Transport Insights

The Department for Transport (DfT) has finally issued the review of its decision to bury the outline business case (OBC) for the Lower Thames Crossing, with its claim that the document is “in draft” collapsing but the document still being buried.

And I would know, because the information tribunal case that provides the definitive authority that proves the DfT has got it wrong has my name on it, literally.

By way of a reminder, Rebecca Lush of Transport Action Network asked for the OBC after learning that it was used as the basis for a decision last year to take funding for the scheme beyond £3bn.

Despite this, the DfT claimed that the document was “draft” and “has not been finalised”, thereby falling under the Exception at Regulation 12(4)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations.

Lush asked for a review in June and the DfT strung the case out for three months.

Despite upholding the original decision (to release none of the document), the DfT reviewer made clear that:

Having viewed the OBC I can see that it is dated 3rd October 2025 and is marked final version. It is therefore not an unfinished document.

So the original claims were wholly bogus. But the DfT took another tack. In a section of the review letter that does not make grammatical sense, it stated:

Information Commissioner’s Office guidance is clear in that the exception can apply to the information being requested or relates to other material which is still in the course of completion. The OBC relates to ‘live’ Government policy on the LTC funding arrangements and the information in the business case feeds into that policy making process.

Funnily enough, the guidance makes wholly clear that feeding into a policy making process is absolutely not a reason for invoking Regulation 12(4)(d).

In Chris Ames v the Information Commissioner and the Department of Transport EA/2015/0283 (2015), the First-tier Tribunal considered that regulation 12(4)(d) did not apply to completed information that was withheld because the Department considered it related to the larger process of setting government policy on the provision of airport capacity – an ongoing task at the time of the request. The Tribunal said, however, that the exception could not apply because, “An ongoing policy process is not in and of itself ‘material’ within the meaning of reg 12(4)(d).” (paragraph 38)

Yes, that was me all those years ago. But which bit of

An ongoing policy process is not in and of itself ‘material’ within the meaning of reg 12(4)(d)

did the DfT not understand?

Apart from that, the guidance also makes clear that, once a even a draft has served the purpose for which it was produced – e.g. a funding decision – it is complete.

This makes the next bit of the letter irrelevant for EIR purposes, but it is still revealing:

It has been explained to me that this is a completed iteration of the OBC and this is the document that the Department held at the point you submitted your information request on the 27th April 2026. I have been advised that a further iteration of the OBC is expected to be taken through governance later this year.

The DfT has also cited another EIR exception – Regulation 12(5)(e) – and concluded that:

on balance, the public interest in withholding the commercially sensitive information in the OBC outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

But Lush had stated clearly:

If there is sensitive information this can be redacted.

Which meant that the DfT had to invent a pretext for withholding the whole document.

The only conclusion we can reach is that they are not being straight with people and are very much hiding something they should not be hiding.