Campaigners crowdfunding judicial review of walking and cycling infrastructure cuts

Sustainable travel campaign group, Transport Action Network (TAN), is seeking to launch a judicial review of the Government's cuts to walking and cycling infrastructure, arguing that a recent change in policy constitutes an unlawful bypass of the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS).

TAN's litigation centres around the Government's decision in March of this year to cut two-thirds of England's dedicated funding for walking, wheeling and cycling.

The group contends that the announcement goes against the Government's promises in its CWIS, a strategy the Government is required to set out under the Infrastructure Act 2015.

As part of the CWIS, the Government has to set walking and cycling objectives and then provide adequate funding to deliver them. Modelled on other transport funding, it includes legal requirements to protect the 'certainty and stability' of a CWIS.

Writing on its crowdfunding page, TAN said: "We believe that by making ad hoc announcements, ministers have tried to unlawfully bypass the framework set by Parliament. By cutting funding, there is now a stark and inevitable inconsistency between the active travel objectives and the funding to achieve them.

"Ministers appear to have failed to take into account the impacts on climate and air pollution targets. Also, their legal duties to make facilities more accessible for people with disabilities and cycling more inclusive for children, older people and women."

The group added: "If we win, the decision to cut funding would be quashed. It would set an important precedent about the transparency required for both funding levels and their adequacy to meet active travel and wider government objectives."

TAN is seeking to raise more than £40,000 to fund its legal challenge. Its legal team is headed by David Forsdick KC, instructed by Leigh Day solicitors.

The group was established in 2019 and has since launched a number of judicial review bids, including a failed challenge of the Government's £27 billion Road Investment Strategy.

More recently, the Court of Appeal refused TAN's appeal of a refusal permission for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to approve improvements to an A road in Cambridgeshire.

Adam Carey