The 14-mile Thames crossing delayed by 66 miles of paperwork
On Monday, there were plenty of congratulatory pats on the back as the Silvertown Tunnel welcomed London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) vehicles along its short route under the Thames. But, for a moment, set aside the Teslas, e-Transit vans, and even the bus carrying bicycles speeding through the new 0.8 mile tunnel between Newham and the Greenwich Peninsula. Consider this: the last time a brand new crossing of the capital's river in east London was celebrated by personal vehicle owners, the Ford Model T was still months away from being launched. It was 1908, and the Rotherhithe Tunnel had just opened.
It wasn't until nearly 60 years later, in 1967, that an additional parallel tunnel was opened at the Blackwall crossing (a Victorian-era project still in use today). Even then, the new eastern tunnel was quickly deemed inadequate, with traffic tailbacks soon crippling the area.
It shouldn't have been this difficult to cross the Thames, surely. Yet, nearly 60 years after the Blackwall debacle, you would have been forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the painfully slow progress in developing critical infrastructure. Further downstream, another classic Thames controversy made headlines last month when plans for the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing – potentially Britain's largest road-building project – were finally given formal Government approval.
A relief route east of the Dartford Crossings was first mentioned in Parliament a staggering 36 years ago, as part of a 'Roads for Prosperity' white paper. In 2011, it was recognised by the Conservative government as a 'top 40 priority project' in its National Infrastructure Plan. The first public consultation was held 12 years ago.
And yet here we are. The latest estimate from National Highways suggests the Lower Thames Crossing won't open to traffic until 2032. If so-called priority projects take 21 years to materialise, it's no wonder no one's holding their breath.
'The Lower Thames Crossing is such a powerful symbol of how seriously wrong the system is,' says Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at campaign organisation Britain Remade. 'A billion pounds has already been spent on this project before a single spade has got into the ground. The planning application alone cost more than Norway spent on actually building the longest road tunnel in the world. It's bonkers.'
Yes, there are some obvious engineering issues crossing over or under the Thames, not least that once you get out towards the estuary it's relatively wide. The project's two tunnels, which will go between the villages of Chalk, in Kent, and East Tilbury, in Essex, are designed to be 2.4 miles long, making them the longest road tunnels in Britain. But it has been the continued lack of joined-up strategy, combined with colossal paperwork, red tape, and endless judicial, environmental and planning reviews, that has effectively scuppered any prospect of anything getting built quickly.
The Silvertown Tunnel is another classic example of what happens when governments get stuck in a directionless mire. It had been clear since at least the 1980s that London needed more river crossings – especially in the east – yet it wasn't until the mid-1990s that a route was finally safeguarded across the Thames from the Greenwich Peninsula to Silvertown (in other words, prioritised above other proposed developments).
An actual tunnel cropped up in the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's transport strategy in 2001, and in Transport for London's Thames Gateway River Crossings strategy published a few years later, the suggestion was that it would directly follow the opening of a new 'Thames Gateway Bridge' between Beckton and Thamesmead. Imagine – two new river crossings!
You might also be thinking: 'What Thames Gateway Bridge?' And you'd be right. It was cancelled in 2008 by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson – too expensive, too environmentally damaging, too unpopular locally. This was after the project had first been proposed back in the 1970s, in a previous guise as the 'East London River Crossing'.
Not that Johnson was averse to expensive Thames crossings. Under his mayoralty, Transport for London drew up proposals for 'a bridge or tunnel' at Gallions Reach and another between Rainham and Belvedere, both of which were eventually ditched by Johnson's successor, Sadiq Khan, who concentrated on the Silvertown Tunnel. (Johnson was also a big fan of the Garden Bridge project, a proposal for a pedestrian crossing between Waterloo and Blackfriars, whose price eventually spiralled out of control.)
The Silvertown Tunnel was finally designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and given the go-ahead by the Department of Transport in 2018.
That wasn't the end of the story, though. It took another 18 months to award the contract to the Riverlinx consortium to design, build, finance, and maintain the tunnel – and construction didn't begin until spring 2021. When you considered it, it had taken a ridiculous 30 years to properly connect Silvertown with Greenwich, and four years of construction didn't sound so bad.
