PRESS RELEASE

Transport Action Network will not legally challenge Lower Thames Crossing planning consent: Exposure of true costs will thwart new motorway.

Transport Action Network (TAN) [1] is announcing today that it will not be judicially reviewing the UK Government’s approval of the Development Consent Order for the Lower Thames ‘smart’ motorway Crossing [2].

Despite there being good grounds, such as the out-of-date and incomplete traffic modelling justifying the scheme [3], TAN believes that due to the weakness of the scheme a more effective challenge would be in the political and economic arenas, not in the courts.

National Highways cannot build the motorway crossing because it doesn’t have the money and neither does the Government. Private investment is also far from guaranteed, with markets increasingly volatile and investors cautious, and the LTC representing a high-risk project. Even with private finance, at least £6bn of public money would be required, possibly up to £9bn [4]. This makes the LTC unaffordable as well as incredibly poor value for money for taxpayers.

At a time of extreme fiscal pressures, every nation and region in the UK will have to forego rail, tram and other public transport improvements to pay for the LTC. That will make it politically unacceptable to pour more money into the South East, not just on the LTC but all the other associated road schemes needed to make it function. At the same time there is a £24bn backlog in local roads and bridge maintenance that the UK Government is failing to tackle [5].

Chris Todd Director of TAN, said:

“The Lower Thames Crossing makes no sense on so many levels and is far from popular [6]. We don’t believe it will go ahead, with or without a legal challenge. It is also a ‘smart’ motorway, loathed by motorists. To make matters even worse it’s a ‘smart’ motorway constrained in a tunnel with all the safety concerns that raises.

“We don’t need to go to the courts to make these and other points. We also don’t want to give National Highways an excuse for the costs of the LTC inevitably rising. The M3 Junction 9 scheme saw its costs rocket 35% in 2 years with no legal challenges from us or anyone else [7]. We believe that we will see something similar with the LTC.

“TAN will be highlighting how hard pressed taxpayers in every nation and region in the UK will be paying for the LTC. They will have to forgo much needed rail, tram and other public transport upgrades to pay for yet another flashy new road in the South East. Despite the hopes of embattled Labour Ministers, the LTC will just fuel the rise in dissatisfaction in politicians and the rise of Reform. This is at the same time that people continue to see their own local roads crumble despite government announcements of more money for potholes.”

– ENDS –

Notes to editors:

[1] TAN was set up five years’ ago by director, Chris Todd, to help communities press for better (more sustainable) transport. We support more investment in bus and rail services and active travel. To enable this and better roads maintenance (fewer potholes) we continue to oppose the previous government’s damaging roads programme. We also support better integration between transport and planning.

[2] Planning consent for the Lower Thames ‘smart’ motorway Crossing was approved by the Secretary of State for Transport on 25 March, 2025. The 2008 Planning Act gives the public 6 weeks to lodge an application for judicial review.

[3] The traffic model used to justify the scheme dates from 2016, prior to COVID and all the changes in travel behaviour that that resulted in. The modelling wasn’t properly scrutinised at the public Examination as none of the planning inspectors had any expertise to lead this. National Highways’ lack of confidence in its modelling could be seen by the way it only revealed a part of the model to each local authority, requiring them to sign non-disclosure agreements so they couldn’t compare impacts across the wider area.

National Highways also had to concede that it had not modelled the increase in HGV traffic the scheme would generate, despite the scheme being justified as a way to increase road freight traffic.

Additionally, late last year Maersk announced that it was shifting a large chunk of its business from Felixstowe to London Gateway. That will have a huge impact on traffic movements on the A13 and M25 and cause more problems for the LTC.

[4] The true cost of the Lower Thames Crossing depends on which funding model is chosen, but the minimum it is likely to cost the public purse is £6bn even with a private company (setting the toll charges), and up to over £17bn for a PFI style arrangement. See the notes in TAN’s briefing: How the LTC will take your funding and for other information on the LTC see TAN’s website

[5] The backlog in local roads maintenance (not including the Strategic Roads Network) in England and Wales is £16.81bn as found in the 2025 Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance (ALARM) survey, carried out by the Asphalt Industry Alliance (AIA). On top of this there is a backlog of around £7bn in local bridge maintenance which is often overlooked.

[6] BBC’s Question Time was held in Dartford on 27 March, just after the LTC decision. However, there was no great enthusiasm shown by the audience for the LTC. The project is opposed by all three affected MPs, (Jen Craft MP for Thurrock, Labour, Lauren Sullivan MP for Gravesham, Labour, and James McMurdock MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, Reform), and both Labour councils in Thurrock and Gravesham.

[7] See TAN’s press release exposing the cost increase on the M3 Junction 9 scheme, 13 March 2025

[8] In February, TAN published proposals for ‘Essex-Kent Superlinks’ providing more affordable, inclusive and sustainable alternatives to the LTC based upon rail, bus and ferry links across the Thames Estuary.