The government has stalled on its decision over the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing.
Transport Minister Louise Haigh had been due to rule on the scheme today, following a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate – the government’s independent planning authority – as to whether to grant it the all important Development Consent Order (DCO).
The DCO effectively grants the planning permission for the project to get the green light.
But it has now been confirmed a decision will be delayed yet again – although only until next week. A DfT spokesperson said: “An update on the application will be provided in due course. We cannot comment any further on a live application.”
News on whether it would be built had originally been expected earlier this year, but was then kicked into October as a result of the summer’s general election.
In the planning for more than a decade, earlier this year it was revealed planning costs alone had already totalled £300 million.
A key challenge is the enormous cost of the scheme – which would see tunnels underneath the Thames to the east of Gravesend and joining up with the M25 in Essex.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has long repeated the mantra that the government is facing a “£22bn black hole” in the public purse as a hangover from the last Conservative administration.
One option apparently being considered is for it to be funded through what is known as a Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
This would see a long-term contract between a private party and the government where the private sector designs, builds, finances and operates the public asset.
Investors would receive returns from the road through toll fees – likely to be ‘free-flowing’ as is currently the case at the Dartford Crossing with its Dart Charge – in exchange for coming up with the initial capital.
That would ease any strain on public finances while allowing the project – seen as essential for easing the flow of traffic currently using the Dartford Crossing.
It is understood the decision has been delayed as a consequence of Parliament currently being in recess due to party conferences. MPs gather in the Commons again on Monday.
Once complete, the Lower Thames Crossing would see a 14.3-mile stretch of road which will connect to the A2 and M2 in Kent to the A13 in Thurrock and junction 29 of the M25 in the London Borough of Havering.
The route will include 2.6 miles of tunnels – two in total – under the Thames. At 16 metres wide, they will be some of the largest bored tunnels in the world.
The tunnels will be located to the east of the village of Chalk on the south side of the Thames, and to the west of East Tilbury on the north side.
Explains National Highways, which is spearheading the scheme: “Designed to handle 135,000 vehicles a day, the Dartford Crossing now averages 150,000 a day and requires a dedicated team to manage it around the clock. The huge numbers of vehicles that use it each day make it one of the country’s most unreliable roads, causing misery for millions of motorists and acting as a handbrake on the economy.
“Congestion on the Dartford Crossing costs the UK more than £200 million every year in time lost sitting in traffic.
“The proposed Lower Thames Crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames east of London – easing congestion on the Dartford Crossing, improving journeys across the South East, and creating a reliable new route across the river.”
But the project has not been without its critics.
The Kent Wildlife Trust is one of a number of conservation organisations in raising concerns about the environmental impacts.
It said: “The project will result in the loss of ancient woodland and veteran trees. In total, nine areas of ancient woodland are threatened with direct damage and loss, including three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), such as Shorne and Ashenbank Woods SSSI.
“The country is facing an ecological meltdown with only around 2.5% of ancient woodland remaining. These are unique and precious habitats that support an array of rare wildlife. You’re not just removing trees when you lose ancient woodland, but also the soil and ground flora which usually hasn’t been disturbed for hundreds of years. Once it is gone, it’s lost forever, it can never be truly replaced and replicated.
“Furthermore, the Development Consent Order contains discrepancies regarding the amount of ancient woodland that will be lost, this is an important issue and should be corrected before any decision is made.
“The project itself can best be described as putting a sticky plaster on the problems currently experienced on the road network. The staggering cost of the Lower Thames Crossing could have been better spent actively investigating and implementing a green travel strategy, putting infrastructure in place that enhances the environment, and our wellbeing and provides a long-term solution to the challenges we face.”
Leader of Gravesham council Cllr John Burden said: “We have not yet had any formal notification that the decision on the Development Consent Order has been delayed.
“If these reports are correct, and we have no reason to believe they are not, then this is frustrating news.
“What we and our local community need is certainty, one way or the other.
“I hope the decision will be forthcoming at the earliest opportunity.”
Earlier this week, an independent report by campaign group Transport Action Network (TAN), which supports more sustainable transport infrastructure, described the project as a “dinosaur scheme from another era that should be extinct”.
It said traffic levels at the Dartford Crossing would return to existing levels just five years after the new crossing opens.
Its founder Chris Todd said: “It’s a myth debunked 30 years ago that road building grows the economy and eases congestion. Not only is the previous Conservative government’s roads programme unaffordable but even a cursory look at its own traffic projections shows congestion will worsen even if all the new roads were built.”
The sentiment was echoed by the Campaign for Better Transport group’s Michael Solomon Williams. Ahead of the decision, he had said: “Spending £9 billion on a road that can’t even carry a bus is utterly nonsensical and if approved by the Transport Secretary would completely undermine the government’s net-zero commitments.
“Building new roads doesn’t cut congestion, it does the opposite. Investing in public transport and rail freight is the best way to cut congestion, free up road space and grow the economy for only a fraction of the cost.”
If given the go-ahead next week, work is expected to begin in 2026 and be complete by 2032.
