A government minister has written that Hammersmith Bridge “would be a good candidate for investment” from the Structures Fund, the first time any minister has used positive language about funding the bridge’s repair in seven years of closure.
The letter, from transport minister Simon Lightwood and obtained by LBC, also commits to formally assessing whether the next phase of repair works can be financed through the fund. The Hammersmith Bridge Taskforce will reconvene once the fund’s arrangements are finalised, Lightwood wrote.
It is a material shift. In June 2025, a Treasury minister refused to confirm on live radio whether the bridge would even qualify for the fund. “I’m not here to talk about the Hammersmith Bridge,” Emma Reynolds told LBC. “I’m not a transport minister.”
Lightwood is. And his letter is, so far, the only concrete development to have emerged from a period in which Anderson told constituents in February that “key funding decisions” were “expected in the coming weeks.”
What the letter actually says
“Would be a good candidate” is not a funding commitment. The letter sets out two conditions any award must meet: a cost-effective engineering solution within a reasonable timescale, and a fit within the fund’s financial constraints. Officials will assess whether those conditions can be met. The assessment has not started.
The Structures Fund was announced in June 2025 to repair “run-down bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across Britain.” The government has launched a survey of local authorities and stakeholders to shape how the fund will operate. The criteria for access have not yet been published.
Andy Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, welcomed the letter while being precise about what it does and does not represent.
“This is a positive step as, until this point, no funding stream had been identified and central government had made only limited contribution to strengthening works. Hammersmith and Fulham council has thus far borne the burden of considerable cost needed just to keep the bridge safe and prevent further deterioration. I will press the department on timescales, but at least after six years there is an acknowledgement that the bridge is a strategic structure which is able to call on national funding in the first instance.”
Fleur Anderson, Putney’s MP, told Putney.news she has received the minister’s letter and welcomed the acknowledgement. But she was direct about its limits.
“This remains an expression of intent rather than a firm commitment,” Anderson said. “I am still very frustrated about how long these decisions are taking.”
She said she is pressing the Department for Transport for a clear timeline on when the Structures Fund will be finalised and allocations made, clarity on what level of local contribution will be expected, and a firm date for reconvening the Taskforce. She said she continues to raise Hammersmith Bridge regularly in Parliament and intends to do so as the Structures Fund design is finalised.
The funding record
That burden has been substantial. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has spent approximately £48 million on bridge stabilisation since 2020. The Department for Transport had contributed £8.3 million and Transport for London £2.9 million as of December 2024. The council submitted a business case to the DfT in December 2022. It has not been approved in more than three years. The full funding picture was documented in October.
The gap between council spending and central government contribution (£48 million against £11.2 million as of December 2024) is part of what makes Lightwood’s letter significant. For the first time, a minister has named a funding route that could, in principle, change that arithmetic.
The Taskforce reconvening commitment is also new. The group met only once in the 18 months before this letter, at a January 2025 meeting where three repair options were reviewed. A follow-up was promised once officials developed detailed plans. This letter, 13 months later, is the first firm signal that follow-up is coming.
The Putney angle
The bridge has been closed to motor vehicles since April 2019, almost seven years. It once carried 22,000 vehicles a day. That traffic did not disappear. Much of it rerouted through Putney Bridge, which now carries the load of two crossings.
The junction redesign at Putney Bridge was modelled on an assumption the bridge would reopen by 2026. It has not. More than £1 million in interventions later, the junction remains contested. The Hammersmith closure is not the only cause, but it is a significant one.
Albert Bridge, which also closed to motor vehicles in February, has the same structural problem: cracked cast iron. The spending review in June left Hammersmith Bridge unfunded, with no line in the DfT capital budget. Repair costs are estimated at more than £250 million.
What happens next
The Taskforce reconvening is the next milestone to watch. Once it meets, the formal assessment of Structures Fund eligibility can begin. The criteria for access to the fund, once published, will determine whether Hammersmith qualifies. No date has been set for either.
Anderson is right that the gap between “expression of intent” and a signed cheque remains large. But after seven years of silence, evasion, and one spectacular refusal to engage, it is the closest any minister has come to naming a funding route.
Wandsworth Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport, Cllr Jenny Yates, was contacted for comment on 1 March 2026 and had not responded by the time of publication.
What do Barnes residents think? Walking through Barnes without car traffic feels idyllic and peaceful. I hope there wouldn’t be any meaningful opposition to it given that their own access to North London would be improved, but I do wonder if there will be local opposition to any move to reopen the bridge to traffic.