That is, until you remember that other countries were building tunnels at least 10 times the length for a fraction of Silvertown's £2.2 billion price tag.
The Lower Thames Crossing, meanwhile, still has a number of hoops to jump through despite receiving planning permission last month. Ominously, Matt Palmer, National Highways executive director for the Lower Thames Crossing, has said that while they are 'shovel ready' with their delivery partners to build one of the UK's most important infrastructure projects, the decision still only allows them to 'work with the Government on funding and start the detailed planning.'
All of which begs the question: what more detailed planning could they possibly need to do with government? Britain Remade did the maths – if you put all the pages of the interminable documents involved in this project end to end, they would stretch 66 miles, five times longer than the road itself.
National Highways declined to comment on specifics, but Dumitriu is certain there'll be more legal challenges to the planning approval decision, which will end up going to the High Court, and possibly the Court of Appeal.
'The Lower Thames Crossing has had eight separate consultations, and one of the things we're calling for is looking at whether all these legal requirements are appropriate,' he says. 'Part of the reason you end up with a 360,000-page planning application is because there is so much legal risk you end up having to gold plate every aspect of the project.
'Yes, we should look at what the environmental impact is,' he says. 'Yes, we should consider what locals think. But we also have to fundamentally accept that there is a trade off here in terms of getting growth back up in the UK for the long term. All this gold plating has speed and cost implications; this was once a £4 billion project which is now more like £10 billion – and as we heard just this month, the Government doesn't have a huge amount of cash to splash.'
Which is why there's still an element of frustration that Labour's much-heralded Planning and Infrastructure Bill – a critical piece of legislation aimed at easing major projects through – is now stuck in red tape itself, as the Bill shuttles between committee stages, report stages, House of Lords approval, and eventually, maybe, Royal Assent.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – the department sponsoring the Bill – was asked when there might be a puff of white smoke from Whitehall. A spokesperson simply replied that the planning reforms needed to become law 'as quickly as possible.'
The builders agree – and are just as impatient. Last week, senior executives from 13 UK Tier 1 contractors penned an open letter to MPs urging them 'to grasp the scale of this opportunity and support the Planning and Infrastructure Bill without diminishing its ambition.'
And it's this ambition that actually excites bodies such as the National Infrastructure Commission. Many of the recommendations in its National Infrastructure Assessment of 2023 have made it into the Bill.
'Everybody, I think, would argue that one of the big constraints in this country is consistent policy and strategy,' says its chair Sir John Armitt.
'If you take the Lower Thames Crossing decision, it's very good news. This, to my mind, is a relatively straightforward piece of transport infrastructure which is of critical national importance – and that was recognised some 15 years ago. So it's taken a long time.'
But why so long?
'Well, we pointed out to the government three years ago that the planning process has severely deteriorated since 2010,' he says. 'Back then, you could get an NSIP through in just over two years. Now it's over four on average, with some – like the Lower Thames Crossing – taking even longer. At the same time, the number of judicial reviews on NSIPs has gone up from 10 per cent to 56 per cent.'
Britain Remade say there are 1,800 pages on newts in the Lower Thames Crossing planning document. It's this kind of red tape, combined with legitimate local concerns, which makes multiple legal challenges and consultations inevitable. (Even existing crossings have been put out of action by officialdom. The 138-year-old Hammersmith Bridge was closed six years ago following the discovery of cracks, but its future remains in limbo amid wrangling between three tiers of government – central, city and local.)
'The whole process has to be reviewed,' agrees Armitt. 'One of the reasons it takes so long and costs so much is because of the environmental challenges and assessments that have to be made, the mitigations that have to be made and the sheer amount of statutory authorities who have to be consulted.
'There should be the ability, for example, to look at a more strategic, spatial area where a developer can put forward money to compensate communities on a broader environmental basis. That's potentially a very significant step forward.'
That's why the Environmental Delivery Plan and Nature Restoration Fund has been prepared alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and will be operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent.
