Consultation opens on charging drivers £5 for entering city centre
The Liberal Democrat-run local authority claimed the plan has a series of objectives, such as reducing traffic, making bus journeys faster, improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, and cutting air pollution.
Our cabinet approved the public consultation for our proposed Oxford temporary congestion charge.
You'll be able to share your views on Let's Talk Oxfordshire from Monday 23 June.
Find out more about our proposal: https://t.co/it8sSUyCT7 pic.twitter.com/J70QwGZBLR
— Oxfordshire County Council (@OxfordshireCC) June 18, 2025
London and Durham – the only other parts of the UK with congestion charges – introduced their schemes in the early 2000s.
A number of other cities have implemented clean air zones, which charge vehicles that fail to meet minimum emission standards.
Oxfordshire County Council is proposing to launch the temporary congestion charge in the autumn.
It said 'urgent action is needed' to reduce delays to buses, partly caused by the temporary closure of Botley Road since April 2023 because of a Network Rail project to expand the city's railway station.
The congestion charge would remain until the introduction of a traffic filtering trial once Botley Road reopens, which is expected to be in August 2026.
It could be in place as a temporary measure for up to two years, the council said.
The scheme would apply only to cars and be enforced using automatic number plate recognition cameras (ANPR) positioned at six locations.
Cars with a permit or day pass would be able to pass through the charging area without paying.
The council is planning to make permits available for groups such as residents, blue badge holders, frequent hospital patients, taxis and private hire vehicles.
Electric cars will not be exempt from the daily fee as the scheme's purpose would be to 'reduce traffic by reducing the number of car journeys', according to the local authority.
The council said income generated by the congestion charge would be used to cover the cost of setting up and operating the system, with any additional money going towards discounted park and ride services and improved bus services.
The consultation opened on Monday and runs for six weeks.
Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, said residents need assurances that the scheme will end within two years as there have been 'too many times' when charges that are 'supposedly temporary' are kept because they become 'too lucrative'.
He added: 'Ultimately, the aim of the council is to reduce car traffic while creating a better alternative via buses and bikes.
'Expanded park and ride or park and pedal facilities would contribute in a big way towards that ambition.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Badenoch urges Tory councils to challenge asylum hotels in court
In a letter to Tory councils, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'encouraging' them to 'take the same steps' as Epping Council 'if your legal advice supports it'. Labour dismissed her letter as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense', but several of its own local authorities have already suggested they too could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. Epping secured a temporary injunction from the High Court on Tuesday, blocking the use of the Essex town's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The decision has prompted councils controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK to investigate whether they could pursue a similar course of action. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils and Reform's Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils. But Labour's Newcastle City Council and Brighton and Hove City Council have both ruled out legal action. Tuesday's High Court decision has also caused a potential headache for the Home Office, which has a legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being dealt with. If planning laws prevent the Government from using hotels, ministers will face a scramble to find alternative accommodation, potentially in the private rented sector. In her letter, Mrs Badenoch praised Epping Council's legal challenge and told Tory councils she would 'back you to take similar action to protect your community'. But she added that the situation would 'depend on individual circumstances of the case' and suggested Tory councils could pursue 'other planning enforcement options'. She also accused Labour of 'trying to ram through such asylum hotels without consultation and without proper process', saying the Government had reopened the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation after the Conservatives had closed it. The hotel had previously been used as asylum accommodation briefly in 2020 and then between 2022 and 2024 under the previous Conservative government. A Labour spokesperson said Mrs Badenoch's letter was a 'pathetic stunt' and 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense from the architects of the broken asylum system', saying there were now '20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels than at their peak under the Tories'. The letter comes ahead of the publication on Thursday of figures showing how many asylum seekers were being temporarily housed in hotels at the end of June this year. Home Office figures from the previous quarter show there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Figures on those staying in hotels date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023, when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. Data is not released on the number of hotels in use, but it is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour has said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Badenoch urges Tory councils to challenge asylum hotels in court
In a letter to Tory councils, Mrs Badenoch said she was 'encouraging' them to 'take the same steps' as Epping Council 'if your legal advice supports it'. Labour dismissed her letter as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense', but several of its own local authorities have already suggested they too could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. Epping secured a temporary injunction from the High Court on Tuesday, blocking the use of the Essex town's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The decision has prompted councils controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK to investigate whether they could pursue a similar course of action. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils and Reform's Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils. But Labour's Newcastle City Council and Brighton and Hove City Council have both ruled out legal action. Tuesday's High Court decision has also caused a potential headache for the Home Office, which has a legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being dealt with. If planning laws prevent the Government from using hotels, ministers will face a scramble to find alternative accommodation, potentially in the private rented sector. In her letter, Mrs Badenoch praised Epping Council's legal challenge and told Tory councils she would 'back you to take similar action to protect your community'. But she added that the situation would 'depend on individual circumstances of the case' and suggested Tory councils could pursue 'other planning enforcement options'. She also accused Labour of 'trying to ram through such asylum hotels without consultation and without proper process', saying the Government had reopened the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation after the Conservatives had closed it. The hotel had previously been used as asylum accommodation briefly in 2020 and then between 2022 and 2024 under the previous Conservative government. A Labour spokesperson said Mrs Badenoch's letter was a 'pathetic stunt' and 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense from the architects of the broken asylum system', saying there were now '20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels than at their peak under the Tories'. The letter comes ahead of the publication on Thursday of figures showing how many asylum seekers were being temporarily housed in hotels at the end of June this year. Home Office figures from the previous quarter show there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Figures on those staying in hotels date back to December 2022 and showed numbers hit a peak at the end of September 2023, when there were 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels. Data is not released on the number of hotels in use, but it is thought there were more than 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023. Labour has said this has since been reduced to fewer than 210.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Where have all the upper-class Tories gone?
