Lower Thames Crossing: Who’s Really in Charge? Nick Harris Pushes Back on Ministerial Takeover Narrative

The Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) has re-emerged at the centre of a governance tug-of-war after recent reports suggested the UK government was stripping National Highways of its control over the £10 billion megaproject.

In response, Nick Harris, Chief Executive of National Highways, used his Highways UK keynote to assert that the project remains firmly under National Highways’ operational management — a statement clearly aimed at quashing uncertainty and restoring industry confidence.

“Despite reports earlier this week that the management of the Lower Thames Crossing project will move to the DfT, it won’t, it will stay with us. But, we will continue to work closely with the DfT and the Treasury …”— Nick Harris, Highways UK 2025

This pushback has major implications for project delivery, public accountability, cost control, and the balance of power between the Department for Transport (DfT) and National Highways.

Governance Contest: Who’s Calling the Shots?

The tension centres on the blurred lines between strategic oversight (by ministers through DfT and Treasury) and delivery management (by National Highways). Reports suggesting a ministerial takeover of LTC point to rising concerns in Whitehall about cost escalation, political exposure, and the failures of past infrastructure governance (e.g. HS2).

Harris’s public intervention suggests that National Highways is unwilling to cede its authority — a move likely driven by three key goals:

1. Preserve operational continuity

2. Retain institutional control over procurement and delivery

3. Avoid becoming a scapegoat if costs or timelines slip

   
   

However, the reality is more nuanced. Ministers ultimately hold the purse strings, especially where public money, tolling decisions, or financing models are involved. While National Highways may remain “in charge” day-to-day, strategic calls on scope, funding and risk allocation still rest with DfT and the Treasury.

Five Key Issues to Watch

1. Governance Clarity vs. Blame-Shifting

Without clear governance structures, LTC risks falling into a common trap: overlapping roles leading to delayed decisions and blame avoidance. Harris’s declaration is an attempt to define the boundaries, but if cost overruns or public opposition grow, the temptation for ministers to intervene — or claim they already have — will increase.

2. Cost and Financing Pressure

The LTC has already consumed over £1.2 billion before construction. With final costs estimated at £9–10 billion (or more), financial risk looms large. Ministers may demand tighter controls, value engineering, or changes in scope. Harris’s pushback signals an effort to keep decision-making grounded in the delivery agency — not politicised at the ministerial level.

3. Institutional Stability

Changing leadership mid-stream often disrupts procurement and supply chains. Keeping National Highways at the helm helps maintain continuity — but only if the DfT respects that boundary. A hybrid model with “strategic steering” from government and “operational delivery” by National Highways is feasible — if carefully managed.

4. Public and Environmental Scrutiny

The project faces ongoing environmental and local opposition. If delays arise due to judicial reviews or stakeholder resistance, ministers may use that as justification to intervene further. Conversely, if National Highways can demonstrate efficient, sensitive delivery, it strengthens its legitimacy.

5. Political Stakes

As the next election looms, ministers are wary of association with a multibillion-pound project that could become a political liability. The risk: over-correction in the form of tighter ministerial grip or project deferral. Harris’s statement may be read as a pre-emptive move to shield the project from being recast as “another HS2.”

Conclusion: A Delicate Balance of Power

Nick Harris’s intervention signals a clear desire to stabilise the LTC project’s governance and reaffirm National Highways' role as the delivery lead. But that message sits atop a politically charged, financially risky and environmentally contested project.

The true test will be whether Harris’s declaration holds if — or when — the project hits friction. Ministers retain ultimate authority over funding and national transport priorities, and if confidence in delivery falters, control may quietly shift behind the scenes, regardless of public assurances.

Until then, the Lower Thames Crossing stands as both a vital infrastructure project and a live test of the UK’s capacity to deliver megaprojects with clarity, accountability and institutional resilience.