U.K. Government's Cuts To Cycling And Walking Budget Ruled Unlawful By Court Of Appeal

Forbes

a day ago

In what has been described by campaigners as a 'historic judgment' the U.K.'s Court of Appeal has today ruled that cuts to cycling and walking funding imposed by the Conservative government in 2024 and left in place by the current Labour government were unlawful. The case had been brought by campaign group Transport Action Network (TAN). According to TAN the case sets a precedent that ministers cannot disregard duties set by Parliament even if they might find them 'inconvenient.'
The Infrastructure Act of 2015 gave the funding of 'active travel' the same status as railways and roads requiring regularly updated strategies and stable funding.
However, in March 2023, the Treasury forced the Department for Transport to cut $270 million of dedicated funding for active travel. Though this decision was criticised by both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee of MPs, the cuts were not reversed by the then Conservative government. TAN filed a legal challenge three months later but, the following year, the High Court accepted the Department for Transport's defense that the funding it had promised was just a 'guestimate.'
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal today ruled in TAN's favor. Giving judgment, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing said that:
'There is nothing vague about a requirement to 'specify the resources to be made available by the Secretary of State'. The word is 'specify' not 'project', 'estimate' or 'guess'…If the Secretary of State finds it inconvenient, or 'impractical' to comply with the procedure for variation, then the Secretary of State can persuade Parliament to amend the legislation.'
TAN director Chris Todd said: 'Given how good walking and cycling is for the economy, for improving access to jobs, for the NHS and health–in fact, all of Labour's missions–it has been a mystery why Labour continued defending a Conservative cut. Investing in small scale schemes, rather than glossy mega-projects like roads, means higher returns for the country and real benefits for communities.'
Because the funding cut was for the period up to March 2025 and the appeal was heard after that date, the court could not order the government to return the funding. TAN is now urging the government to provide fresh funding to cover the shortfall.
The government is understood to be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.