Agenda item

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 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.