A currently fashionable conservatism is militantly against Ukraine and, by more cautious implication, pro-Russia. We who disagree are, I quote Matthew Parris in these pages last week, 'prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin'. Others put it more unkindly, speaking of 'Ukraine brain' as a mental affliction among the Cold War generations. One should not project the entire second world war on to now, but some similarities with the 1930s are undeniable. Dictator exploits resentment at what he says is an unequal treaty after defeat; claims land in various places as the true property of his people; occupies some of it, changing borders by the threat of force, later by direct force; keeps demanding more; keeps threatening. The European democracies mostly dislike what is happening, but understandably wish to appease. As it all gets nastier, some incline to criticise the behaviour of the victim nations and their leaders (Benes then; Zelensky now) and downplay the sins of the aggressor. Matthew, for example, wants Zelensky to 'get off his high horse' without noticing that Putin's horse is much, much higher. The United States wants as little to do with it as possible. Dictator has a much firmer purpose than his democratic opponents, so he wins. At first, only the direct victim suffers. Later, all of us do. This argument is not exact, but it is not idiotic either. Elsewhere in this week's issue, Ursula Buchan writes about her grandfather John Buchan's time at The Spectator, the grounding for his career in political life and as a celebrated novelist. His very first article for the paper (20 January 1900) was called 'The Russian Imperial Ideal'. Buchan identified 'the two parties in the [Tsarist] government… both vigorous, one demanding internal reform, the other seeking external empire. At present she seems to have chosen for the latter, but… an Empire and commercial supremacy can only be built upon a genuine and healthy national life, and Russia, while she has the materials for such a life, has hitherto neglected to use them. Militarism and economic reform, where the former is so triumphant and the latter so urgent, are the lion and the lamb which will never lie down together.' They never did, though Gorbachev tried. The lion ate the lamb long ago. Tom Gordon, a Liberal Democrat MP, is leading a campaign to recruit more working-class people for parliament. He praises the few 'salt of the earth guys who are making it all happen' in his part of England (Harrogate and Knaresborough: not, it must be said, a super-working-class area). Mr Gordon does not confront the problem that nowadays the working class has been almost abolished, partly by the largely good trend of upward mobility and partly by the largely bad one of a welfare system which pays the poorly educated not to work. Looking at the 2024 intake of MPs, I would say that by far the greater problem is that so many, whatever their family roots, came into politics through politics/activism/politicised charity work, and know about nothing else. Looking at the question in class terms, I would say the more noticeable absence is members of the upper class. Nearly 40 years ago, I commissioned a scholarly piece (The Spectator, 3 May 1986) by the late Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd called 'The Descent of Tory Man'. It analysed the social class of all Conservative MPs at that Thatcher high tide and found 19 (including William Waldegrave, Nicholas Ridley, Lord Cranborne and Nicholas Soames) in the top social class, 33 in the second highest, 86 in the third, and the majority (there were 392 Tories at that time) in classes four to ten. Trying to apply that analysis to the present 121 Conservatives, I can think of only one – the wise and public-spirited Jesse Norman – who could be described as upper-class, and even he might have reached only class 2 according to Massingberd's exacting criteria. What applies to the Tories applies, a fortiori, to all MPs. So when parliament is more despised than at any time since the Great Reform Bill, it is also the least aristocratic it has ever been. Are these two phenomena related? I wish all the argument about pronouns had been raging when I was a teenager. That was the time when it first became commonplace to address God as 'You' in the liturgy and in translations of the Bible. I was against the change then because it sacrificed beauty, but I could never quite answer those who said it was better to speak to God less formally and more intimately. In my then ignorance, I did not know that 'Thou', as is the case with the second person singular in many other languages, was historically the more intimate and loving form, and so I did not understand that the plural 'You' was the more distant one. The use of 'You' is also theologically inaccurate, since it grammatically implies that there is more than one God. The Trinity, after all, are not some things. It is one thing. Recently, I booked a hotel room in the north of England. We could have 'de luxe' or 'superior'. It was explained to me that superior, in this context, meant inferior: de luxe had been recently 'refreshed'; superior had not. We were inclined to take 'de luxe', but then I asked whether de luxe had baths. No, it had only walk-in showers. Superior, however, had baths. So we took superior, thereby saving more than £100. This must be the first generation in human history which has paid less for a room with a bath than for one without. Why the change? I can think of four possible reasons: 1) Americans prefer showers. 2) Showers save water, and therefore the planet. 3) Showers save space, and therefore property cost. 4) Many customers are too old or fat to get out of baths. In another generation, will baths be objects only of historical interest, like mangles?
