Baroness Pidgeon:

Moved by Baroness Pidgeon

57: Clause 47, page 59, line 25, at end insert—“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—“(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.””Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment clarifies that cross-pavement charging solutions are to be considered public charge points for the purposes of the legislation. It ensures such infrastructure falls within the scope of relevant regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging.

My Lords, a lot of the discussion this afternoon has been very technical, as it would be around planning, but this group of amendments is much more practical. They are about electric vehicle infrastructure, making sure that we can easily support the next generation of electric vehicles and make it easy for people to transition to domestic electric vehicles at home, as well as in the commercial sectors. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting their names to my amendments in this group.

Amendment 57 would allow for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points in this legislation to ensure that such infrastructure fell within the scope of regulatory provisions governing public electric vehicle charging, to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Currently, EVs can be a more affordable and convenient alternative to petrol or diesel cars and they can save households up to £1,000 a year, but only if you have a driveway. Up to 40% of households in the UK do not have access to off-street parking, so they rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. For millions of households that is unaffordable, and it is unacceptable to expect only certain consumers to pay the price for the transition to electric.

Cross-pavement solutions have real potential to tackle that challenge, and they have been proven to be a workable solution in 38 local authority areas to date, but the current process for applying for one is lengthy and costly. Drivers report that you have to pay up to about £3,000 for the planning application, the permitting and charge point installation costs, and waiting up to 12 to 15 months simply for a decision from their local authority on whether permission to install one has been granted. So many residents have given up trying to secure cross-pavement solutions and electric vehicles because of these delays and costs.

This amendment seeks to make the transition to electric fair. It asks that cross-pavement solutions are treated in the same way that public charge points are being treated, simplifying the process for applying for these solutions by allowing them to be treated under street works permitting. This would make it quicker, easier and less costly for residents. Crucially, local authorities would still have some control over the decision on whether the cross-pavement solution is appropriate and safe for that location, and whether it can go ahead.

Amendment 58 would extend permitted development relating to electric vehicle charging points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres. The Government have extended permitted development rights to households wishing to install charge points where the houses are close to the street and they have off-street parking. This amendment seeks to extend these rights to households without off-street parking that wish to install a charge point so that they can get a cross-pavement solution. It does not conflate the charge point with the cross-pavement solution; they are still two separate entities. It would simply ensure that those residents who are applying for a cross-pavement solution can then install a proper charge point that allows them access to the cheaper charging rates that residents with driveways are already able to use.

Electric Vehicle Association England provided me with this quote from its recent survey. One respondent commented how the council refused to consider installing a charger gully, saying, “We got a free charger and installation along with our car purchase, but we haven’t been able to make use of it, as our local council refuses to consider charging gully solutions”. Another hybrid car owner, when asked why they did not choose an EV, said it was due to the difficulty of installing a charger. They said: “Our council has no policy or provision for pavement gulleys to make it easier. There are no on-street public chargers either”.

Another quote is:

“You shouldn’t need a driveway to own an electric car. My Plan for Change is boosting funding for infrastructure to allow cables to run safely beneath pavements. That’s cheaper, at home charging”.

Those are not my words but the Prime Minister’s a week and a half ago. There is a need to make it easier for everyone to be able to move to electric vehicles through simplifying the system and allowing people without driveways to be able to move to EVs. I hope the Minister will work with me to make this vision a reality through this legislation.

Amendments 64 and 67, which are in my name, cover HGV electric charging points. Amendment 66 covers EV charging infrastructure plans. As we transition to cleaner vehicles and technology allows for HGVs to run on electric batteries, there is a need to support charging infrastructure in the planning system. The lack of adequate charging infrastructure remains one of the major obstacles to greater e-HGV adoption. According to a report by National Grid, 70% to 90% of HGVs will be charged or refuelled overnight in their depot or at their destinations, but the remaining 10% to 30% will rely on public charge stations. e-HGVs are very much a reality—in fact, we had one outside the House only a few weeks ago. There are a number of announced plans for charging stations right across the country from a variety of companies, but I know from my inbox that, where a company might want to move to e-HGVs, they find that the local authority will not grant planning permission for the necessary infrastructure at a depot, stopping the decarbonisation of this industry.

