As the deadline for the Lower Thames Crossing decision nears, tensions rise over allegations against National Highways.
- Campaign group Transport Action Network (TAN) accused National Highways of trying to sway the decision-making process.
- The group’s complaints focus on unsubstantiated claims and contradictory evidence by National Highways, aiming to mislead stakeholders.
- TAN claims misuse of public funds as National Highways lobbies for its interests, violating transparency norms.
- A review by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) is underway following TAN’s report on these allegations.
The impending decision on the £9bn Lower Thames Crossing project, anticipated this Friday, marks a critical juncture in UK infrastructure with strong allegations aimed at National Highways. Amidst claims of misconduct, campaigners have raised serious concerns about attempts to unduly influence the decision process. The allegations suggest that the integrity of the decision-making process may be compromised, prompting scrutiny from regulatory bodies.
Transport Action Network (TAN) has formally reported National Highways to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), accusing the agency of attempting to interfere with the democratic process. The accusations include the presentation of misleading information and contradictory evidence in their submissions regarding the Crossing project. TAN argues that National Highways propagated inflated claims regarding economic benefits and overstated congestion costs at the Dartford crossing without adequate substantiation.
In a robust defence, National Highways asserts that its proposals underwent thorough examination, including a six-month review by independent planning inspectors. However, TAN remains unconvinced, pushing for the ORR to enforce the disclosure of all underlying assumptions and methodologies employed by National Highways, not just for the Lower Thames Crossing, but for all proposed projects.
Critically, TAN suggests that National Highways is expending public resources inappropriately by lobbying government entities, thus undermining its public accountability. The core of their argument insists on greater transparency, aligning with the ORR’s recent investigative findings that identified similar concerns about National Highways’ practices.
The outcome of the ORR’s assessment may have broad implications, potentially affecting the projected timelines and budget allocations for the Crossing. As the debate intensifies, the necessity for transparent and evidence-based decision-making becomes ever more imperative, ensuring that all public infrastructure projects meet the highest standards of public interest and fiscal responsibility.
As the scrutiny over the Lower Thames Crossing decision continues, the demand for transparent governance and accountability remains a priority.
