries about the IPO appointments.
Hg also failed to respond to a request for comment.
The American investment giant Carlyle is preparing to take control of Very Group, one of Britain’s biggest online retailers, in a deal that will end the Barclay family’s long tenure at another major UK company.
Sky News has learnt that Carlyle, which is the biggest lender to Very Group’s immediate parent company, could assume ownership of the retailer as soon as October under the terms of its financing arrangements.
On Friday, sources said that Carlyle was expected to hold further talks in the coming weeks with fellow creditors including IMI, the Abu Dhabi-based vehicle which assumed part of Very Group’s debts in a complex deal related to ownership of the Telegraph newspaper titles.
Carlyle will probably end up holding a majority stake in Very Group, which has about 4.5 million customers, once it exercises a ‘step-in right’ which effectively converts its debt into equity ownership, the sources said.
Very Group – which is chaired by the former Conservative chancellor Nadhim Zahawi – borrowed a further £600m from Arini, a Mayfair-based fund, earlier this year as it sought to stave off a cash crunch and buy itself breathing space.
Precise details of the company’s capital and ownership structure will be thrashed out before the change of control rights are triggered at the beginning of October.
The Barclay family drew up plans to hire bankers to run an auction of Very Group earlier this year, but a process was never formally launched.
More from Money
Carlyle, which declined to comment, may hold onto the business for a further period before looking to offload it.
IMI is also likely to end up with an equity stake or a preferred position in the recapitalised company’s debt structure, sources added.
Prospective bidders for Very Group were expected to be courted on the basis of its technology-driven financial services arm as well as the core retail offering which sells everything from electrical goods to fashion.
Retail industry insiders have long speculated that the business was likely to be valued in the region of £2.5bn – below the valuation which the Barclay family was holding out for in an auction which took place several years ago.
Very Group – previously known as Shop Direct – is one of the UK’s biggest online shopping businesses, owning the Very and Littlewoods brands and employing 3,700 people.
It boasts well over £2bn in annual sales, with about one-fifth of that generated by its Very Finance consumer lending arm.
Mr Zahawi was appointed as the company’s chairman last year, days after he announced that he was standing down as the MP for Stratford-on-Avon at July’s general election.
He replaced Aidan Barclay, a senior member of the family which has owned the business for decades.
In the 39 weeks to 29 March, Very Group reported a 3.8% fall in revenue to £1.67bn, which it said included “a decrease in Littlewoods revenue of 15.1%, reflecting the ongoing managed decline of this business”.
Nevertheless, it said sales in its home and sports categories were performing strongly.
IMI’s position is expected to be pivotal to the talks about the future of the business, given Abu Dhabi’s status as an important global backer of buyout, credit and infrastructure funds such as those raised and managed by Carlyle.
The UAE vehicle is expected to emerge from the protracted saga over the Telegraph’s ownership with a 15% stake in the newspapers.
Under the original deal struck in 2023, RedBird and IMI paid a total of £1.2bn to refinance the Barclay family’s debts to Lloyds Banking Group, with half tied to the media assets and the other half – solely funded by IMI – secured against other family assets including part of Very Group’s debt pile.
The Barclays, who used to own London’s Ritz hotel, have already lost control of other corporate assets including the Yodel parcel delivery service.
A spokesman for Very Group declined to comment, while IMI also declined to comment.