These amendments are about a clear installation programme for HGV electric charging points at key transport points, and the provision of EV charging infrastructure at freight depots and HGV facilities when they are new or substantially renovated. This amendment would future-proof the logistics infrastructure by embedding EV readiness into the design and permitting process. This supports depots and warehouses to be ready for the transition. Depot charging, as I said, is the preferred option where possible for operators as it allows trucks to charge while at a natural stopping point, not requiring additional stops to recharge in transit, which can also leave cargo vulnerable to theft. It also reduces future retrofitting costs and planning delays by integrating charging requirements from the outset.

Amendment 67 is about the prioritisation of electricity grid connections for EV infrastructure. It tackles a major barrier to infrastructure rollout: delays in grid connection approvals. Some fleet operators may face up to a 15-year wait for a grid connection to meet their need for electric infrastructure, severely hampering a willingness to invest. This amendment recognises the strategic importance of logistics infrastructure for national supply chain security and decarbonisation.

Finally, Amendment 66 is about placing a duty on local authorities to produce a local EV charging infrastructure plan to assess the demand and need for EV charging infrastructure in their area, including both private and commercial vehicles. This will ensure a comprehensive understanding of need to focus efforts. Local authorities are critical to the rollout of EV infrastructure, but often lack a co-ordinated or strategic plan. This duty empowers them to take a proactive role while ensuring consistency across regions.

The amendment would ensure local accountability and planning for EV infrastructure deployment, aligning with national decarbonisation targets. Importantly, it establishes a recurring review cycle every three years to ensure that plans are responsive to evolving demand and technology. So this package of amendments would make a huge difference to supporting the transition to electric vehicles. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these issues and all the amendments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who I thought admirably set out the importance of the case. Frankly, we are only a decade away from the point where we intend that all the new cars that are to be bought are to be electric vehicles. As she rightly said, something approaching 40% of the people who we expect in future to buy cars are in premises that do not have charging facilities, and we want to enable that to happen. It is all part of the green energy transition that we want to support. So I very much support everything that she said and I hope that we can find a solution.

As far as I can see, the Clause to which this Amendment refers intends to support the process of adding public charge points to the road architecture but does not necessarily allow individual householders to be able to find the appropriate cross-pavement charging solutions for this. My noble friend Lord Lucas has an amendment in this group the purpose of which is to give permitted development rights for this. I know that the Government will say, “Well, permitted development rights relate to the curtilage of one’s own premises, they do not extend out into the pavement for this purpose”. But I hope the spirit of this debate might be that we all agree on what we want to achieve—the question is what the best way is to achieve it.

I suggest to the Minister that one way we might look at this is to look at Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act, which is about the process of applying for a street works licence. This clause is intended to enable those who have a street works licence to access the necessary works in the street. As the noble Baroness said, that is an expensive solution for an individual householder and not likely to be an easy route. The question to the Minister is whether we might actually find, as he is in the business today of streamlining applications, whether we can streamline applications for street works licences for individual householders, or groups of householders, in order for them to get a street works licence by what is effectively a deemed consent, rather than having to make individual applications. It is a bit like an assumption that the licence will be granted, save if there are particular exceptions or objections. That might get us to the point where householders or groups of householders can get the cross-pavement charging solutions that they require—and I think that it is urgent that we make that happen. So I hope that it is something that we can progress during the course of this Bill.

I will raise just one other point, which is about the green energy transition and the amendments relating to HGVs. I ask that we not only look at electric charging points for HGVs but recognise that HGVs—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Naseby earlier—can, very readily and unlike many other road vehicles, use hydrogen cost-effectively as a solution. But they need a network. My Japanese friends have told me that Japan is creating a network of hydrogen refuelling points for its HGV fleet. The Japanese are orders of magnitude ahead of us on this.

I know that in the past there were intentions for a plan to support the installation of hydrogen refuelling points, but we have always been slow to act. There needs to be progress to get us to green hydrogen if we can for this purpose, for trucks, but I do hope that we can use the intentions that are set out here to have an assessment of how we can get to a green energy transition for HGVs rapidly so that it not only encompasses the electric charging points but hydrogen refuelling access as well.

My Lords, I have Amendment 57C in this group, which proposes some alternative ways of solving the same problem, so I do not propose to go into it in great depth. The point of this debate is that this is something we should be moving to find a solution to because, although it us not particularly simple, it is not particularly difficult, either.

