THERE has been a critical response from opponents of the Lower Thames Crossing project after it was given the green light by government this morning (Tuesday, 25 March) – with one campaigner describing the decision as 'sickening' and another saying 'it's complete madness'.

Construction could start as early as 2026, with the new road expected to open in the early 2030s.

The projected cost of the project has risen from the initial estimate of £5.3 billion to as high as £16 billion in some of the latest calculations. The government has acknowledged a cost of at least £10 billion previously. Critics have constantly said National highways and the government's figures are 'misleading'.

Thurrock Council leader Cllr John Kent issued the following statement: "Thurrock Council's Labour Group has opposed this crossing from the very start and is deeply disappointed by the confirmation that planning permission has been granted.

"We fully understand the need to relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossing - we live with that congestion on a daily basis - and we support the need for greater connectivity across the Thames.

"However, we still believe, as we always have, this crossing is in the wrong place. It won't resolve the very real problems caused by congestion at the Dartford Crossings, it will cause real damage to our environment and ecology and do little to add to the resilience of our local roads network."

Local opposition to the crossing has been widespead, and across political boundaries. Last October, Orsett's Conservative councillors damned it. Cllr Barry Johnson, said: "My residents are among the most affected by the Lower Thames Crossing and I stand alongside them in opposition."

Today Cllr Johnson, shadow portfolio holder for place and environment added: "I am devastated and appalled by this decision by our Labour government. This will not solve the issues around the Dartford Crossing, but will extend them throughout the whole of Thurrock. This is a disastrous decision for Thurrock, it will bulldoze our countryside, gridlock our roads, and pollute our air. 

"With our Labour government saying they do not have the money to give poor, elderly pensioners their winter fuel payment, I had hoped that they would pull the plug on the Lower Thames Crossing. Instead, they have decided to go ahead with this white elephant and yet they cannot find the money for the winter fuel payment.

"The Chancellor has hinted that the Lower Thames Crossing may be funded by a PFI scheme – which can see costs spiralling, remember when the last Labour government used a PFI scheme and were charged £333 to change a lightbulb in a hospital? This would mean a private road in Thurrock and more tolls and charges.

"We need to make sure that Thurrock residents get a discount, like they do with the Dart Charge, and we must see if the two can be linked. Everything about this decision is wrong, and I am dismayed that the government gave the go-ahead."

Thurrock's Labour MP Jen Craft described the decision as 'disappointing', saying: "I still have concerns around the disruption this scheme will cause to local residents and the impact on air quality in the area.

United in opposition. Cllr Barry Johnson. MP Jen Craft, Labour leader Cllr John Kent and Cllr Fraser Massey.

"I fully recognise that congestion at the Dartford Crossing is causing misery for drivers, but building more roads is not the answer. I still believe that alternatives such as investment in cross river public transport would provide a more sustainable solution.

"Now we have certainty about the future of the project, I will be working to make the best of it for my constituents.

"Local people must see benefits in jobs and opportunities to mitigate the additional burden they are now being asked to shoulder.

"I will be fighting to secure new investment in our local public transport infrastructure as part of the scheme."

Cllr Fraser Massey, chair of Thurrock Council's Lower Thames Crossing Task Force, says: "I am bitterly disappointed to read today that the Government has granted permission for the Lower Thames Crossing.

"I did hope this project was going to seen for the high expense, ecology damaging low long terms benefits, antique project it truly is.

"Even when built it will only give short term relief to Dartford crossing and still leaves gaping holes in the infrastructure if incidents happen on nearby adjoining roads.

"This will decimate the greenbelt in Thurrock and will be a forever lasting scar on the landscape, running right through the middle of the Borough.

"The cost benefit ratio is so low I now worry who the Government will turn towards to deliver such a project.

"This will massively hinder positive health impacts while being built and forever more when in operation. It is the wrong project in the wrong place, even the influx of the workforce will be a strain on the small towns and villages along the route.

The crossing route will carve its way through Thurrock's green belt.

"It is such a short sighted view just to put a motorway through the middle of the greenbelt to only be of any benefit for less years than its planned construction time.

"This Government has dumped a massively damaging project on Thurrock and, not for the first time, it is sickening."

Cllr Massey said he was waiting to see publication of the full written report into the lengthy hearing, saying he feared it might be buried because it highlights so many reason not to go ahead.

Environment campaigner Chris Todd, director of the Transport Action Network (TAN) says today's announcement is simply political manoeuvring ahead of the austerity Spring Statement, due tomorrow.

TAN has previously described the government's spin on an 'unwanted project' - in particular the claim that it will be the "greenest road ever" - as "putting green lipstick on a pig." 

He said: "This is absolute madness. It's a desperate decision to distract from the likely bad news in the Chancellor's Spring Statement tomorrow. When the Government can't afford to properly fund the NHS and our roads are falling apart, it's cutting back on benefits and putting vulnerable people at risk. It really has got its priorities in a muddle.

"At a likely cost of £16bn this road is simply unaffordable.

"The only way that the Government can afford this white elephant would be to take money from all the other nations and regions in the UK. Rather than boosting growth, this will clog up roads in the south-east and slow the economy down even more."