R(Transport Action Network) v Secretary of State for Transport (Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy)

On June 6, 2023, Transport Action Network (“TAN”), an NGO whose objectives include helping local authorities accelerate modal shift to sustainable travel, issued a public law challenge to a statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport to Parliament. The statement, communicated to Parliament on March 9, 2023, required Parliament to reduce funding for active travel by two-thirds of what was previously set under the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy for England (Infrastructure Act 2015, section 21) ("CWIS2"). TAN argued that, by making ad hoc announcements, the Secretary tried to unlawfully bypass its duty under the CWIS2 framework set by Parliament. More specifically, TAN claimed that the funding cut creates a stark and inevitable inconsistency between CWIS2's active travel objectives and the funding available to achieve them. According to TAN, this consequently impacts the goal of CWIS2's active travel, including reducing air pollution and meeting the government's climate ambitions. Initially, in July 2023, Justice Lang of the High Court refused permission for the claim to proceed. On October 26, 2023, however, Justice Jay granted permission to apply for judicial review at an oral permission hearing. On November 6, 2024, Justice Kerr of the High Court ruled in favor of the Secretary and dismissed TAN's application for judicial review, finding that although CWIS2 requires the Secretary to set an Investment Strategy that specifies "the financial resources to be made available ... for the purpose of achieving [CWIS2's] objectives," estimates or projections of available resources, not "ring-fenced spending commitments" are sufficient to meet this requirement. Justice Kerr agreed with the Co-director for Local Transport in the Department of Transport and explained that CWIS2 cannot be read as requiring a "rigid adherence to a costed programme of works and projects," considering that the amount to be spent on a particular project "may depend on the outcome of a competition for funding" and that the Secretary's political accountability is secured by periodic reporting to Parliament. On June 10, 2025, however, Lady Justice Elisabeth Liang, also writing on behalf of Lord Justice Holgate and Lord Justice Dingemans, reversed the High Court's judgment, granting TAN's appeal. Justice Liang held that the word "specify" used in CWIS2 indicates that the Secretary "must say, or specify, in the strategy the ‘resources to be made available’ by him," although this does not impose a duty to "do" anything other than "specify." She further explained that "[CWIS2], correctly interpreted, does not prevent the Secretary of State from changing his mind about what to spend . . . . What it prevents is a change to what is required to be, and has been specified, [without the Secretary's compliance] with the procedure for varying the strategy." Based on the lack of evidence supporting the Secretary's consultation to subsection (6) in varying the strategy, the Court found that the Secretary failed to comply with the procedure for variation.