Many of us have come across simple cross-pavement charging arrangements, which people seem to be installing ad hoc. It would be a good idea if this became something that was regularised, because we want the street to be a properly controlled environment. On the other hand, we do not want to make it expensive or difficult for an individual householder to obtain what we intend to be a general provision. But, if we are looking at a system where a lot of people have this facility, we should also be looking at how we are going to manage parking in this space. There is not much good in having an electric charging facility if someone else has gone on holiday and left their van in the space you need to charge your vehicle. An efficient use of an electric charging system is that it is used by more than one person, so how will we enable householders to allow other people to charge in that space?

Neither of these are things with instant solutions, but, if we are looking ahead to a time where we all have electric vehicles—particularly people who live in flats or other arrangements where the parking outside the building is not going to be sufficient—how will we provide that? Can we provide it in a way which is better than the one we have at the moment, where, for one reason or another, mostly because it is provided by people who have no personal interest in the facility, the prices paid by people for on-street charging are very high? If someone has installed it for their own use, they are much less motivated to charge a huge price for someone else to use it. They are much more likely to say that any margin is a good margin. So I very much hope that we can look at democratising on-street charging. I am not saying it is easy, but I am saying it is something we need to make progress with.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed a number of amendments in this group, so while noble Lords will know that I do not normally speak on transport, I am speaking on my noble friend’s behalf this afternoon.

I begin with the very interesting comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: the efficient use of a charger would mean it being used by more than one person. I would go rather further than that and say that what we want is an efficient use of cars: them being used by more than one person. The practical reality, of course, is that most cars spend the vast amount of their time stationary, occupying public space when they are parked on the road. Coming to an arrangement is where Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, comes in, requiring

“local planning authorities in England to publish and regularly update a three-year electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan”.

That charging infrastructure plan would ideally very much look at that car club kind of model, which could potentially free up large amounts of space in our cities to be put to much better use than simply being occupied by a stationary vehicle 96% of the time—that is the last figure I saw of the amount of time that cars are stationary.

It should be noted that my noble friend did not sign any of the cross-pavement charging solutions. I know that Caroline Russell, the Green London Assembly member, would not forgive me if I did not make the point that, whatever we say about charging across the pavement, the first priority has to be pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians. We must make sure that anything that is installed or allowed does not create even greater difficulties, on what is already a very difficult streetscape on many occasions, for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians, with wheelchairs, buggies et cetera. I note, perhaps declaring an interest, that when I was in Camden I would regularly try not to trip over the electric cable that my boss at the time trailed out of his house and across the pavement out to his car on the street. Because he was my boss, I was not quite allowed to do anything about it.

I want to focus mostly on Amendments 64 and 67, which are about heavy goods vehicles. This is a crucial issue for the environment and for public health. At the moment, fewer than 1% of new HGVs sold are electric, and there are 500,000 HGVs in the British fleet. At the moment, they are emitting the equivalent of 20 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent per year—the same as 2 million homes. They are also particularly bad in terms of emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which have very significant impacts on public health. That tends to particularly strike in poorer, more disadvantaged areas—think about the homes along busy main roads, which tend to be where people who already have poorer health live. There is also the point that EVs are much quieter, which has significant public health impacts, and they are also better to drive. One of the things we have in terms of HGVs is an ageing driving population, and something that is easier to drive is a significant issue there.

I also note that the Government currently have a plug-in truck grant, with a discount for those who purchase them of up to £25,000. There is a push there, and the Government are spending money on it, but what is lacking at the moment is the general charging infrastructure, and these two amendments seek to have a programme and to make sure that when new depots and other infrastructure is being built, they are covered. I note that at the moment there is still an issue about the speed of charging, but megawatt charging is on the way. When we come to later amendments that my noble friend also signed, we also have to think about the infrastructure of distribution of electricity, to make sure that it is able to cater to that very heavy demand. I think there are very strong arguments here for a concerted, planned and organised approach. What we have now is extremely ad hoc, and in far too many cases we are seeing people literally trailing a cord across the pavement, which is a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons.

My Lords, the fact that there are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and electric HGVs shows, to my mind, that the Government have slightly missed a trick in not using the Bill as an opportunity to do more to roll out EVs and EV lorries and small vans, and on door-to-door delivery mechanisms, particularly as the targets and the timelines are coming up so quickly.

I hope the Amendment will cause the Government to reflect on that and that more progress can be made in this Bill, because it is a real opportunity. It would be remiss of the Government not to seize it, because it lies at the heart of what they are trying to do in the stated purposes of the Bill. I very much welcome the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I will speak particularly to Amendments 57 and 58, but I generally support all the amendments in this group.

Private cars are responsible for some 13% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions—some 60.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2023. They are the largest single source within the transport sector, which as a whole is responsible for around 30% of our emissions. Road vehicles, including cars, make up the vast Majority of them. Emissions from cars have been declining since 2005, but we still have a long way to go if we are to hit our climate targets, and the time we have to make these changes is fast running out.

The take-up of electric cars is, thankfully, growing. As of mid-2025, around 4% of the approximately 34 million registered cars on UK roads are EVs, totalling about 1.3 million. This goes up to about 7% if we include hybrid vehicles. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that we have further to go and need to do more. Rolling out EVs and making them affordable and practical is a key part of our pathway to net zero. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that we can overcome all the practical obstacles we have heard about, including the cost of affording the car in the first place. We need to make sure that, when people own these electric cars, they can afford to charge them and get the benefits that come only from being able to do so via their home charging points—at night and on a proper tariff that saves them money. If we do not do those things, people will just not make that transition away from petrol and diesel cars in time. We need to make those pull factors work for people. It is really important.

We have seen price reductions in the vehicles, increased government support and the continuing rollout of national charging infrastructure. Taken together, all these measures are helping to change consumers’ choices. We welcome the other efforts that the Government are making: the UK now has 73,000 public charging points—that is welcome—and the charging network rollout is helping to overcome some of the real fears with these things. The projection is that we could have 25 million EVs on UK roads by 2040. The biggest barriers to the take-up of EVs commonly cited are a lack of charging infrastructure, range anxiety—although that technology is improving—and the higher costs of running the cars. This is what we have talked about—making sure that people can plug them in at home.

We really welcome these amendments. It is not good enough that people are facing £3,000 of costs to get this planning stuff done and are waiting 12 to 15 months simply to run a cable across the pavement. As my noble friend said, 40% of people do not have a driveway at home, so cannot do this. This really needs to happen.

I also welcome all the amendments on HGV charging. This is particularly important for last-mile delivery and smaller-scale vans so that we can continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution, which is so damaging to our young people in particular and is such a radical cause of asthma. Luckily, we are beginning to see changes in that space.

We welcome these amendments and we think this really needs to happen. We encourage the Government to go away and think about how they can do more to bring about a joined-up policy on these issues through this Bill. There is more that can be done through the proposed legislation to help bring about the changes that we all want.

My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have been made, and I strongly welcome the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in bringing this matter to the Committee towards the end of the day and considering the issue in depth through a range of amendments. She was admirably supported by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I think the Government will have taken on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward against some of the serious practical difficulties that exist.

I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am chairman of Amey, which provides facilities and maintenance work for the public sector, including road and rail projects. That also covers some litter projects—which we will come on to in a moment, so I will declare my interest now—and EV work, which is central to our work for the Government. I was also Minister for the Environment in Another place, with responsibility for litter campaigns, and the Minister for Energy in the early 1990s when we began the energy transition work which led to the development of electric vehicles relevant to the amendments we are considering. My intention is to draw on that experience to try and assist the Committee with its deliberations, since the amendments I am speaking to are important political priorities for the Government. I expect we will hear from the Government their support for the intentions of many of the amendments and will raise some of the practical challenges which we need to address, if not in this Bill then certainly in the near future.

As I see them, the key questions, which come on from the question of permitted development rights, are as follows. There is the question of who funds and maintains the cross-pavement solution; if a resident funds it, then their expectation is that they have a right to use it, but in reality that is not going to happen on every occasion. The resident has no right to park outside their property on the public highway, and the local authority will not police that space. If the local authority licensed a cross-pavement solution and the resident moves, then the asset and the associated risk and maintenance would go back to the local authority. Cyclical or preventative maintenance of the highways under the New Roads and Street Works Act—NRASWA —will increase in cost due to the complexities of excavating and reinstating the cross-pavement solutions.

None of that is to deter us from trying to address the issues; it is to highlight some of the important issues, because there is an increased risk profile and cost to the local authorities, which we should also consider. For example, if someone slips, trips or falls over a cross-pavement gully, they will immediately turn—and understandably so—to the local authority as the perceived liable party, which in turn takes time, cost and effort to defend and mitigate. We need to address all these issues; I am sure we will overcome them, but they are important to place on the record.

A further issue is whether it would help to extend permitted development rights to electric vehicle charging points. Of course, currently what is required follows the planning process for larger-scale installations, which is timely and costly, so any support and relaxation of planning consents for larger hub-type installations would be helpful.

