The man due to lead the construction of a garden city in Kent has said he favours building a new Thames Crossing to the east of Gravesend.

Robin Cooper, chief executive of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, said the option was better than the alternative second bridge at Dartford because it gave transport infrastructure “more resilience”.

He also felt the option would take pressure off the roads around the garden city, in which he hopes to build 15,000 homes over the next 20 years.

The government will carry out a consultation on two proposals for a new Thames Crossing at the end of this year and will make an announcement about which will be approved next June.

The two options are for a crossing close to the existing bridge and tunnel at Dartford, called Option A, or one connecting the A2 and M2 to the M25 via the A13, named Option C.

Proposals for a crossing through the Swanscombe Peninsula – Option B – were scrapped after objections from developers wanting to build a £3.2 billion Paramount resort on the site.

Mr Cooper, who has been in his job a month, said taking traffic away from the future garden city would help deal with the 15 million people expected to visit Paramount if it opens as planned in 2020.

However, many campaigners strongly object to the plans, saying it cuts through precious woodland at Shorne Country Park.

Mr Cooper said: “The board would favour it being east of Gravesend.

“The issue with Dartford is you only have one effective access point across the Thames and all you need is a major accident or terrorist alert and the whole of your infrastructure is thrown into chaos.

“East of Gravesend gives you more resilience, if nothing else.

“The volume of freight coming in and out of the UK forces many lorries to unnecessarily drive towards London to cross the bridge and then go back out to the east of England.

“If you have the crossing to the east of Gravesham then lorries won’t need to do that, so you reduce the lorry movement along that stretch of the A2.

“That is good for pollution and good for Britain.”

"At present when there is an accident traffic clogs Dartford and the surrounding villages and Dartford has suffered for long enough..." - Dartford MP Gareth Johnson

Dartford MP Gareth Johnson, who has long campaigned against another crossing in his constituency, backed Robin Cooper’s view.

He said: “I have always been of the view that any new Thames Crossing should be built away from Dartford.

"Building a crossing east of Gravesend would help reduce the amount of freight traffic that uses the M25 and Dartford Crossing.

“It also would provide another option for motorists if there is an accident on the M25 or at the crossing.

"At present when there is an accident traffic clogs Dartford and the surrounding villages and Dartford has suffered for long enough.

“The people of Dartford want to know that traffic will not get worse as the Ebbsfleet project gets underway.

“A new Thames Crossing east of Gravesend will undoubtedly assist with this but the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation need to ensure that local people are adequately consulted on other road projects in and around the garden city.”

Option A for a Thames Crossing at Dartford would cost £1.25bn for a bridge, £1.6bn for an immersed tunnel and £1.57bn for a bored tunnel.

Option C for a crossing east of Gravesend would cost £3.24bn for a bridge, £3.09bn for an immersed tunnel and £3.15bn for a bored tunnel.

The vicar of St Mary the Virgin church in Chalk said a new Thames Crossing could be avoided if the government instead builds a rail freight terminal north of the Thames.

Rev Nigel Bourne, who has formed a group of campaigners from Chalk and Shorne to oppose Option C, said a crossing near his village would be much more expensive and would not solve the problem of growing freight traffic.

He proposed expanding the use of rail freight and investing in a freight terminal in Essex, which would ease congestion on Kent’s roads.

“We should instead build some kind of terminal north of the Thames, which would be cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more effective...” - Rev Nigel Bourne

He said: “Everyone may think I just don’t want it in my backyard but I don’t think we need it anyway because the government have not explored the options which would take freight off the roads.

“If we keep freight on the rail link we could discharge them north of the Thames. The rail link is already there and has spare capacity to deal with more freight.

“We should instead build some kind of terminal north of the Thames, which would be cheaper, more environmentally friendly and more effective.”

Asked which of the two options on the table should go ahead, he said Dartford was the better choice because it is “the least bad”.

He said: “I’m not even sure we need a new crossing but on balance Option A is the least bad because it is the most effective position, the least destructive position and the least expensive.”