Open Roads for Oxford Ltd, R (on the application of) v Oxfordshire County Council

For a statutory consultation about a proposed charging scheme, the proposal must remain open to reconsideration. Consultees must have a fair opportunity to oppose the scheme, propose alternatives, or support its design. The consultation materials should refer briefly to material alternatives and explain why they were rejected. The question is whether the consultation, read fairly and as a whole, gave an informed opportunity to respond. A consultation is not unlawful merely because some technical information could have been fuller, where consultees could identify and raise the criticism. An equality impact assessment may contain drafting weaknesses without breaching the public sector equality duty, if the assessment and accompanying decision materials conscientiously address the relevant equality impacts.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against Oxfordshire County Council’s decision to introduce the Oxford Congestion Charging Order 2025. The claimant challenged the Cabinet decision of 10 September 2025 on three grounds: the design and information provided in the statutory consultation, the adequacy of the equality impact assessment under Equality Act 2010 s 149, and a consequential third ground.

Johnson J had refused permission on the papers. The renewed application required the court to decide whether any ground had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Permission refused. None of the grounds had a realistic prospect of success. The renewed application was dismissed, and the existing costs order stood.
2. Under Transport Act 2000 s 170(1A), consultation is required about the charging scheme. The duty does not permit the authority to treat its initial decision to propose a scheme as fixed. Consultees must have a fair opportunity to say that there should be no scheme, or that an alternative should be adopted.
3. The standards identified in R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56 applied at least arguably to the statutory duty. The consultation documents, read fairly and as a whole, gave sufficient opportunity to address whether a scheme should be introduced and what alternatives should be pursued. The survey included an option that there should be no charges, a general comments opportunity, and FAQs describing alternatives and why they had not been pursued.
4. The information supplied was legally sufficient. Consultees could identify the relevant traffic figures and criticise the methodology of the business impact assessment. The fact that further information might have assisted did not make the consultation unfair or unlawful in its overall context. The consultation responses also showed that the objections had been made and were reported to the Cabinet.
5. The 2025 equality impact assessment contained identifiable weaknesses, including retained references to filter points and an incomplete focus on the distinction between longer journeys and paying for the same journey. Those weaknesses did not provide a realistic basis for finding a breach of the public sector equality duty. The assessment explained the differences between the schemes and addressed charging impacts, including effects on people less able to afford the charge. The Director’s report separately addressed equality and inclusion implications, discounts, permits, and public-transport benefits.
6. The decision did not depend on the statutory materiality duty or delay. Those issues were left undecided.

Johnson J refused permission on the papers. The High Court, on renewal, dismissed the application for permission because none of the proposed grounds had a realistic prospect of success.