Potential Hammersmith Bridge Funding Timetable Confirmed
Minister gives further details of Structures Fund in Westminster debate
Fleur Anderson MP looks on as Andy Slaughter MP speaks in the debate
April 22, 2026
A Westminster Hall debate on the future of Hammersmith Bridge has produced the clearest set of new details in years about how the long-closed crossing might finally move toward full restoration, with ministers confirming a funding timetable, signalling potential cost reductions and outlining how the next stage of engineering decisions will be made.
Putney MP Fleur Anderson convened the debate on 21 April, using it to press Roads Minister Simon Lightwood for a commitment to fund the works needed to reopen the Grade II* listed bridge to motor traffic. She described the closure as “severely disruptive” for residents, citing a survey in which 90 per cent of respondents reported major impacts on daily life, from access to healthcare to family separation and unpredictable journey times for workers and businesses.
She told of one woman in her constituency whose 12-year-old son has Down’s syndrome and complex needs.
“He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him,” she said.
“Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.”
Ms Anderson added that changes in Historic England’s requirements relating to the bridge’s listing status could reduce the previously estimated £250 million repair bill.
The debate also brought the first full timetable for the Government’s £1 billion Structures Fund, which opened last week. Mr Lightwood confirmed that draft applications must be submitted by 19 June, with final bids due by 3 August. Funding decisions will be made in the autumn, and all successful schemes must complete works by March 2030. He reiterated several times that Hammersmith Bridge is considered a “good candidate” for the fund, though he stressed that it would be assessed under the same criteria as all other bids.
Mr Lightwood added that a local contribution would still be required, but not necessarily the three-way split between the Government, Transport for London and Hammersmith & Fulham Council proposed under the previous administration. He said officials had been working with “key stakeholders” to identify a viable engineering solution, and that the final decision on the preferred option would be made through the Structures Fund process. The next meeting of the Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce will take place only after funding awards have been announced.
Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney criticised what she described as a lack of engagement from the Department for Transport, noting that she was requesting a meeting with the minister for the sixth time. She said she hoped the positive tone of the minister’s comments was not simply aimed at voters ahead of local elections.
Hammersmith and Chiswick MP Andy Slaughter said the Government was now “more proactive”, though he added that it “couldn’t have been less so” under the previous administration. He backed the Foster + Partners / Cowi proposal advanced by Hammersmith & Fulham Council and highlighted that the Structures Fund guidelines had only been published last week, enabling councils to begin preparing bids. Mr Slaughter also said Hammersmith & Fulham Council had already spent more than £50 million on stabilising and maintaining the bridge, which he described as equivalent to the cost of maintaining all other London bridges combined over the past decade. Expecting the borough to make a substantial contribution to the full restoration, he argued, was “equivalent to saying nothing should be done”.
Mr Lightwood described the ongoing closure to motor traffic as “deeply unfortunate” and said any funding would depend on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution that fits within the constraints of the Structures Fund. He said there would be “appropriate support” for Hammersmith & Fulham Council as the process moves forward.
He added, "To ensure absolute fairness though, any funding for Hammersmith Bridge will be subject to the same controls and eligibility criteria as other schemes funded through this fund. In addition, any funding for Hammersmith Bridge will be contingent on identifying a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale. It is important that any chosen engineering solution must be affordable within the constrains of the Structures Fund.”
Fleur Anderson MP with the Transport Minister, Simon Lightwood
The debate took place against a backdrop of growing pressure on river crossings in southwest London, with Albert Bridge also closed to traffic and Putney and Wandsworth bridges absorbing the displaced journeys. MPs argued that the situation underlines the need for urgent action and a coordinated approach to restoring capacity across the Thames.
Ms Anderson said, “I secured this debate to make sure the Minister fully understands the ongoing significant impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to vehicles on us in Putney and Roehampton. The Minister heard this loud and clear. After years of frustration and disruption, residents and businesses deserve answers and action.
“Putney and Roehampton constituents will be as glad as I am really glad to finally hear a timetable for applications for funding by June, decisions by the Autumn and works having to be completed by March 2030.
“I’m still frustrated at the length of time this is taking, but glad the issue is firmly on the Government’s agenda, the Minister knows how important this is, and there is a clear timetable for applying to the funding.
“I will keep pushing until we get the funding required to restore and reopen the bridge.”
A Westminster Hall debate is a type of parliamentary debate held in a secondary chamber of the House of Commons. It allows MPs to raise issues, question ministers and put topics on the record, but it does not have the power to change the law or force a vote.
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |