UK On‑Street EV Charging Faces Patchwork of Local Restrictions, Highlighting Uneven Access

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband argues that street‑side charger gullies will lower costs for drivers, but millions of UK households may remain unable to use this solution as many local councils continue to prohibit cables crossing pavements.

Although the government has pledged to “slash red tape” to expedite gully installations, over 20 local authorities are still resisting implementation.

The resistant authorities span regions such as Kent, Leicester and Worcestershire, yet the bulk of opposition concentrates in London — specifically Westminster and Hackney — where electric‑vehicle adoption is highest and off‑street parking is scarce.

Charging EVs through home electricity is far more cost‑effective because residential power is taxed at 5% VAT, versus 20% for public chargers; however, 9.3 million households lack off‑street parking, limiting their access to this cheaper supply, per research by Field Dynamics.

Companies such as Kerbo Charge, Gul‑e, Pavecross and ACO contend that their gully systems enable drivers to run charging cables from street‑parked cars without creating trip hazards, yet several councils remain worried about safety, parking impacts and the visual effect of cutting pavement channels.

‘Installation of gullies still requires explicit local authority approval,’ Michael Goulden, co‑founder of Kerbo Charge, explained. While the firm collaborates with 48 authorities that either permit gullies or are piloting them, each council applies its own distinct standards.

‘We are becoming increasingly efficient in working with councils,’ Goulden added. Notably, almost one‑fifth of the 83 English local or combined authorities surveyed by the government either failed to apply for cross‑pavement funding or did not claim their full allocated amount.

‘Many inner‑London boroughs have no immediate plans to adopt cross‑pavement solutions,’ Goulden noted. ‘This legislative change, which removes the need for planning permission, will not noticeably affect residents in the short term.’

Councils typically cite maintenance responsibilities and potential liability if pedestrians trip over a gully as primary concerns, and they also worry about guaranteeing a dedicated parking spot outside each residence.

Leicester City Council highlighted that many terrace‑house owners cannot reliably park directly in front of their homes and expressed accessibility concerns. Kent County Council voiced fears of electric‑shock hazards should cables be compromised. Worcestershire County Council stated it does not “permit any damage to the highway for EV charger connections,” though it would accommodate cable‑protecting ramps.

Ealing Council in west London cited “accessibility and safety concerns, especially for elderly residents, disabled individuals, wheelchair users and those with visual impairments,” and indicated its focus on deploying public chargers within lamp‑posts rather than street‑side gullies.

Westminster Council, covering central London, argues that gullies are impractical in densely built urban zones, while Hackney Council seeks to “minimise street clutter and prioritise vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, over private vehicles,” opting to retain chargers off pavements and expand its public‑charging network.

The government’s abolition of mandatory planning permission is expected to accelerate deployment, yet installers must still obtain street‑works licences — a process controlled by local councils.

‘Each authority has its own procedure,’ Adam Dolphin, director of Gul‑e, observed. ‘I wouldn’t characterize these as deliberate obstacles; they are simply navigating the procedural steps as they arise.’

Source link