Another question that has been raised is whether we need an installation programme for electric charging points suitable for HGVs, on which my noble friend Lord Lansley commented. There is still a question mark as to whether EV or hydrogen or synthetic fuel will be the right solution for HGVs. Then there is the question of whether we should mandate HV charging infrastructures in newly built or substantially renovated freight depots and HGV operation buildings. My experience at Amey, as first-place provider on the procurement services framework for depot and fleet charging, is that I believe the mandate would be welcome, but the practicalities and affordability may prohibit the mandate due to the significant capex costs. Larger-scale installations need significant network reinforcement and infrastructure investment, and I suspect that trying to balance the optimum logistics hub locations versus the DNO network may pose a challenge. I looked at the First Bus initiative in Norwich, which has been excellent in electrifying the bus fleet; however, its DNO HV supply came from 2 kilometres away, resulting in a connection cost of some millions of pounds. These are some of the issues that we need to address.

The sentiment behind all the amendments is absolutely right; this is definitely the direction in which we should be travelling. However, we should be grateful to the Government and particularly to the Minister for his letter to us in advance of our consideration of these amendments. When he wrote to us on electrical vehicle charging, he was very clear about some of the challenges, but he equally shared the enthusiasm of the Committee. That was an excellent letter and a good example of its kind; we should place on record our gratitude to the Government for their consideration of these issues.

My Lords, I find myself somewhat out of temper with many noble Lords who have spoken. It would give me great pleasure to be able to say that I heartily swung behind them. I do so to some extent, but not very heartily—and with some difficulties and problems, some of which have been extremely well set out by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 57A, 57B and 71B—but I do not intend speak to them in detail. Rather, I will draw, to some extent, on my own experience. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that, although this is not simple, it is not difficult either. However, then he went on to explain that, in practice, it really is very difficult.

At one stage, I was in charge of the roads in Kensington and Chelsea, one of the places in London with the greatest demand for on-street parking, because very few people have an off-street place to park their car. It is not terribly different in many other parts of London, especially inner London. I was approached by a Member of your Lordships’ House, who asked me whether it would be possible for the council to install an electric vehicle charging point outside his house. As it happens, we had a programme of installing such points at the council’s expense. I said that there was no difficulty at all, and that, if he wanted it, I could put it forward and it could easily happen. Not everybody welcomed electric vehicle charging points then, so it was nice to have a resident who did. However, the charging point would of course not be for his exclusive use. For him, that was not good at all; that was not at all what was wanted—in fact, his enthusiasm for the idea waned immediately.

The discussion we have had today more or less envisages that groups of families or houses will have clusters of spaces more or less outside their front door, which they may have paid for and which will be for their exclusive use. I am afraid that, if any elected local authority in London—and, I suspect, in many other cities—did that on a sufficient scale, they would eventually be lynched from the nearest lamp-post. Local authorities know that perfectly well, because this is politically a very difficult thing to do.

It also raises an issue of principle: to what extent should we encourage what is in fact the privatisation of a public asset? It is after all the public who pay for and maintain the highway, yet what is envisaged is that people will have the exclusive use of part of it for themselves. That will create very severe difficulties, which have been raised but have not been fully addressed by noble Lords in the course of this debate.

There is another point. If one puts an electric vehicle charging point next to the carriageway, the tendency—although this is not entirely true—is to mark off the bay and write, “Electric Vehicles Only”. I see that my successors in Kensington and Chelsea are not quite doing that; they are putting up signs—this might actually be more effective—politely asking, “If your car is not electric, would you mind awfully not parking next to this lamp-post?” That might achieve as much as an outright ban, because sometimes being polite to people gets their compliance more than anything else.

While we still have a large number of people, mostly people on lower incomes, who need access to an internal combustion engine car, the threat arises that they will be increasingly squeezed out of access to the public highway they are paying for in favour of middle-class people in their Teslas. It is not simply the optics but the morality of this that is highly questionable.

Some of the things that have been suggested should be done. Nothing seems more obvious to me than the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it should be mandatory for freight depos to have electric charging points in them that can be used by electric HGVs. That sort of thing should be happening. She gave other examples of a similar character, so not everything is difficult. When you come to that interaction, particularly of cars with the pavement edge and where people park them, there are serious difficulties not only of practical local politics but of social equity.

