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

Under the Infrastructure Act 2015, section 21 imposes a precise duty to specify the objectives of a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and the financial resources to be made available for them. It does not require the Secretary of State to carry out the objectives or spend the specified resources. Financial figures may be estimates or projections, but they must be specified. Once a strategy is set, the Secretary of State cannot change its specified resources without following the statutory variation procedure. That procedure requires consultation and regard to the desirability of maintaining certainty and stability. Political reporting and practical inconvenience do not replace that procedure. A ministerial statement reducing funding already specified in a strategy is a relevant change, even if it does not state the precise reduced sum.

Transport Action Network Limited appealed against Kerr J’s dismissal of its judicial review claim, reported at [2024] EWHC 1405. The Secretary of State had specified a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy and later issued a Ministerial Statement purporting to reduce capital funding for its final two years by £200 million. TAN argued that this changed resources specified under section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and therefore required the statutory variation procedure. The central issue was whether section 21 permitted the funding reduction without prior consultation and consideration of certainty and stability.

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. The Secretary of State had purported to reduce funding specified in the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy without following the procedure required by section 21 of the Infrastructure Act 2015.

1. Nature of the statutory duty. Section 21(3) imposes a precise duty to specify in the strategy the objectives to be achieved and the financial resources to be made available by the Secretary of State for achieving them. It does not impose a duty to carry out the objectives or to spend the specified resources. The description of the provision as a target duty was therefore inaccurate.
2. Meaning of specification. The Secretary of State must particularise the resources to be made available. The figures may be estimates or projections, but the statutory duty cannot be diluted by treating them as mere intentions, guesses or aspirations. The amount actually spent is irrelevant to whether the duty to specify has been discharged.
3. Variation procedure. Once a strategy has been set, the detailed requirements concerning variation prevent the Secretary of State from changing a matter which Parliament required him to specify without using that procedure. Before varying the strategy, he must consult appropriate persons and have regard to the desirability of maintaining certainty and stability. The procedure does not prevent a change of spending policy; it requires the Secretary of State to pause, consider the statutory matters and consult.
4. Application. The first line of table 1 in the Strategy specified resources to be made available for active travel. The Statement expressly referred to a reduction and therefore constituted a relevant change, despite not stating the exact reduced figure. There was no evidence that the Secretary of State had followed the variation procedure. The Judge’s reasoning confused the duty to specify resources with a duty to spend them and did not justify dismissing the claim.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed TAN’s appeal against the High Court decision, holding that the funding reduction required compliance with the statutory variation procedure. [2025] EWCA Civ 702.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Kerr J dismissed the judicial review claim. [2024] EWHC 1405.