Dale Vince, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, the statutory objectives of network management concern the expeditious movement of traffic. They do not require or encourage active travel or prefer any particular mode of transport. Section 18 guidance is discretionary. Issuing guidance does not turn its policy content into a statutory objective, although authorities must have regard to guidance issued.

Disproportionality is not a freestanding ground of judicial review absent an ECHR or fundamental common-law right. In national macro-policy review, it operates, if at all, through irrationality and a light-touch standard. A Minister may withdraw guidance to reflect changed priorities. Disagreement with that policy change is not an arguable error of law.

The appellant challenged the Secretary of State’s decision of 2 October 2023 to withdraw supplementary guidance issued under section 18 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. The guidance concerned network management and measures supporting walking and cycling.

The challenge alleged that withdrawal frustrated a statutory active-travel purpose, failed to consider the guidance’s wider role in addressing climate change and air quality, was disproportionate and pursued an improper purpose, and was irrational. Heather Williams J refused permission for judicial review and ordered costs: [2024] EWHC 2936 (Admin). Permission had earlier been refused on the papers by Lang J. The central issue was whether withdrawal of the guidance was unlawful.

Lord Justice Holgate gave the judgment, with Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Coulson agreeing. The applications for permission to appeal and for permission to apply for judicial review were refused.

1. Statutory purpose. The objectives of the Traffic Management Act 2004, particularly sections 16 to 18, must be identified from Parliament’s language. They concern securing or facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic. The Act does not require or encourage measures to increase walking or cycling, or prefer any mode of transport. Authorities may balance competing demands for road space and public funds.
2. Section 18 guidance. The Secretary of State has no duty to issue guidance under section 18, whether on active travel or any other subject. Where guidance is issued, section 18(2) requires network management authorities to have regard to it. The fact that guidance promotes a particular policy does not convert that policy into a statutory objective.
3. Decision-making process. The withdrawal was not confined to concerns about low traffic neighbourhoods. The material showed a wider policy change concerning traffic-management measures, the interests of drivers, community involvement and replacement guidance. The briefing did not omit any obviously material consideration, applying the approach approved in R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWCA Civ 1227; [2025] PTSR 726 at [91]-[97]. The improper-purpose and wider-considerations arguments were therefore unarguable.
4. Disproportionality and irrationality. Disproportionality was not a freestanding ground because no ECHR right or fundamental common-law right was engaged. Any such complaint depended on irrationality. Given the national, macro-political nature of the policy decision, a light-touch or low-intensity review applied, as illustrated by R (Packham) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 1005; [2021] Env. L.R. 215 at [47]-[51].
5. Changed policy priorities. The Secretary of State was entitled to regard the guidance as out of date because it no longer reflected the approach she wished to adopt, even though related policies remained in force. The challenge was a disagreement with the merits of that change, not an arguable error of law. The no-evidence complaint added nothing.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Under [2025] EWCA Civ 763, refused permission to appeal against the order of Heather Williams J and refused permission to apply for judicial review.
2. High Court (Administrative Court) — Under [2024] EWHC 2936 (Admin), Mrs Justice Heather Williams refused permission to apply for judicial review and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service.
3. High Court — Lang J had previously refused permission on the papers on 29 May 2024.