The End of the Road: A Final Update

We set up Open Roads for Oxford in July 2025 specifically to pursue a judicial review of Oxfordshire County Council’s (OCC’s) decision to implement its Congestion Charge Scheme.

Our aim was to give a legally robust voice to the groups and communities being affected by the scheme, making sure their concerns were fully represented and defended.

We made a promise to “do our utmost to stop OCC’s ‘Congestion Charge’ scheme - and original traffic filter scheme - from going ahead”. And we did do our utmost.

We reviewed the proposals in great detail and submitted a robust 45-page response to OCC’s own consultation on the Congestion Charge scheme.

This set out a large number of serious, evidenced concerns about: 

• the ability of the scheme to deliver what was claimed; 

• the economic impact;

• the disproportionate impact on particular groups, including vulnerable people;

• the lack of any engagement with potential alternative solutions;

• the efficacy of the modelling used to predict and assess the outcomes;

• and the consultation process. 

We identified and engaged a legal team, which we carefully chose for their relevant experience and track record, and we worked closely with them to develop our case.

We did as much work as we could ourselves to keep costs down, and successfully applied for a cap to limit our liability to pay any costs incurred by OCC to a maximum of £10,000 (through an Aarhus cap). 

A review of the legal challenge process

On 7 October 2025, represented by Bates Wells, we issued a Pre-Action Protocol letter (PAP) to OCC, formally notifying them of our intention to take them to a judicial review. 

On 21 October 2025, OCC issued its formal response to our PAP, but failed to address meaningfully the core legal and evidential concerns at the heart of our challenge.

So, we pressed ahead - not only with the legal challenge itself, but through continuing appeals to OCC to take notice of people’s lived experience of the Congestion Charge scheme, and to review their decision. Sadly, these did not result in the Council reconsidering its decision.

At OCC’s full council meeting on 4 November 2025, a motion was put forward to end the Oxford Congestion Charge scheme. As directors of Open Roads for Oxford, each of us spoke at the meeting, supporting the motion by presenting data showing that the Council’s own targets for reducing traffic and pollution had already been met (thus obviating the need for the scheme), warning of the growing economic damage to local businesses, and calling for honesty, accountability, and leadership. 

The motion was rejected, meaning that a deeply unpopular and economically damaging scheme continued, despite overwhelming public opposition, clear economic harm, and a mounting body of evidence against it.

So, in December 2025 we formally filed our judicial review claim with the High Court, working with our solicitors at Bates Wells, and specialist public law barrister Charles Streeten of Francis Taylor Building.

We received the High Court’s decision on 15 January 2026, which to our disappointment refused permission for the case to proceed – but this was not a final determination of the case. It was based on a judge’s reading of the papers alone, without any opportunity to argue the case in court.

So, as the judicial review process enabled us to do, we filed a renewal application with the High Court, seeking an oral permission hearing: this allowed our barrister to present the case in person and argue why the claim should be allowed to proceed. Our renewal arguments focused on whether the Council had (i) lawfully consulted, (ii) properly discharged its equality duties, and (iii) followed a lawful decision-making process. 

Meanwhile, we kept pressure on the council, and the issue in the public eye, with a protest in the covered market, and discussions with Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

Our case for judicial review was heard at a renewal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 24 March 2026, which we attended in person. Although the hearing was lengthy, and our allocated hour extended to nearly two, the outcome was not what we had hoped. The judge, Mr Justice Fordham, did not grant us permission to proceed to a full judicial review hearing. Although we had, and continue to have, deep concern over the detail of his judgement and the logic of the conclusions, we were told there was no realistic way of being able to challenge and overturn it. This was therefore the end of the line for our legal challenge and pursuit of judicial review.

With that in mind, all that remained for us to do was pay off the remaining legal bills incurred. Throughout the process, we had carefully committed to spend only what funds we had available, and although we are incredibly grateful for the public and private financial support we did receive, unfortunately one significant pledge ultimately fell far short of what had been promised. Combined with unexpected additional legal costs arising from last-minute and unusual court requirements for hard-copy documents, this left us with a significant outstanding shortfall.

A final ask: outstanding legal bill - please consider donating

Despite budgeting carefully throughout the challenge and having raised almost £85,000 through public and private donations, we are left with an outstanding legal bill of more than £14,000. Though we have already contributed substantial amounts of our own money and an enormous amount of time, the remaining costs now fall to the three of us personally.

If you believe this challenge was worth bringing, even though it ultimately did not succeed, we would be incredibly grateful for one final contribution, however small.

Please donate via our GoFundMe page by Monday 3 August or reach out directly to us if you prefer. Thank you so much.

Looking to the future - passing on the baton

We still strongly believe that the Traffic Filters scheme, set to be introduced once the Botley Road reopens later this year, will be catastrophic for many vulnerable residents and businesses - even more so than the congestion charging scheme has been. In principle we would love to fight it, but from our experience over the last twelve months we have learned that:

• Legal action of this nature is expensive and difficult to sustain unless you have access to substantial financial resources or people willing to undertake significant work on a pro bono basis.

• Legal costs are often unpredictable, meaning significant financial reserves are essential.

• Support by way of signing petitions and responding to consultations is sadly not sufficiently reflective of the general public’s willingness to donate to a legal challenge. It’s regrettably with that in mind that we don’t feel that we can personally take the challenge further, without taking on yet more significant personal financial risk to ourselves.

• Many of the evidence-based arguments we raised in good faith with councillors and council officers were not meaningfully engaged with. We were disappointed by their apparent unwillingness to reconsider decisions in light of new information. 

• The judicial review process is heavily weighted in favour of public authorities. In practice, it is concerned exclusively with the legality of the decision-making process rather than whether the underlying policy is sensible, proportionate or beneficial.

• We were consistently disappointed by the standard of political debate surrounding the scheme. Most recently during the City Council election campaign, we believe many voters were presented with inaccurate or misleading information about key aspects of the proposals. We would welcome stronger, enforceable standards for factual accuracy in local election campaigning, as the current voluntary code of conduct provides little protection.

With all of this in mind, we have decided to wind down Open Roads for Oxford in the coming weeks. That said, we remain confident that there are people in Oxford with the energy, expertise and determination to continue this work. If Open Roads for Oxford has achieved anything, we hope it is to have laid foundations on which others can build. We would gladly share everything we have learned with anyone prepared to take that next step.

Looking back over the last year, we are proud that Open Roads for Oxford demonstrated what determined residents can achieve when they work together. We assembled an experienced legal team, raised the funds needed to bring a judicial review, and ensured these issues received detailed legal scrutiny. 

Although we did not ultimately succeed, we hope the work we have done, and the lessons we have learned, will not be lost, but will help those who choose to continue this work in future.

To those who have supported us, we are extremely grateful – THANK YOU from the bottom of our hearts. We may not have achieved the outcome we sought in court, but together we ensured these issues received public scrutiny and were not allowed to pass without challenge. We believe that matters, and we hope those who come after us will build on the work that has already been done.

Thank you,

Paul Major, Emily Scaysbrook and Anne Gwinnett, Directors of ORFO