Transport Action Network Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

A Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy under section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 is an investment strategy, not a fixed programme of works. The financial resources specified are intended allocations or projections, rather than minimum ring-fenced commitments. Funding may therefore be changed without varying the strategy where the objectives remain unchanged.

A high-level resource allocation decision must take account of obviously material considerations. The public sector equality duty requires rigorous and conscientious due regard, assessed directly by the court. Carbon-budget implications were obviously material here, but the statutory PM2.5 targets were not. The claim was dismissed.

Transport Action Network challenged the Secretary of State for Transport’s March 2023 decision to reduce funding for active-travel schemes. It argued that the decision unlawfully departed from the statutory Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy framework, was inconsistent with the objectives and resources specified in the second strategy, and failed to consider the public sector equality duty, PM2.5 air-quality targets, and carbon-budget policies.

The central issues were whether section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 required a formal variation before funding could be reduced, and whether the Secretary of State had considered the legally material matters sufficiently.

1. Statutory framework. The claim was dismissed. Section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 requires the Secretary of State to specify objectives and the financial resources intended to be made available for them. It does not require a rigid, costed programme of works or impose an absolute duty to deliver every stated activity, result or standard.
2. The words “to be made available” mean resources intended to be made available, rather than a minimum sum that must be spent. The funding figures in CWIS2 were estimates or projections, not ring-fenced spending commitments. Their fluctuation was inherent in the complex and cross-departmental nature of active-travel funding.
3. The statutory variation procedure is required where the Secretary of State wishes to change the direction or objectives of government policy. It is not required for changes in funding caused by changed circumstances where the objectives remain unchanged. The reduction in active-travel funding was therefore compatible with section 21.
4. Material considerations. A decision-maker must consider matters so obviously material that it would be irrational to disregard them. A high-level resource allocation decision attracts a wide margin of judgment, but there is no exception to the public sector equality duty for polycentric or resource-allocation decisions.
5. The Secretary of State had due regard to the matters in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The court assessed the adequacy of that regard directly, considering the existing national equality impact assessment, the discussion of disability and rural connectivity, the urgency and high-level character of the decision, and the fact that the particular projects affected had not yet been identified.
6. The statutory PM2.5 targets were not mandatory relevant considerations. There was no quantified, immediate and probable relationship between the funding decision and PM2.5 levels. The analogy with R (Wildfish Conservation) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was therefore inapposite.
7. The impact of transport measures on carbon budgets and the route to net zero was generally obviously material. However, the Secretary of State had adequately considered the relationship between active travel, carbon emissions and the relevant policies. He was not required to repeat the modelling for the larger eventual reduction, given its indirect and limited likely impact.