Issue - meetings

Following scrutiny, recommendation a) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, recommendation b) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, recommendation c) was supported to Cabinet

Following scrutiny, a recommendation was put forward. The recommendation as set out below was supported to Cabinet.

d) Prior to the implementation of a pilot a report including location details and cost is brought to environment regeneration and street scene services committee for scrutiny.

The chair noted that members were vocal in the previous scrutiny meeting about the reasons for not engaging in a trial and was pleased that the council now intend to participate in the trial process.

Members noted that recommendation b is to delegate authority to the Director of Environment & Regeneration to decide the location and details of any pilot. Members want more detailed scrutiny of any pilot due to potential complications and some contradictions in the EV charging paper.

Members felt the channelling option raises questions about land ownership and how to manage flats and pavements. They believe there is a lack of detail before proceeding with the pilot.

Members also felt that the template for an agreement is very vague.

Members believe residents in pilot areas would support a free trial due to the increasing availability of electric vehicles, even if they don't own one now.

Members want this to be revisited once there is a clear plan detailing the trial's content, involved areas, and associated costs.

Officers were asked if they had estimated the cost of installing channels and who would bear that expense. Members believe most of the houses involved will be terraced or flats, typically occupied by people on lower incomes. Therefore, if residents bear the cost, it will be an additional difficult expense for them.

Members believe they need to know early on, even before the pilot, where the costs will come from and how the funding will be managed.

Mike Roberts mentioned that officers are collaborating with other councils and observing trends across the UK. He emphasised that firsthand experience from the trial would help answer questions. They expect the trial to be small in scale, with costs typically covered by residents.

Officers noted that Blaenau Gwent are covering installation costs for a limited number of households in their trial, which this council could consider. The final cost depends on the solution used in the trial. For example, the Kerbo Charge solution costs around £1,000 per property.

Investing in a home charging facility has the advantage of lower unit costs. Charging at home overnight costs around 7 pence per kWh, whereas commercial charging points can cost up to 90 pence per kWh. Therefore, having a home facility offers significant savings for ongoing vehicle charging.

Members used drop Kerb schemes as a comparison saying that some people pay for the Kerb, while others find ways to bypass it. If the cost is too high, people might not participate.

Members noted that with petrol and diesel cars being phased out, every property will eventually need electric vehicle charging. It might be better to plan for every house and eventuality now. Additionally, if detachable charging becomes the future technology, many people might recharge indoors without needing cable connections, potentially making current plans obsolete.

Members felt that £1,000 per property is expensive for residents. The chair noted that it's tricky to decide how much to invest in an uncertain future.

Councillor Hurley, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4