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

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State's written ministerial statement of 9 March 2023 reducing active travel funding. The principal legal questions were whether the decision contravened the Infrastructure Act 2015 section 21 requirement to specify objectives and financial resources in a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) and whether necessarily material considerations were ignored, including the public sector equality duty, air quality targets (PM2.5) and policy documents on carbon budgets (the Transport Decarbonisation Plan, Net Zero Strategy and the Carbon Budgets Delivery Plan).

The court held that section 21(3) IA 2015 requires the financial resources stated in a CWIS to be read as intended or projected allocations rather than immutable, ring‑fenced spending commitments. Changes in funding during a CWIS period do not automatically engage the statutory variation mechanism where objectives are not changed. The Secretary of State had an appropriate margin of appreciation in high‑level resource allocation and the decision to reduce dedicated funding did not irrationally ignore the CWIS objectives.

On the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) the court found that the Secretary of State had had "due regard" to equality considerations: CWIS2 included an equality impact assessment, equality issues were considered in departmental "deep dives", and further, project‑level EqIAs would follow as schemes were chosen. The statutory PM2.5 targets and air quality considerations were not mandatory relevant considerations in the sense argued by the claimant and were not irrationally disregarded. The court also held that the likely impact on carbon budgets had been considered proportionately given the limited, indirect contribution of the dedicated active travel programme to overall emissions reductions.

Background and parties: The claimant, Transport Action Network Limited, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State for Transport's decision to reduce dedicated funding for active travel (walking and cycling) announced in a written ministerial statement of 9 March 2023. The defendant was the Secretary of State for Transport. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Jay J at an oral hearing in October 2023 after a prior refusal on the papers by Lang J in July 2023.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant challenged the lawfulness of the funding reduction on three principal grounds: (1) the decision was inconsistent with section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and therefore unlawful because the CWIS (CWIS2) specified objectives and financial resources that the Secretary of State could not reduce without using the statutory variation procedure; (2) the decision created an inconsistency between objectives and resources in CWIS2; and (3) the Secretary of State failed to take into account necessarily material considerations, specifically the CWIS2 objectives, the public sector equality duty (PSED, section 149 Equality Act 2010), air quality targets (PM2.5 under the Environment Act 2021 and Regulations 2023), and the risk to carbon budgets relied on in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan, Net Zero Strategy and the Carbon Budgets Delivery Plan.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the CWIS2 statement of financial resources under section 21 IA 2015 created a legally binding, ring‑fenced obligation such that any reduction required the formal section 21 variation procedure;
• whether the Secretary of State unlawfully ignored necessarily material considerations when making the funding decision, with particular focus on the PSED, the PM2.5 targets and implications for carbon budgets;
• the appropriate standard of review for high‑level resource allocation decisions.

Court's reasoning and disposition: The court (Kerr J) held that the most natural reading of "financial resources to be made available" in section 21 is that they are estimates or intended allocations rather than immutable commitments. Given the multi‑source and often competitive nature of active travel funding, figures in CWIS2 were projections subject to change; a change in funding does not in itself require use of the statutory variation procedure where objectives remain unchanged. The decision was a high‑level resource allocation attracting a wide margin of appreciation and low intensity of review.

The PSED required "due regard" and that duty had been met: CWIS2 contained an equality impact assessment, equality matters were considered in departmental deep dives and the ministerial submission referenced PSED considerations; more detailed, project‑level EqIAs were planned. The PM2.5 targets were considered not to be a mandatory relevant consideration in the way the claimant asserted; there was no quantified, direct link shown between the specific active travel funding reduction and PM2.5 outcomes and any consideration of air quality and carbon impacts was proportionate to their likely effect. The court concluded the Secretary of State had adequately considered the issues and dismissed the claim.

The judgment records that the Carbon Budgets Delivery Plan was later subject to its own successful judicial review and that the Net Zero Strategy had been criticised in earlier proceedings, but those matters did not alter the outcome here.

The claim is dismissed. Kerr J held that (i) the financial resources stated in section 21 CWIS documents are properly read as estimates or intended allocations rather than rigid, ring‑fenced commitments requiring use of the section 21 variation procedure when funding levels change; (ii) the Secretary of State had an appropriate margin of appreciation in this high‑level resource allocation; (iii) the public sector equality duty was discharged with adequate consideration; (iv) the PM2.5 air quality targets were not a mandatory relevant consideration in the claimant's asserted sense and were not irrationally ignored; and (v) the impact on carbon budgets had been considered proportionately.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Jay J at an oral hearing in October 2023 after an earlier refusal of permission on the papers by Lang J in July 2023. (No neutral citation is given in the judgment for those permission decisions.)