Monday 14th November the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel met to discuss the Call In of the Draft Electric Vehicle Chargepoint Implementation Plan and history was achieved when the panel, made up of 4 opposition and 6 conservatives, unanimously decided in favour of something put forward by the opposition 😉 that the draft plan put out to consultation needed much more detail.
The official result of the call in was as follows:
No further action to be taken with the draft paper to be shared with all Members and the 2 co-optees on the Panel, 7 working days prior to the commencement of the public consultation.
The details of the call in and my notes are below but essentially this was about ensuring a good body of information is shared with residents for the EV Charge Point consultation and not simply a skeleton framework requiring residents to do all the hard yards.
I’ve started the video 17 mins in when the discussion starts…
Details of Decision being called-in:
We would like to call in the decision made at the cabinet meeting on 27th October to approve consultation on the Draft Electric Vehicle Chargepoint Implementation Plan.
We feel the Executive did not take the decision in accordance with the principles set out in Article 12.2, namely:
- the giving of reasons for the decision and the proper recording of those reasons
It is an incomplete document, so we are unsure as to how this can be released for consultation without a full list of proposals including: Suggested locations, Costs to residents to charge, Costs to RBWM, Revenue model shares, Technologies and their reliabilities, Companies and their experience in the EV charging marketplace.
- a presumption to favour of openness and inclusive decision making;
For residents to submit their thoughts they need far more detail. Most will have very little exposure to this world but many current owners will have researched heavily and can help to inform our thinking. But they are unlikely to join in a consultation if the detail is lacking and they feel their input is simply to demonstrate a consultation has taken place with little interest for their submissions and not actually forming part of a thorough RBWM knowledge base.
Residents with EV are likely to have well paid managerial roles, have a technology bias and be very clear on how they would like to be serviced, such is the lack at the moment.
- consideration of the legal and financial implications
Consultations cost thousands of pounds, requiring many man hours to pull together and the RBWM doesn’t have money to waste on a consultation that isn’t going to give us the data we need to make good choices moving forward.
We feel the cabinet needs to furnish itself with much more detail before it can consult.
150,000 people in RBWM does that equate to 50,000 cars?
500 permits for EVs = 1% electric in 2022
50% by 2035
100% by 2040
Report talks of investing £5m over 10 years
Phil said on social, that wasn’t RBWM money
ORCS is sharing £20m with 400 councils… that’s £50k each. Max of 60% of costs
LEVI appears to be for car dealers
29 charge points now not covered by Traffic Regulation Orders
750 across streets and car parks over 10 years
Installs based on a 6 -1 in regards to choosing locations
Income £250k – £500k a year down the line
Talk of quality infrastructure to take action on climate change
Electric cars need electricity
Talk of power outages now, so how are we going to cope with 50,000 trying to charge up?
5G technology needed for driverless cars require many more times the power of existing telco equipment as we need more masts
Yet there is talk of 75% reduction in emissions… How is that even possible?
More importantly, how are we measuring the reduction in pollution measures?
LAQM Annual Status Report 2022
BRAY The M4 Smart Motorway scheme includes the upgrade of the noise barriers. Increasing the height of the barriers should reduce the dispersion of pollutants from the M4 towards sensitive receptors.
2.7 As detailed in Policy Guidance LAQM.PG16 (Chapter 7), local authorities are expected to work towards reducing emissions and/or concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less). There is clear evidence that PM2.5 has a significant impact on human health, including premature mortality, allergic reactions, and cardiovascular diseases.
The PM2.5 annual mean for 2021 was estimated using the nationally derived correction factor (0.7) in accordance with Defra Technical Guidance LAQM.TG16.
The PM10 recorded annual mean concentration at MW1, Fracati Way site in 2021 is 19.2μg/m3
The PM2.5 estimated annual mean concentration at MW1 site is 13.4μg/m3
The Public Health Outcomes Framework local indicator D01 (Fraction of mortality attributable to particulate air pollution) for Windsor and Maidenhead in 2020 is 6.3%
Table E.1 –
Measured as Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 200µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year 1-hour mean Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 40µg/m3
Annual mean Particulate Matter (PM10) 50µg/m3 , not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year 24-hour mean Particulate Matter (PM10) 40µg/m3
Big tyres on big cars will shed more tyre particles than normal or slimmer tyres and use more power to transfer the weight from A-B
Also should we not be adding the NO2 and PM2.5, PM10 together for a real total?
Why is this all about electric cars?
Much lighter hydrogen vehicles are being run out in Australia, Japan, China, the far east. So why are we assuming 100% cars in RBWM are going to be electric?
Riversimple have been recognised by King Charles as a potential solution who need factory space… perhaps RBWM could show some innovation by talking to them?