AFTER an application to the Information Commissioner by Thurrock Council,  National Highways has being instructed to release its business case for the controversial Lower Thames Crossing project.

It's a slightly ironic move from the council, an organisation with a historic reputation over recent years for its obsession with secrecy. It has just spent two years fighting against a tribunal decision to release details of its own 'borrow-to-invest' polices, for example.

However, as part of its opposition to the crossing proposal the council has won its battle to glean more information from the government roads agency.

The Information Commissioner has ruled that: "The public interest favours disclosure because the project will have a major and lasting impact on people living and working in that area. Those people are entitled to take part in the associated decision-making and to be as fully informed as possible."

On timing, he ruled that the Outline Business Case must be disclosed within 35 days or risk referral to the High Court, where it may be dealt with as contempt of court. National Highways has the right to Appeal within 28 days.

National Highways has resisted making its Outline Business Case available, and also been highly restrictive about other information about its projections for the crossing ahead its resubmission to the Planning Inspectorate of the development consent order (DCO) application, which was made on Tuesday.

Part of the formal submission for examination, The Outline Business Case, is usually a key high-profile document, containing the most important summary of calculations of benefits and costs.

National Highways has, to date, refused to share this, or to consult on it in draft, on the grounds that it was currently incomplete - though Professor Phil Goodwin, who has been advising Thurrock on its opposition to the scheme, says that "it was evidently complete enough for National Highways to convince itself that the scheme was beneficial and robust, and submit it to Treasury.

"The wider claims of economic benefit are obviously crucial to any case for the scheme and the Examination will need to investigate this at local, regional and national level, in accordance with procedural requirements."

A view over the river crossing: Professor Phil Goodwin.

Professor Goodwin is highly critical of the way National Highways has interacted with Thurrock council – and other councils – saying the process has had "some very strange features, one of which was a very tight restriction over use of modelling and forecasting information. Local authorities were provided with NH cordon models for their own area, but only on strict condition that they did not try to collate or share this information in discussion with neighbouring authorities or anybody else."

Likewise, major stakeholders have also had to sign up to strict conditions not to share information that NH has shown them. So, nobody – apart from National Highways  itself – has been able to understand the overall traffic patterns on which it has based its appraisal, says Professor Goodwin.

The Council's website which explains 'Why we oppose the Lower Thames Crossing', points out that LTC is in effect the creation of a new M25 outer-orbital route, far greater in scale than other in-line increases in road capacity. It would generate a great increase in traffic, is based on inadequate consultation, and would take almost 10% of the Borough's land area, including a substantial swathe of green belt land.

The team behind Thurrock's opposition has won praise from Professor Goodwin who says: "I've had the privilege in recent months of working with Thurrock Council, who field an impressive technical and professional team which any local authority would be pleased to employ."

You can read Professor Goodwin's latest comments on the crossing 'Is this Tunnel a Bridge too Far? via this link.