It took minutes for the flood of reaction to arrive after the announcement that Highways England preferred a new Lower Thames Crossing to be built to the east of Gravesend.

Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce chief executive Jo James hailed it as a “once in a generation opportunity” while Kent County Council leader Cllr Paul Carter described it as a chance to ease congestion and “support economic growth”.

The £6.1 billion plan to bore a tunnel between the villages of Chalk and Higham to East Tilbury, known as Option C, was revealed exclusively by the KM Group last week.

Highways England rejected the idea of sending traffic travelling to and from Europe over a second crossing at Dartford, dubbed Option A.

“We’re very pleased to see Highways England’s decision to open a consultation on the new River Thames road tunnel at Gravesend,” said Fenlon Dunphy, a director at KEH, the Kuwaiti backers of a proposed Paramount theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula.

“Option A wouldn’t have done anything for the M25/A2 junction which we all know is hugely important and under pressure. Option C will change the flow of traffic and types of traffic which will surely benefit the area.”

Eurotunnel favours Option C, with an added widening of the motorway at Blue Bell Hill, known as Option C variant, and spokesman John Keefe said: “We need better infrastructure crossing the Thames.

“There is far too much traffic delay at the current crossing. We support the idea of creating a new crossing to the east of London and it should be one which opens up the motorway network.

“We want it to spread traffic so it is not all focused on the M20 and an option which opens up the M2 corridor towards Dover but also supports better linkage between the M2 and M20.

“Option C variant is the total infrastructure package for Kent. It’s important both for local reasons – creating better traffic flows – and nationally because many vital goods go through the crossing.” Yet, while big business has backed the proposals, the mood is very different in the community.

“There are a lot of customers who were not aware of this option,” said Stephanie Connor, pub manager at the Rose and Crown in Shorne, a village set to be hugely affected by the new crossing.

“It would be devastating. People are arguing about jobs but it’s the traffic. We already have a new crematorium being built and, if you look at the traffic that goes through the Medway crematorium, you can see that will have an impact.

“From a business point of view, it will be good for revenue, with workers becoming customers, but they will leave once it is built.

Then we will have four to six lanes of traffic next to us and it will be gridlocked around this area. It will be congested everywhere.

“The initial reaction of customers has been shock. We’re going to make sure everyone goes to the consultation meetings.”

Most of that shock comes from the selection of an eastern route towards the tunnel at Option C, linking directly with Junction 1 of the M2.

Another option, not favoured by Highways England, is to build a route to the west of Shorne, linking with the A2.

While this causes much less environmental damage it is not as economically beneficial as the more controversial eastern route, which is estimated to add £560 million in benefits for an additional £200 million cost.

“It is like being asked ‘would you like to be eaten by a tiger or a lion?’ That is not a choice,” said the Rev Nigel Bourne, the vicar of St Mary’s Church in Chalk, a Grade II* listed building set to be cut off from the village by the eastern route.

The vicar, who co-founded the abridge2far.co.uk campaign, points to the original consultation on the Lower Thames Crossing in 2013, which made no mention of the two possible routes south of the Thames in Option C.

In fact, the largest amount of opposition was against Option C, registering nearly 2,000 votes against, while more than 1,200 voted against all preferences. Fewer than 200 people objected to Option A.

Mr Bourne continued: “The Highways Agency has ignored what people want and gone with the option which many organisations want, particularly Kent County Council, and has bypassed the will of the people.

“This consultation process is flawed because it doesn’t include Option A and I am angry about it. We said what we felt was less bad and we have been ignored.

“It can’t be growth at all costs. It has to have balance with the quality of life and the effect on the environment.

“It’s an abuse of process by the Highways Agency because they haven’t allowed us to comment on Option A in this consultation. What kind of consultation is that?”

The consultation runs until Thursday, March 24. A decision is expected later this year.

Visit www.gov.uk/highways