Yet the Government does concede that streamlining the NSIP regime still has some way to go. Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook says that during the Bill's first and second readings in Parliament, several MPs called for further consideration of how long pre-application periods are taking for infrastructure projects, due to the way statutory procedures are being applied.
'This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought,' he says, 'and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those honorary Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.'
Acting boldly, many would argue, would mean addressing those statutory requirements now. After all, aren't the experiences of the Silvertown Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing compelling cases for reform?
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tech-Driven Beauty Brand Elevates Delivery Experience for Canadian & Global Shoppers with Asendia USA
PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- A rapidly growing beauty brand known for its innovative, tech-first approach to cosmetics has partnered with Asendia USA to transform its shipping operations across Canada and key international markets. Headquartered in New York, this subscription box and direct-to-consumer brand brings influencer trends, tutorials, and personalized products straight to customer's doorsteps — but increasing demand highlighted major challenges with its previous delivery partners. Previously relying on another provider for intra-Canada shipping, the brand faced long transit times to western Canada, a lack of weekend deliveries, limited photo proof of delivery (POD), and a disrupted peak season in 2024 due to Canada Post strikes. For Rest of World (ROW) shipments originating from Pennsylvania, the brand struggled with delayed transit times and subpar tracking performance through previous providers. Seeking a partner that could deliver consistency, speed, and a customer-first experience, the brand teamed with Asendia USA and found the solution it needed to address its pain points. For Canadian deliveries, the brand now utilizes Asendia USA's e-PAQ Select Direct Access Canada DDP service, which has significantly improved the delivery experience. Weekend deliveries now account for 25% of shipments, and average transit times have been cut in half. With a higher percentage of photo PODs, customers receive more visibility and confidence in their deliveries. For ROW destinations including the UK, EU, and other global markets, Asendia USA provided a consultative approach to streamline the company's shipping strategy. This included emphasizing e-PAQ Select DDP services to their top 17 international markets, ensuring a smooth and compliant customs process. Additionally, customized IT solutions for billing, data, and reporting have helped drive efficiency as a result of Asendia USA's dedicated team building a deep understanding of the brand's unique needs. "Asendia USA's services have elevated our entire delivery experience," said the brand's Director of Logistics. "From improving transit times and enabling weekend deliveries in Canada to helping us streamline our international shipping process, their team has been a valuable partner in helping us reach our customers around the world." For more information about Asendia USA's e-PAQ solutions for online retailers, please visit View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Asendia USA, Inc Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key questions answered on Sizewell C after Reeves confirms nuclear investment
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has signed off on a £16 billion investment in nuclear power, including funding to build the Sizewell C nuclear power station. It comes ahead of the spending review on Wednesday, where Ms Reeves will outline departmental budgets for the next three years. Here we answer key questions about Sizewell C and the Government's wider nuclear power plans. – What is the Sizewell C nuclear plant? Sizewell C was first proposed 15 years ago on a site by the hamlet Sizewell, which sits on the Suffolk coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold. The area is already home to two separate power stations, the decommissioned Sizewell A nuclear plant and pressurised water reactor Sizewell B. Nuclear power plants use a process called nuclear fission, where atoms split, releasing heat which is then used to generate electricity. – How much funding has the Government announced? The Chancellor said £14.2 billion will be invested to build the Sizewell C plant, marking the end of a long journey to secure funding for the project since it was first earmarked in 2010. At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs. The company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. Elsewhere, the Government confirmed one of Europe's first small modular reactor (SMR) programmes, backed by £2.5 billion in taxpayers' money over five years. Ministers announced Rolls-Royce as the winners of a long-running competition on Tuesday for the bid to build the SMR programme. – How could Sizewell C contribute to the UK's future energy system? Sizewell C will power the equivalent of six million homes and is planned to be operation in the 2030s, the Government said. It is also understood that the plant will generate electricity for 60 years. The Treasury said that, combined with the ambition to build SMRs, it would deliver more new nuclear energy to the grid than over the previous half century by the 2030s. It comes as nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. Sizewell C is part of the Government's