Where is Hammersmith Bridge in the government’s priorities?
This government is strapped for cash. How does it work out what to spend where? Story 18
There’s a lot about the UK Government (UKG) in what follows. It’s a bit dry but needs to be said.
Restoring Hammersmith Bridge to carry vehicles is only possible if funded in part or entirely by the UKG. £250m, the latest forecast cost, is beyond even the combined best efforts of H&F council, Richmond council and TfL.
The question is, where does the Bridge feature in the UKG priorities?
Spending review
If the UKG is going to support the Bridge, it’s likely to be announced as part of its Spending Review, probably in June.
UKGs regularly conduct Spending Reviews. The Starmer government is currently working on the Spending Review 2025.
The results of the first phase of this Review were announed in the Autumn 2024 budget by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor. She also announced the total level of funding for second phase. She said this second part will ‘prioritise delivering the government’s missions’.
In order to secure funding from the Spending Review, it seems likely the Bridge would have to help deliver against one of the following missions:
kickstart economic growth
build an NHS fit for the future
safer streets
break down the barriers to opportunity
and make Britain a clean energy superpower.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor had made clear these are the goals which are framing all their decisions. The most obvious fit for Hammersmith Bridge is with the desire for more economic growth. I’ll return to this topic later. I am skeptcal about how much growth would be stimulated by 22,000 vehicles crossing the Thames in Castlenau.
Is the Bridge significant .. to UKG?
You can find the another glimpse on potential UKG prorities online. Search Gov.uk and you’ll find a section with the utilitarian title, Find a National Infrastructure Project. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) are defined as,
These are large scale projects like power stations, highways and power lines. They are treated separately from normal local authority planning because of their size and importance to wider communities.
You can search the 234 projects by sector, location or development phase. Some are familiar:
Supporters of a restored car-first Bridge would likely expect their project to be on this list of the top 200 plus initiatives across the country. As things stand, they are disappointed.
The June Spending Review announcement will be made by the Chancellor. Her most recent speech which was focussed on the first mission, economic growth, the one most likely to justify UKG spend.
Much of the coverage was about the Chancellor’s decision to support a third runway at Heathrow. In fact there was a lot of detail called out, as the BBC reported
Investing in the Oxford <> Cambridge corridor
Approving nine new reservoirs
Redevelopment of Old Trafford was mentioned
There were details on more trade trips
Lower thames Crossing financing featured
National Wealth Fund investments in green energy projects were announced
Again, there was no mention of Hammersmith Bridge. There was one process point that was highlighted and is worth repeating. The Chancellor said the UKG had to consider more than just England. Reeves said the government was “working with the devolved governments to ensure the benefits of growth can be felt across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
It could still happen
None of this means the UKG won’t fund the full restoration of the Bridge.
Many of the projects listed above need billion of pounds. The bill for the Bridge is high but nothing like that. It is hard to hide £250m but it could be one of the smaller announcements in a long list of commitments, especially if the UKG is only making a partial contribution.
Meanwhilte, never underestimate the London factor. You struggle to find a reliable train service cross the Pennines but Londoners are rightly proud of the magnificent Elizabeth Line.
One element of the government’s missions might offer another way forward for those hoping for a full restoration. The missions are ‘designed to deliver a decade of national renewal’. Chancellor Reeves might say, not yet rather than not at all. More on this in later post. I think this would be the worst of all decisions.
To be clear, I do not think the UKG should fully or partially fund the full restoration of Hammersmith Bridge. What these examples have shown is the investment needs to be seen within a national context.
I remember reading Michael Gove’s Levelling Up White Paper. (I am that man. I do that sort of thing). The first part, diagnosing the problems, was excellent. One of the best descriptions of our modern nation I have read. The other part of the White Paper which outlined the then UKG response was dreadful, near useless. The failure of that government, and those before and since, to invest across the country means there are many more pressing cases than Hammersmith Bridge. And if you find that hard to understand, then I suggest you travel, ideally by train and bus, to Bradford or Blackburn.