On-street EV charging in UK is postcode lottery as drivers face council objections

More than 20 local authorities in England are refusing to permit on-street electric vehicle charging gullies, creating a postcode lottery that leaves millions of households unable to access cheaper home charging [1]. The holdouts, concentrated in London, cite safety and liability concerns despite government efforts to streamline installation [1]. The gully systems, made by companies like Kerbo Charge and Gul-e, allow residents to run a cable from their home to a car parked on the street without creating a surface trip hazard [1]. However, councils including Kent, Leicester, and Worcestershire, along with several London boroughs like Westminster and Hackney, are blocking their use [1]. They express worries about maintenance, liability for trips and falls, electric shock risks from damaged cables, and accessibility for elderly or disabled pedestrians [1]. Leicester city council noted that for terrace houses, guaranteeing a parking spot directly outside a home is often impossible [1]. The financial incentive for residents is significant, as domestic electricity carries a 5% VAT rate compared to 20% for public chargers [1]. Yet, with 9.3 million households lacking off-street parking, accessing this cheaper rate is difficult [1]. Almost a fifth of the 83 local authorities in England did not apply for government funding allocated for cross-pavement charging solutions [1]. Michael Goulden, co-founder of Kerbo Charge, stated that while his company works with 48 authorities, "many inner London boroughs have no plans to do cross-pavement right now" [1]. He added that the recent removal of planning permission requirements "will make no difference to their residents in the near future" [1]. Instead, councils like Ealing are focusing on installing public chargers in lamp-posts, while Hackney aims to "minimise street clutter and prioritise vulnerable road users" [1]. The government's deregulation still leaves installers needing street works licenses controlled by each council, leading to a patchwork of local processes [1]. Adam Dolphin of Gul-e observed, "They all have their different processes," though he did not characterize them as an intentional barrier [1]. The situation underscores the local implementation challenges facing national infrastructure policy, where safety and aesthetic concerns can override technological solutions and financial incentives for residents [1].