It is very easy to think that because something is a good idea, we should all push for it, make it happen and just shove the obstacles to one side. I do not mean this to be excessively critical of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am very struck by her Amendment that says we must prioritise grid electricity supply for electric charging infrastructure. “Prioritise” means to choose, to say that one thing is more important than another. My question is: prioritise over what? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new housing estate, hospital or care home? Those questions do not just vanish because one has enthusiasm for a subject; they are real choices. I think the Minister is already going a little too far in the Bill for what the public will bear. That is the thrust and gravamen of the amendments I have tabled.

Certain noble Lords, including, I regret to say, certain noble friends, have gone perhaps even further than the Minister. I am not following them in that direction. I shall do my best between now and Report to reason with them, as we normally do in the Conservative Party, so that we may present a united front of common sense and reason to this House when we return to this debate.

My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord says he is out of temper; I am out of energy, so I am going to be as brief as I can be.

The general tone of the discussion was very positive, stimulated by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Liddle—who was here earlier and has hopefully reached Preston by now. It is getting past Preston that is the difficulty on Avanti. That entirely accords with the Government’s intention, which is to promote the use of zero-emission vehicles. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her introduction, and I recognise the passion with which she has spoken on this matter—that too is entirely in accordance with the Government’s desire to move forward.

Other contributions have raised some choices about the form of zero-emission power, especially for HGVs and hydrogen. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, in a slightly more positive way than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, some issues that need to be resolved in these matters as we move forward.

The Government are working with local authorities to promote cross-pavement solutions, including the recently announced £25 million grant fund to encourage the installation of cross-pavement channels, plus published guidance for local authorities on this technology and charge point grant funding for residents. We recognise that cross-pavement solutions will not be suitable for all scenarios. Local highway authorities are responsible for deciding on each application, considering the needs and opinions of residents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of other users of the pavements who need a safe and level surface, of which we should be very mindful. Local authorities will have to take account of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, remarked, they will be held accountable if people fall over or sustain injury or damage in any way. This is an important issue of which the Government are well aware, and that is why we launched a call for evidence on this very matter on 6 May this year; we are currently considering responses.

Beyond that call for evidence, we are carefully considering whether it is appropriate to extend permitted development rights beyond situations where there is off-street parking and to include houses where there is on-street parking and a cross-pavement solution that has been installed. That is the appropriate route to explore and understand the changes that are required to support cross-pavement solutions. If we decide to amend permitted development rights—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was particularly eloquent on this—we will use the existing powers in the Town and Country Planning Act to do so.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 57A. The purpose of the Clause is to support the rollout of essential EV—electric vehicle—infrastructure across England. This clause is a necessary step towards streamlining the application and approval process for public EV charging points as the demand for charging infrastructure rises. The existing mechanisms, including traffic regulation orders, already allow highway authorities to manage parking and public roads effectively, and when an EV charging bay is required, a TRO can be used to designate the bay. His remarks about how the bay is signed and what the notices might say are, of course, a valuable contribution to this debate.

The processes for establishing TROs already involve public consultation and formal publication of the authority’s intent. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic regulation order may be used. Here too, authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. Of course, my department also provides statutory guidance, the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street and Road Works, which promotes early engagement and consultation among all relevant parties before works.

We must ensure that our regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. The introduction of an additional requirement for impact assessments at this stage would place an undue burden on highway authorities, which will be compounded as the number of applications to install charge points grows. To expect authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit application to install a public charge point would not only introduce additional cost and administrative pressure but hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in existing statutory guidance that sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.

I thank the noble Lord for tabling Amendment 57B enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where EV installations reduce access to conventional parking. But the Government want to support the rollout of essential electric vehicle infrastructure across England, and the clause in the Bill is a necessary step towards streamlining the application and approval process for public EV charge points.

The proposed amendment, while well intentioned, would impose a statutory obligation on highway authorities after they have installed an EV charge point, or more than one, to conduct and respond to a request by affected residents or businesses within 30 days to carry out a formal review of the impact of the installation on the availability of parking for other vehicles. That review could be requested regardless of the scale or merit of the concern, which would be an unnecessary burden on highway authorities, diverting resources away from delivery functions that are critical to meeting our net-zero commitments. It would also introduce additional costs and delays, and to allow retrospective reviews at the request of individuals would risk reopening settled decisions.

Under the traffic management permit scheme regulations, and statutory guidance, which was updated in 2023, highways authorities consult with stakeholders, assess impacts and impose conditions to manage disruption, including the loss of parking, particularly when developing a permit scheme. The code of practice for the co-ordination of street works also promotes early engagement and information-sharing before works begin. The amendment adds complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It risks slowing the pace of EV infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners, and I suggest that it is not in line with the sentiments expressed in the Committee today.

I turn to Amendment 66 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for tabling it. The Government recognise that local authorities have a crucial part to play in this transition. Having strong, reliable and significant local charging provision will give drivers the confidence to make the switch, and partners in local authorities are well placed, as they are experts in their local areas, knowing what type of charging is needed and where, which is crucial to a successful rollout.

We agree that local authorities should have plans in place to strategically deploy this infrastructure. This will mean that they are prepared and can get the best out of private sector investment and provide the best possible networks to residents and visitors alike. In the English devolution white paper, we set an expectation for all local transport authorities to develop an electric vehicle charge point strategy, which should include the car club model referred to in the debate. Officials are currently reviewing guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans, and we are expecting to publish updated guidance later this year.

I turn next to Amendments 64 and 67, again tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, related to the installation of charging infrastructure for zero-emission heavy goods vehicles. The Government recognise that much more needs to be done to decarbonise the road freight sector, given that at the end of 2024 there were only 994 zero-emission HGVs registered in the United Kingdom. The market for zero-emission HGVs is at an earlier stage than for cars and vans, with technologies and standards still developing as we work with the sector to understand which technologies will be better suited for specific use cases. The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Lansley, referred to hydrogen, and it is clear that considering hydrogen for HGVs is also likely to be a practicable approach. We are working closely with the sector to support and accelerate the transition and consider our strategic approach to ensuring a supportive high-charging infrastructure network.

The department’s up to £200 million zero-emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator has the terrible acronym ZEHID, which I will not use again. The programme is funding hundreds of zero-emission HGVs in both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies, alongside their charging and refuelling infrastructure. The programme will collect and make available data on which zero-emission HGV technology is better suited to HGV use cases, providing confidence to the sector in enabling informed commercial investment decisions. As part of the programme, there are 73 planned infrastructure locations at a mix of depot and motorway service area sites to support development of nationwide infrastructure deployment.

Alongside the zero-emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator, private investment in HGV charging hubs is also increasing. This investment will be complemented by the recently announced £30 million depot charging scheme, which provides support to fleet operators on the costs of installing charging infrastructure for electric HGVs, vans and coaches at fleet depots, and the Government are committed to working with the freight and logistics sector to provide confidence during the transition to zero-emission HGVs and to work to address barriers.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Amendment 71B on the preservation of general parking, but while I appreciate the intent to preserve general parking access, it would impose unnecessary and counterproductive burdens on local authorities at a time when we must accelerate, not hinder, our transition to cleaner transport. Local traffic authorities already have robust powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The process for making traffic regulation orders includes mandatory public consultation and publication of intent. These safeguards ensure transparency and community engagement. The noble Lord’s proposed 10% cap, coupled with the requirement to find equivalent parking within 200 metres or to conduct an additional consultation, creates a bureaucratic hurdle that will slow the rollout of vital electric vehicle infrastructure.

In fact, as the noble Lord remarked, in dense urban areas, meeting these spatial requirements is often impossible. That would, in effect, block progress where it is most needed. It is also important to consider the broader implications for our national net-zero commitments. Any delay in the deployment of EV infrastructure is a delay in reducing transport emissions.

Lastly, local authorities must be empowered to make decisions that reflect the specific needs of their communities. Imposing rigid thresholds and additional procedural hurdles risks stifling innovation and slowing progress. We should trust local leaders to act responsibly within the existing legal framework rather than constrain them with unnecessary limitations.

I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the Minister for his detailed response and thank all Members who have spoken on this group. All but one of us agree on what we want to achieve. Although we understand that it can be complex, there must be a way to streamline things to make it easier, cheaper and quicker for cross-pavement solutions to help people transition to electric vehicles. I still believe that simplifying the process can be achieved through this planning Bill.

We see what happens today: either people are not able move to electric vehicles, or we have cables draped out of windows, across pavements—maybe with a mat over the cable if you are lucky so that it is not a trip hazard. We need to find a way forward. The Prime Minister committed to it in the last couple of weeks. I hope that we can continue to have dialogue on this before Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

Amendments 57A to 57C not moved.

Clause 47 agreed.

Amendment 58 not moved.