In October, Open Roads for Oxford Ltd said it would challenge Oxfordshire County Council‘s congestion charge in Oxford by way of judicial review.

But by January, High Court judge Mr Justice Johnson refused permission for the judicial review to go ahead.

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd then asked for that decision to be reconsidered at a short oral hearing, known as a renewal hearing.

This hearing took place on March 24 before Mr Justice Fordham.

Mr Justice Fordham (Image: Judicial Office, England & Wales)

He too has thrown out Open Roads for Oxford Ltd’s application and again refused permission for judicial review.

In his reasoning, Judge Johnson said that there is “not a viable claim for judicial review, on any of the grounds put forward” and added: “None of them has a realistic prospect of success.”

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd argued that the council’s decision to introduce the congestion charge was unlawful. The judge considered whether the challenge should be allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

READ MORE: New Oxford ‘no left turn’ camera at roundabout generates £600k in fines

The judge refused permission for the case to proceed. This means the legal challenge did not succeed at this stage, and the congestion charge remains in place.

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd alleged that the decision to introduce a congestion charge by Oxfordshire County Council was illegal.

(Left to right) Emily Scaysbrook, Paul Major and Anne Gwinnett, members of ‘Open Roads for Oxford’ (Image: Esme Kenney)

It alleged that the consultation was unlawful and that the equality impacts assessment had breached the public sector equality duty.

Judges Johnson and Fordham disagreed with this, both throwing out taking the case further.

Robin Tucker, of active travel group CoHSAT, said: “We are pleased that Justice Fordham has rejected Open Roads for Oxford Ltd request for a judicial review and the people of Oxford can continue to benefit from quicker travel and less polluted streets.

“Open Roads for Oxford Ltd has wasted over £40,000 pounds of its supporters’ money on a case that the judge described as having no realistic prospect of success.

“But more than that, they were promoting a return to congestion and chaos, and ignoring the benefits of congestion and pollution reductions for the 90 per cent of people who visit Oxford’s centre without using a private car.”

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd has been ordered to pay the costs incurred by the council defending this claim, capped at £10,000.

Open Roads for Oxford Ltd said in a statement: We are obviously hugely disappointed that the High Court refused permission, but we are pleased to have brought the case this far, and grateful to all those who supported us.

“We must be clear: the Court did not say the scheme is fair, or popular, or well evidenced.

“What it said – and all it said – is that the Council met the minimum legal threshold required to proceed.

“It has become clear through this challenge that this is a very low bar.

“Most strikingly, the Court recognised that 66% of respondents said there should be no charges at all, and it acknowledged “identifiable weaknesses” in the Council’s own Equality Impact Assessment (EIA).

“It has effectively confirmed that, in law, a council can consult, receive overwhelming opposition, and still press ahead – so long as it has ticked the required procedural boxes.

“That may be lawful, but it is not democratic accountability.

“And, with regard to the EIA, the Court’s conclusion is telling: flawed does not mean unlawful.

“Through this process we have forced greater transparency and clarified, beyond doubt, the limits of the law in holding a council to account.

“In light of that, we now move our focus elsewhere. The fight is not over.

“We will continue to challenge this – publicly, politically, and relentlessly – because Oxford deserves better than policies imposed in defiance of its residents.

“Change will come through the ‘court’ of public opinion, and, ultimately, at the ballot box.

“We encourage all eligible residents to vote in the city council election on May 7th. Though it is the County Council responsible for the decision to press ahead with this scheme, the City Council has allowed this to happen, and we must use every opportunity to voice our discontent with the status quo. The deadline to register to vote is April 20th.