Decision:
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.
Minutes:
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 Economic Growth, mentioned that a
local firm has contacted the council about trialling their product in The
Quays, with no cost impact. Regarding futureproofing, there are consultations
with Welsh and UK Governments on building control and planning. The
consultations suggest that any new property or any property undergoing major
upgrades will need to include EV charging as part of the application.
The
only restriction is the capacity of the National Grid. They now require new
properties to have a three-phase supply for greater capacity. There are
forward-thinking initiatives involving many stakeholders, but there are also
complications.
Mike
Roberts confirmed that the Decarbonisation team are keen to participate in the
trials. There are various solutions, including a gully option, which officers
could test in the depot, and try a different option on the street for firsthand
experience. Officers believe the key question is whether the authority wants to
be involved in a trial to contribute to the debate or wait for national
guidance.
Members
requested clarification on which option is being considered for the trial, as
the report does not specify this.
Officers
explained that they left the trial option open. If a particular option is
already being trialled extensively, the council can choose a different one to
contribute to the evolving debate.
The
Chair asked for an explanation of the Kerbo charge and Gully options and was
advised that Kerbo Charge is a brand of gully system with a lid. The cable locks into the vehicle while
charging and can't be removed. Once charged, the cable is pulled out and the
cover replaced. There are other systems
like a rubber Kerb assembly that opens for connecting the cable, demountable
pillar-type charging points that lock into sockets in the road and overhead
versions that swing out to keep the cable above pedestrians.
Members
requested more information on the template form for a licensee, specifically
whether it would be registered to the address or the resident. They also asked
if there would be any costs involved in transferring the licence when
purchasing a house with an existing gully or system in place.
Officers
were asked if there are plans to include these installations during full
pavement resurfacing in the future. They also inquired whether the council
would train existing teams or outsource the installations.
Members
were informed that the council could generate income by training capital gangs
to install the systems and charge, like they do with drop kerbs. However,
contractors would need to be certified as proficient to perform the
installations to ensure construction standards.
The highway authority licence for an existing system would be offered to
the new resident. They wouldn't have to accept it, but it would be available
for them to take over.
Officers
feel that firsthand experience would be helpful, and the presence of gully
channels would add a complication as it would not be as simple as planning a
footway and then resurfacing it as there would be more engineering
complications. That's something the
experience in the trials elsewhere may show.
Members
asked what department or directorate any issues, complaints or upkeep would
come under if once installed.
Officers
explained that the council, as the highway authority, would hold the licence
and be responsible and would fall under the environment directorate. The
Director is currently considering consolidating all highway functions under one
division and if that happens that would be the relevant section to handle it.
Members
wanted the Director of Environment and Regeneration to consider the trial at a
mixture of modern houses and older terrace houses so that we can see a better
picture.
Officers
explained that they have requests that have been refused previously, and they
would probably start off by looking if there was a particular trial that suited
those existing refusals.
The
Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Economic Growth noted that the council
got offered by a third-party franchise a streetlight charging connection. It is
a complicated system, and he felt that they were charging more per unit because
they wanted to make money out of it. He noted that there was not as much of a
cost in installation and was another option that could be considered.
Members
asked if the extent of this trial going to be charging solutions directly
connected to the resident’s property or will on street charging options such as
installing council pillars with a recharging mechanism.
Officers
explained that home charging is about the connection being to the
property. Regarding connection to Street
lights in NPT they are all currently positioned at the back of the footway and
if a connection is added to them, then the same problem of the cables trailing
across the footways would happen.
Members
were advised that the council has a Zero Emissions Vehicle Infrastructure
Strategy which is a wider strategy for chargeable on-street public charging and
sets out what the council is doing more generally.
David
Griffiths Head of Engineering and Transport highlighted that people won’t have
designated parking spaces on street. You
may have some residents that have already got either an Individual Disabled
Parking Place or residents only parking is in place. On street, designated
charge points, enforcement and regulation needs to be consider with respect to
charging infrastructure.
Members
asked if the £1000 per property could be paid in instalments.
This
had not been considered. Officers felt
it was useful for the director to have delegated authority for the trial,
allowing them to address unforeseen issues and delegated authority would help
in reviewing and responding to previously refused requests based on emerging
data.
Members
felt that security concerns, such as cable theft, are significant, especially
with overnight charging and cables laid across footpaths. They asked if this
issue been considered before the trial, and will it be addressed during the
trial?
Officers
advised that charging cables lock into vehicles and should be removed when not
in use to prevent theft. Residents are responsible for taking the cables back.
Trials will provide firsthand experience if the authority participates.
Members
believe officers might be underestimating the risk posed by cable thieves, who
often target electrical substations and power stations.
Members
welcomed the trial but raised concerns about people already trailing cables in
their wards, which pose risks to disabled people and others. They asked what
measures are being taken to address these issues. They suggested a carrot and
stick approach as some may not be willing to pay the £1000 as they can see that
people get away with trailing cables.
The
chair asked if there are accurate reporting mechanisms to capture instances of
trailing cables and if there's a clear picture of where this is happening
across the county. He suggested including this in the trial and approaching
people who regularly trail cables to find solutions.
Officers
advised that they respond to complaints but are not proactively surveying
streets for cables and don't have data on this issue, although they do have
enforcement powers for trailing cables.
The
chair felt that adding a specific option to the online reporting tools for
people to report trailing EV charging cables could help gather data without
needing a full survey.
The
Cabinet member noted that most trailing cables are 3 kilowatts and can be
plugged into domestic sockets, often using external extension cables. The
incentive for a properly installed EV charger, which can be 8 or even 11
kilowatts, is the significantly faster charging time.
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.
Supporting documents: