Agenda item

On-street residential chargepoint pilot scheme (ORCs): TRO consultation report

Report of the Executive Director City Futures

Decision:

15.1

Members considered a report of the Executive Director of City Futures that detailed the consultation response to proposals to introduce an on-street residential chargepoint scheme (ORCS), report the receipt of objections to the scheme and set out the Council’s response.

 

 

15.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

 

·       Considers the objections to the TROs for the proposed on-street residential chargepoint scheme (ORCS) and officer responses.

·       Approves the making of the Traffic Regulation Orders in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

·       Notes that all objectors will be informed of the decision prior to implementation.

 

 

15.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

15.3.1

The scheme will provide new EV infrastructure in areas where drivers wishing to charge an EV do not have access to a private driveway or an off-street facility. This could reduce inequalities and result in a greater use and uptake of EVs which can contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions and the contribute towards tackling the climate emergency.

 

15.3.2

This is one of the key drivers for this project nationally, supporting a move away from the use of traditional fossil fuels to cleaner technologies such as electric.

 

15.3.3

The development of a public electric vehicle charging infrastructure network contributes towards addressing health inequalities and other causes and identifiers of inequality in Sheffield as identified in the Equality Impact Assessment.

 

15.3.4

Increasing the number of public charging points for electric cars was a popular ‘other’ suggestion during the consultation carried out in relation to the Clean Air Zone, where in addition to the high cost of electric vehicles, the lack of electric vehicle charging points was highlighted as a key barrier to investing in cleaner vehicles.

 

15.3.5

The impact of the on-street spaces and infrastructure on existing parking pressures in these areas should be seen in context with the current and future benefits of the facilities as well as the small amount of space that would be needed out of the streets or car parks in each of these neighbourhoods.

 

 

15.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

15.4.1

The proposed on-street EV chargepoints have been designed to minimise the space used, look to comply with standards for accessibility where feasible and not install lots of EV equipment on footways. Placing the EV infrastructure on footways is an option but is not considered to be appropriate as this would reduce footway widths which in many residential areas are less than 2metres wide and so would introduce a hazard to pedestrians.

15.4.2

Alternative designs for on-street charging infrastructure that does not require a reduction in footways were considered. These included larger buildouts which then encourage drivers to access the chargepoint via the footway level. This would require more space and so further reduce opportunities for on-street parking. It was considered that the need to have a minimal impact to on-street space whilst also making the infrastructure as accessible as possible ruled out using a larger island or buildout.

15.4.3

The council are investigating the potential for charging EVs via streetlighting. However, there are technical issues which need to be worked through in order to understand the commercial viability as well as practical issues with the approach for the City.

15.4.4

The EV chargepoints have been promoted with a TRO as implementing EV infrastructure but not restricting the bays usage to EVs would likely result in these facilities not being available to those wishing to use them. However, the usage data will be reviewed and the timings and extents of the restriction may be recommended for change if it is considered that the space is being underutilised. This would be subject to another TRO process and consultation.

 

 

 

Minutes:

15.1

Members considered a report of the Executive Director of City Futures that detailed the consultation response to proposals to introduce an on-street residential chargepoint scheme (ORCS), report the receipt of objections to the scheme and set out the Council’s response.

 

 

15.1.1

Councillor Christine Gilligan-Kubo declared an interest as the ward councillor for area in which the scheme was based. This did not preclude her from being involved in the discussions.

 

 

15.1.2

During the discussion of the above item the Committee agreed, in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, that as the meeting was approaching the two hours and 30 minutes time limit, the meeting should be extended by a period of 30 minutes

 

 

15.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

 

·       Considers the objections to the TROs for the proposed on-street residential chargepoint scheme (ORCS) and officer responses.

·       Approves the making of the Traffic Regulation Orders in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

·       Notes that all objectors will be informed of the decision prior to implementation.

 

 

15.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

15.3.1

The scheme will provide new EV infrastructure in areas where drivers wishing to charge an EV do not have access to a private driveway or an off-street facility. This could reduce inequalities and result in a greater use and uptake of EVs which can contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions and the contribute towards tackling the climate emergency.

 

15.3.2

This is one of the key drivers for this project nationally, supporting a move away from the use of traditional fossil fuels to cleaner technologies such as electric.

 

15.3.3

The development of a public electric vehicle charging infrastructure network contributes towards addressing health inequalities and other causes and identifiers of inequality in Sheffield as identified in the Equality Impact Assessment.

 

15.3.4

Increasing the number of public charging points for electric cars was a popular ‘other’ suggestion during the consultation carried out in relation to the Clean Air Zone, where in addition to the high cost of electric vehicles, the lack of electric vehicle charging points was highlighted as a key barrier to investing in cleaner vehicles.

 

15.3.5

The impact of the on-street spaces and infrastructure on existing parking pressures in these areas should be seen in context with the current and future benefits of the facilities as well as the small amount of space that would be needed out of the streets or car parks in each of these neighbourhoods.

 

 

15.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

15.4.1

The proposed on-street EV chargepoints have been designed to minimise the space used, look to comply with standards for accessibility where feasible and not install lots of EV equipment on footways. Placing the EV infrastructure on footways is an option but is not considered to be appropriate as this would reduce footway widths which in many residential areas are less than 2metres wide and so would introduce a hazard to pedestrians.

15.4.2

Alternative designs for on-street charging infrastructure that does not require a reduction in footways were considered. These included larger buildouts which then encourage drivers to access the chargepoint via the footway level. This would require more space and so further reduce opportunities for on-street parking. It was considered that the need to have a minimal impact to on-street space whilst also making the infrastructure as accessible as possible ruled out using a larger island or buildout.

15.4.3

The council are investigating the potential for charging EVs via streetlighting. However, there are technical issues which need to be worked through in order to understand the commercial viability as well as practical issues with the approach for the City.

15.4.4

The EV chargepoints have been promoted with a TRO as implementing EV infrastructure but not restricting the bays usage to EVs would likely result in these facilities not being available to those wishing to use them. However, the usage data will be reviewed and the timings and extents of the restriction may be recommended for change if it is considered that the space is being underutilised. This would be subject to another TRO process and consultation.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: