1)    After the Chair opens the meeting the members who asked for the decision to be called in will be asked to explain their reasons for the request and what they feel should be reviewed;

2)    On matters of particular relevance to a particular ward, ward division Members who are not signatories to a call-in have the opportunity to make comments on the call-in at the meeting, such speeches not to exceed five minutes each. Ward Members will take no further part in the discussion or vote. Ward Members must register their request to speak by contacting the Head of Governance by 12 noon on the day prior to the relevant hearing;

3)    The relevant Cabinet Member for the portfolio (or holders if more than one is relevant) will then be invited to make any comments;

4)    The relevant Executive Director or his representative will advise the Panel on the background and context of the decision and its importance to achieving Service priorities;

5)    Panel Members will ask questions of Members and officers in attendance;

6)    The Cabinet Member(s) will be invited to make any final comments on the matter;

7)    The Panel votes on a decision.

Councillor Davey who was one of the three Councillors who had called in the Draft Electric Vehicle ChargePoint Implementation Plan began by reading out the reason provided within the report as to why they had decided to call in the decision.

Councillor Baldwin who was the second of the three members that called in the decision, stated that he was present at cabinet when the draft plan was passed, and he had listened closely to the debate. He added that the previous Lead Member for Transport & Infrastructure had said that any future policy that came forward, would be informed by the data from the trial. He said that no data was present, and that cabinet had not been informed sufficiently to approve the draft plan.

Councillor Baldwin expressed concern that when the draft plan went out to public consultation in the future, the public would be commenting on a plan that did not have the full facts and data that were required to give sufficient feedback. Instead of asking residents to comment on evidence-based suggestions, he said it appeared that the Council were asking residents what the policy should be instead.

Councillor Baldwin said that going forward, the strains on the revenue budget, which were already tight, could only be offset if capital receipts were converted into revenue flows, such as CIL contributions. The figure quoted in the report was between £250,000 and £500,000. He was astonished that cabinet unanimously agreed to the draft policy. He said that the report needed to include further data from the trial and be referred back to cabinet for reconsideration. He said that it was an example of bad policy that would negatively affect the borough for years to come.

Councillor Singh who was the third member of three who signed the call-in, expressed his concern over the lack of detail that was present within the draft report that went to cabinet. He said that the Council had an obligation to achieve the best value for money. He wished for the report to go back to cabinet with the correct data, to be reconsidered.

Councillor Singh said that this decision would impact residents for the next 10-20 years and the fact that this power had been delegated to just one officer and one councillor, was greatly concerning. He added that there was no mention of covering costs through CIL payments, although did acknowledge the struggles of the borough financially.

Councillor Davey said that there were roughly 150,000 people within the borough and potentially around 50,000 vehicles. 500 permits had been issued for electric vehicles. This equated to 1% of vehicles within the borough being electric. He enquired about the use of hydrogen energy, instead of electric.

Councillor Davey said that no traffic regulation orders had been made, and therefore that issue would need to be sorted out. He said that if the suppliers were installing the planned works at their expense, they would be looking to make the best profit and not care about the borough’s needs.

Councillor Davey said that with the threat of blackouts and 5G technology, why was hydrogen energy not being looked at. He also expressed great concern over air quality within the borough. He said that hydrogen cars would be lighter and therefore would produce less pollution. He also said that the borough was meant to be a borough of innovation and that they should be attracting companies such as River Simple to build their factories within the borough. 

Councillor Haseler, Lead Member for Planning, Parking, Highways & Transport, firstly stated that hydrogen cars could one day play a key role in transport, however the borough were currently following Government guidance around the cut-off point of 2030 for fossil fuel vehicles. He then read out an extract that he gave to cabinet in October 2022, when the draft plan was agreed. This was done to provide members who did not attend cabinet, some clarity over the details of the report.

Chris Joyce, Head of Infrastructure, Sustainability & Economic Growth, said that there would be a consultation and policy document available to those taking part in the consultation. Therefore, consultation would not be based solely on the report that went to cabinet. The intention would be to share this with all members for comment before it went to public consultation. He added that no policy was being made at this point, and instead consultation would occur to get the views of many.

Chris Joyce said that he was happy to work with the Chairman in regard to bring a paper to the panel after the public consultation had ended. He added that the cost to residents for charging was an impossible thing to predict. Principles could be set out, within the plan, but it would be difficult to predict the cost. Existing resources would be used for the consultation process, with the only opportunity cost being the time of officers. However, Chris Joyce noted that this time would be well spent due to it being a key goal within the Corporate Plan and for Central Government.

Chris Joyce made reference to the point raised about the Council potentially owning and maintaining the infrastructure. He did not recommend this as it would potentially cause a significant increase on internal capabilities. The risk could outweigh the reward in doing this. In response to hydrogen, he noted that it would play a key role in the future, but it did not play a role currently. Electric vehicles played a better role currently in reducing the carbon output. Air quality was noted; however, it was outside of the scope for the panel’s decision.

Chris Joyce said that the consultation was an opportunity to let all members have their say on the draft report. If the panel voted for the plan to go back to cabinet, then this would potentially elongate and delay the process further.

Councillor Walters asked about hybrid cars and whether or not these would be included within the plan. He also expressed concern about what he had heard from Los Angeles where increased use of electric vehicles had added a greater strain on the grid. Chris Joyce explained that there were 2 types of hybrid vehicles. One was electric and could plug in to the EV charging points that had been proposed and the other was recharged via the petrol engine. He acknowledged the concerns that members had about greater strain on the grid, however he said that smart charging was to be encouraged, where charging occurred at non-peak hours.

Councillor Hunt said that she had listened carefully to both Councillor Baldwin and

Councillor Davey’s points and agreed with their concerns over a potential lack of data being made available for the public to consider. She also asked why hydrogen vehicles were not being focussed upon more. Chris Joyce replied by saying that there was currently not much of a market for hydrogen vehicles, however in the future if the market grew, then the borough would certainly look into this.

Councillor Shelim asked for some clarity over what the process was for the draft plan.

Councillor Haseler provided this clarity and stated that once members had commented, it would go out for public consultation. Once this had ended, a final paper would be made and presented back to cabinet for final approval. Councillor Shelim thanked Councillor Haseler for clarifying the process.

Councillor Baldwin questioned what the mechanism was for allowing members to discuss a post-consultation paper. Chris Joyce said that the consultation material would be shared with members before it went out to public consultation for their comments and feedback on the contents of the document and questions that will be asked to the public. It would be shared with members in the same way as it had been in the past.

Councillor Baldwin then asked for clarity as to what cabinet had actually agreed to with regards to the next steps of the draft paper. Chris Joyce confirmed that cabinet had delegated authority to himself and Councillor Haseler to carry out the process that he had just discussed. The process was finalising the plan based upon the consultation feedback and then a paper would be written with the final policy document attached, for cabinet to approve.

Councillor Davey said with regards to AUX, he felt that the Council would have to find a lot of the money itself. He said that if the members were able to see more detail before it went to public consultation, then he would be happy. He also added that there was a cost to this, even though it may be less than if an external entity was used.

Councillor Singh said that he was concerned about how the draft plan had been put together. He asked when the draft plan had been put together. Tim Golabek, Service Lead for Transport & Infrastructure, said that early engagement began in Spring 2022. After that, options were discussed about moving forward and the draft plan had been worked on over the last 3-4 months.

Councillor Singh said that the trial sites had been chosen by Chris’ predecessor in 2019 when a climate emergency had been declared. He asked if the LEVI funding had been completed and submitted to Central Government. Chris Joyce said that innovative solution applications would potentially reopen early 2023, but it had not yet been applied for as Central Government had not yet asked local authorities to come forward.

Councillor Singh asked what the deadline was for completion of AUX funding. Chris Joyce said that there was no specific deadline, and the last application was made in 2019. With the plan adopted, he said that the borough would look to maximise opportunities on offer from the government for the borough. The most appropriate pot of money would be applied for, if and when the final plan was approved by cabinet.

Chris Joyce questioned the relevance of these points towards the decision that was made by cabinet and called-in by the three members.

Councillor Singh asked if Councillor Haseler would be willing to bring the paper before the panel before it went back to cabinet. Councillor Haseler said that he did not see the point in this as members would have ample opportunity to provide comments and feedback and that this would not be productive.

Councillor G. Jones asked if residents would have a choice of electricity suppliers when it came to EV charging. Councillor Haseler said that the Council would enter into agreements with various suppliers and that a choice would likely not be on offer.

Councillor G. Jones said that this could result in negative impacts on house prices due to the availability of electricity in various areas. Councillor Haseler said that he understood the point being made, however this was a hypothetical situation. Chris Joyce added by saying that consistency of electric prices would be important and focussed upon.

Parish Councillor Margaret Lenton asked if villages would be included in this and what impact this would have on the planning process. Chris Joyce said that the packages on offer would be a mix of both urban and rural offerings, so all areas would be covered. EV charging points had also been incorporated into building regulations going forward too.

Councillor Brar asked how many suppliers were being looked at and why had it taken the borough since 2019 and beyond to work on the plan. Chris Joyce said that the plan had been developed as a result of the Government’s push to have a plan and outlined a few projects that had occurred around the borough with EV charging so far. 12 suppliers had been engaged with to inform them of the plan and procurement would be discussed on an individual project base.

Councillor Brar asked if the rural areas were going to be included within the plan. Chris Joyce confirmed that they were included.

Councillor Baldwin asked if funding had been committed too and sites had been identified in 2019, why was it only being looked at now in 2022. Chris Joyce said that he could not comment on things that had occurred before he had joined the Council. Since joining he had been moving things forward and stated that changes within the structure of the Council and Covid-19, were probably factors that had played a role in this.

The Chairman stated that EV charging points were currently present at various petrol stations around the borough. He added that the main railway went through Maidenhead which now had overhead electrical cables to power the trains. When the brakes were in use, the particles would contribute to the aur pollution that had been discussed within the meeting. He said that 52% of power generation was currently done through gas.

Councillors Davey, Baldwin and Singh then summarised their positions following the discussions that had taken place during the meeting. They agreed that it was satisfactory that members were consulted before the public consultation occurred and if it was felt that the public had not been listened too, then the panel were able to call-in the decision back to the panel once more. 

Councillor Haseler then summarised his position as Lead Member.

A motion was then proposed by Councillor Davey for the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel to take no further action, but with the draft paper being shared with all members and the 2 co-optees on the Panel, 7 working days prior to the commencement of the public consultation. This was seconded by Councillor Singh.

A named vote was taken.

AGREED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel to take no further action, but with the draft paper being shared with all members and the 2 co-optees on the Panel, 7 working days prior to the commencement of the public consultation.