The Government has delayed a decision on whether to go ahead with a new 拢9 billion road crossing between Kent and Essex until May 2025.
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, in a written statement to Parliament, said it was 鈥渘ecessary鈥 to extend the deadline for a decision on the Lower Thames Crossing application to May 23.
Ms Haigh said the decision would give more time for the application to be considered, including 鈥渁ny decisions made as part of the spending review鈥.
The initial deadline for a decision on whether to grant a development consent order enabling National Highways to build the 14.3-mile road was initially scheduled for June 20, but was delayed until October 4 because of the general election.
Ms Haigh said: 鈥淭his statement confirms that it is necessary to extend the deadline for a decision on the application by National Highways under the Planning Act 2008, for the A122 (Lower Thames Crossing) development consent order.鈥
The minister added: 鈥淭he deadline for the decision is to be further extended to May 23 2025 in order to allow more time for the application to be considered further, including any decisions made as part of the spending review.
鈥淭he decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant the application development consent.鈥
The Lower Thames Crossing proposal is aimed at reducing congestion on the Dartford Crossing with a new motorway-style road.
It would connect the A2 and M2 in Kent to the A13 and M25 in Essex via a 2.6-mile long tunnel under the Thames, which would be the UK鈥檚 longest road tunnel.
National Highways is aiming to start construction in 2026, with the road opening in 2032.
It says the plan will almost double road capacity across the Thames east of London, describing it as 鈥渙ur most ambitious scheme in 35 years鈥.
Thurrock Council in Essex has consistently opposed the project, citing negative economic, social and environmental impacts, but the leader of Kent鈥檚 Dartford Borough Council is in favour of the scheme.
Local campaigners Thames Crossing Action Group claim the crossing would be 鈥渉ugely destructive and harmful鈥, and a waste of money.