wider ambitions to support clean power, such as wind and solar, and decarbonise the country's power grid to tackle the climate crisis and ensure future energy security. – What are small modular reactors? SMRs are a nuclear fission reactor that are a fraction of the size of a traditional nuclear plant. This means they can be built on smaller sites across the country, closer to where the electricity is needed. Still an emerging technology, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The Government says the newly-announced UK project could support up to 3,000 new skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around three million homes, with a first site expected to be allocated later this year by state-owned Great British Energy – Nuclear. The hope is eventually attract private investment, especially from tech companies, which might build SMRs to power data centres.– Who has welcomed the Government funding? Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Regional secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. 'All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' – Who has criticised the plans? Various campaigners oppose the plant and have criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group has previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the Government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.' Environmental campaigners have also warned of the impact the plant could have on local wildlife, given Sizewell is surrounded by protected areas. The whole coast is an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), the shingle beach is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) while the nearby Sizewell Marshes and Leiston Sandlings are special protected areas (SPAs) for birds. Many argue that ministers should focus on investing in renewable energy, such as wind farms, instead. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer and Farage have doomed Britain to a spiral of decline
The Government's decision to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance is absurd – and, sadly, a big indicator that Reform UK is not going to be the party which breaks Britain out of its spiral of self-inflicted decline. Rachel Reeves plans to restore the WFA to all pensioners with an income up to £35,000 a year. It will then be clawed back from the wealthiest retirees via the tax system. Overall, around 7.5 million older people who missed the payment last year are set to receive it again – at an apparent cost in the region of £1.25 billion a year. Paul Johnson, the Chair of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, puts it well: 'It wouldn't even be in the top 100 of things that I would do with my £1.25bn if I wanted to act on poverty. Almost none of the people impacted by this will be in poverty.' He's right. The Government's decision to means test the WFA removed the payment from some ten million people; of these, its own analysis suggested that only 50,000 or so were placed into 'relative fuel poverty'. And remember, 'relative poverty' is merely an income inequality metric; it doesn't mean someone is necessarily unable to afford heating. Even on the face of it, therefore, Reeves is hosing money at 7.5 million people for the sake of lifting just 50,000 out of 'relative' poverty. But closer consideration of the numbers reveals even deeper absurdities. Take the income requirement of £35,000. From the off, that is only a couple of grand less than the national average wage of £37,430. Why should pensioners on that income receive a fuel payment when working-age people on similar incomes do not? If anything, those working-age people are more deserving of help – for their cost of living is often substantially increased by costs from which many pensioners are exempt. How many of those 7.5 million beneficiaries, for example, are living mortgage-free? Retirees are also exempt from National Insurance, and that has big implications for their real income. Without NICs, that £35,000 becomes about £2,500 a month post-tax; for a working person to be in a similar position, they would need to earn quite a bit more than the average wage (enough to be in the top 37 per cent of earners, or thereabouts). Pensioner poverty was a real problem in 2010, when the Coalition Government first introduced the Triple Lock. But whilst there are some struggling pensioners today, it is absurd that the State continues giving indiscriminate welfare to what has become, on average, this country's wealthiest age cohort. Our pathological inability to cut entitlement spending, even to people who obviously don't need it, is one of the main reasons our country is in such a sorry state. We are all but conducting a controlled experiment in how much of the state can be all but dismantled – prisons, courts, the military – in order to avoid touching the big revenue expenditure accounts. Arresting British decline will require breaking out of this cycle. But it's a prisoner's dilemma for politicians: try to do the right thing, as Theresa May did on social care, and it creates an all-too-tempting opening for opportunistic opponents to exploit – as Labour did then, and as Reform UK has done now. Now forced to govern in the long shadow of wildly unrealistic voter expectations, Labour is probably quietly regretting its game-playing over the 'dementia tax'. If Nigel Farage ever becomes prime minister, and is forced to admit the extravagant savings he claims he can get from abolishing DEI and net zero are for the birds, he may well regret killing off such an obvious cut as the winter fuel allowance. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.