Transport Action Network appeal against government cuts to cycling and walking funding

The legal claim challenges the previous government's decision in March 2023 to reduce dedicated funding for cycling and walking schemes (active travel) by two-thirds.  

TAN will now have its judicial review of the decision heard at the Court of Appeal on 30 April, after the High Court dismissed its claim in May 2024. 

The claim relates to the Infrastructure Act 2015, in which Parliament added a requirement for the Secretary of State for Transport (SoS) to periodically publish a cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS). This has to set specific objectives and then provide sufficient funding to meet them. 

After an initial strategy was set in 2017, a second strategy was set in July 2022 which included the allocation of £300 million in dedicated funding. However, in March 2023 a decision was made to cut this funding by two-thirds to £100 million. In June 2023, the National Audit Office found that active travel targets were not on track to be met and said that “stable funding” was needed to deliver schemes more efficiently. 

Ministerial briefings disclosed as part of the initial hearing revealed that in fact the Department for Transport (DfT) did not want to cut the funding at all but that its hand was forced at the last minute by the Treasury, says TAN.  

TAN argues that as a result, the statutory process was not followed in this decision, and instead the Secretary of State acted unlawfully to cut funding. The DfT acknowledged in its evidence to the High Court that before 2015 funding for active travel had been “ad hoc and piecemeal”. 

TAN says that the legal requirement to periodically set an investment scheme, as laid out in the Infrastructure Act, should represent a move away from off-the-cuff decision-making.  

It warns that this decision could set a precedent for ministers to act in a way that contradicts legal frameworks and obligations, and asks the Court of Appeal to rule that the SoS should not have been entitled to cut active travel funding in such a way. 

Chris Todd, director of Transport Action Network, said: 

“With the NHS struggling to cope with a public health epidemic, a cost of living crisis and a climate emergency, we surely need to make it easier to walk and cycle. Parliament clearly agreed, which is why it put a specific investment process into law, to give more certainty to those delivering active travel schemes. If the Secretary of State can just cut the funding on a whim, without following due process, then what was the point of the legislation in the first place? Given the DfT found active travel to be ‘one of the best return on investment decisions governments can make’, it makes no sense at all for the government to be fighting this case.” 

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith, who represents TAN, said: 

“The Infrastructure Act clearly lays out a framework for making decisions which our client believes was circumvented by the Secretary of State in the decision to cut active travel funding. Therefore, we will argue on Transport Action Network’s behalf that this decision was unlawful and could set a dangerous precedent whereby ministers can completely bypass clear statutory processes.”