County council defends High Court challenge to road charging scheme

Mr Justice Fordham found in the High Court that Open Roads for Oxford (ORO) had no realistic prospect of success on any ground it put forward.

ORO sought to review the Oxford Congestion Charging Order 2025 which followed a council decision to impose a £5 charge at the points concerned.

It argued the public consultation had been inadequate as it had asked for opinions on how a charging scheme should be implemented, rather than on whether there should be one at all.

Fordham J noted a question within the consultation document asked: “We are proposing a single charge of £5 to allow cars without a day pass or permit to go through all of the temporary charge locations on one day. What do you think of the level of this charge?” and that this included among options for answers “there should be no charges at all”.

He said: “I do not accept that this is a question whose asking reflects a disinterest in knowing where consultees oppose there being a charging scheme at all.”

There was a clear opportunity for someone who opposed the charge to make their views known and another question was open to comments of any kind on the scheme, he noted.

Fordham J said: “In my judgment, it is not arguable that this questionnaire would be taken by a consultee as meaning ‘we are not interested in hearing from you if you oppose any kind of charging scheme, or if you want to tell us why you oppose any kind of charging scheme, or if you want to tell us what it is that you say we should do instead of a charging scheme’”.

ORO also claimed that documents put to Oxfordshire’s cabinet were biased but the judge said nothing in them advised members to focus only on ‘how’ to implement the scheme rather than whether to, he noted.

The group had alleged the council breached the public sector equality duty, but Fordham J said there was “no realistic prospect that this court at a substantive hearing would decide that there has been a breach of the public sector equality duty by reference to the way in which the [relevant document] was produced for cabinet members”.

Mark Smulian