Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on VALP Proposed Submission - T7 Electric vehicle infrastructure

Representation ID: 2443

SUPPORT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)

Summary:

This Policy is welcomed.

More details about Rep ID: 2443

Representation ID: 1992

OBJECT Edward Ware Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Robert Taylor)

Summary:

We are concerned that the viability of providing electric charging points has not been assessed.
Our experience is that trying to require this via planning policy is problematic. For example, different vehicles use different charging plug types. Future land ownership issues can cause problems for the routing/laying out of charging cables, and requiring communal charging creates problems.
In addition, EV technology is also moving very quickly and any local plan policy that is too specific is likely to become outdated very quickly.
Consumers are also buying EV's in ever greater numbers, and it is not considered necessary, or appropriate, for planning policy to be over prescriptive in this regard.

More details about Rep ID: 1992

Representation ID: 1980

OBJECT Persimmon Homes Midlands represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

We consider that the reference to the requirements set out under the policies is too prescriptive. It is not
appropriate to set out SPD elements of the policies that will have a direct role in the determination of
planning applications. This includes matters relating to the minimum internal size of a garage and the level
of parking (Policy T5) and the number of electric charging points required (Policy T7). We have concern
that it is impossible to consider the impact of Policies T5 and T7 on viability without these details.

More details about Rep ID: 1980

Representation ID: 1963

OBJECT Careys New Homes represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

We consider that the reference to the requirements set out under the policies is too prescriptive. It is not
appropriate to set out SPD elements of the policies that will have a direct role in the determination of
planning applications. This includes matters relating to the minimum internal size of a garage and the level
of parking (Policy T5) and the number of electric charging points required (Policy T7). We have concern
that it is impossible to consider the impact of Policies T5 and T7 on viability without details.

More details about Rep ID: 1963

Representation ID: 1922

OBJECT Home Builders Federation Ltd (Mr Mark Behrendt)

Summary:

we do not consider it appropriate to set out in SPD elements of a policy (namely the number of charging points, the minimum internal size of a garage and the level of parking) that will have a direct role in the determination of planning application. As such they must be set out in policy and open for debate at the Examination in Public. Without these details it is impossible to consider the impact of these policies on viability, whether they are justified and ultimately whether they will be effective.

More details about Rep ID: 1922

Representation ID: 1782

OBJECT Cerda Planning Limited (Tina Pearsall)

Summary:

It is not clear why the threshold of 10 dwellings has been identified for the provision of electric vehicle infrastructure. It is also unclear why a floorspace threshold of 760 sq.m has been identified; in other policies setting a threshold the floorspace is typically 1,000 sq.m where it relates to 10 or more dwellings.

More details about Rep ID: 1782

Representation ID: 1703

OBJECT Richborough Estates represented by RPS Planning & Development (Mr Cameron Austin-Fell)

Summary:

RPS does not see where the evidence base for the requirement for charging points from new residential properties has been established. It does not therefore consider the policy is robustly prepared. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Council has considered the viability implications of such policy. In the absence of such evidence the policy should be withdrawn.

More details about Rep ID: 1703

Representation ID: 1402

OBJECT Edward Ware Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Robert Taylor)

Summary:

We are concerned that the viability of providing electric charging points has not been assessed.
Our experience is that trying to require this via planning policy is problematic. For example, different vehicles use different charging plug types. Future land ownership issues can cause problems for the routing/laying out of charging cables, and requiring communal charging creates problems.
In addition, EV technology is also moving very quickly and any local plan policy that is too specific is likely to become outdated very quickly.
Consumers are also buying EV's in ever greater numbers, and it is not considered necessary, or appropriate, for planning policy to be over prescriptive in this regard.

More details about Rep ID: 1402

Representation ID: 131

SUPPORT Mr Carl Griffin

Summary:

Passive provision of electric vehicle charging points should be provided at all new residential properties and a large proportion of commercial parking spaces. Expecting residents to dig up driveways to install units when demand rises will be prohibitively expensive.

More details about Rep ID: 131

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult