Yes

Representation ID: 104454

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We support this and would seek assurance that the EV infrastructure provider are selected and the charging points are equipped to meet the needs of all types of EVs to ensure this is accessible and flexible.

Yes

Representation ID: 104498

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 104581

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

EV infrastructure to be included in all new development. Single charge points in new dwellings is not enough. Many households have more than one vehicle. In years to come, they will all be electric and will require charging.

No

Representation ID: 104812

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

Electric cars are so expensive, less people are going to be purchase them. They are not particularly 'green' due to the batteries, which entails the extraction for earth of natural minerals, and will require need replacing. I hear of people having to drive around trying to find a charging point that is actually working. Petrol and diesel vehicles will not become exstinct!

Yes

Representation ID: 104817

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Yes this is important.

Yes

Representation ID: 104818

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Inclusion of fast charge point infrastructure in car parks is a must to remove barriers to EV adoption. Policies to include in new developments are required too.

Yes

Representation ID: 105001

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Ingleby

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 105631

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr Eileen Edwards

Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure support .

No

Representation ID: 105782

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Wates Developments Ltd

Agent: Savills

We object to Draft Policy Direction 32 on the basis that electric vehicle charging points are already required under Building Regulations Approved Document S for all new dwellings and commercial developments. Therefore, there is no need for the duplication of Building Regulations within planning policy, as supported by NPPF paragraph 16f which requires planning policies to serve a clear purpose.
We note that the draft policy direction makes reference to the Councils’ strategy to provide electric vehicle charging points within its own car parks. We consider that this is a matter to be dealt with outside of the planning policy arena and should therefore not form part of the SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 106286

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Darnell

Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Strategy – SUPPORT

No

Representation ID: 106978

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land off Mallory Road, Bishop's Tachbrook

Agent: Savills

Bellway object to draft Policy Direction 32, providing that it does not seek to go beyond the Building Regulations.
As the Council is seeking to go beyond these requirements in emerging policy, then suitable evidence is required to be provided to ensure it is justified in line with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.
Turley, Sustainability and ESG, have undertaken a review of Policy Direction 32 and state that in addition to setting out a strategy for EV charging infrastructure within Council buildings and public realm the Policy notes the need for robust policies for EV structure in new development.
Bellway supports the installation of EV infrastructure and notes that Part S of the Building Regulations11 sets out requirements for EV charging in new development, with an EV charger required for every house with dedicated parking, as well as non-residential development requirements.
The policy notes the greatest challenge is installing EV charging infrastructure in existing areas, in particular this will include urban areas with terrace housing, where the lack of charging infrastructure and low cost charging is a barrier to uptake of EVs.
Turley have agreed in their review that any provision beyond the Building Regulations will need to be justified, evidenced and considered as part of a viability assessment.

Yes

Representation ID: 107082

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Yes, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 32.
This approach aligns with the approach that is advocated in Policy CC1 (Climate Change - Mitigation) of the CNL Management Plan63 and in the Board’s Climate Change Strategy64.

Other

Representation ID: 107338

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon District Social Inclusion Partnership

Electric vehicle infrastructure and in particular carpooling schemes or similar can be a useful tool for reducing social isolation and increasing access to services or employment particularly in rural areas where households might only have access to one or no cars. If possible, the local plan should consider whether opportunities exist to deliver this facility within new settlements urban extensions or larger infill sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 107453

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Moreton Morrell Parish Council

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 107480

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Newbold Pacey & Ashorne Parish Council

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 107692

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Pete Frteeman

I agree with this
Tramways should be considered.

No

Representation ID: 107755

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land to the west of Southam Road, Long Itchington

Agent: Savills

Bellway object to draft Policy Direction 32, providing that it does not seek to go beyond the Building Regulations Approved Document S
Bellway supports the installation of EV infrastructure and notes that Part S of the Building Regulations11 sets out requirements for EV charging in new development, with an EV charger required for every house with dedicated parking, as well as non-residential development requirements.
The policy notes the greatest challenge is installing EV charging infrastructure in existing areas, in particular this will include urban areas with terrace housing, where the lack of charging infrastructure and low cost charging is a barrier to uptake of EVs.
Turley have agreed in their review that any provision beyond the Building Regulations will need to be justified, evidenced and considered as part of a viability assessment.

No

Representation ID: 107852

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

Other

Representation ID: 107884

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

In addition to setting out a strategy for EV charging infrastructure within Council buildings and public realm, the Policy notes the need for robust policies for EV structure in new development.
Taylor Wimpey supports the installation of EV infrastructure and notes that Part S of the Building Regulations {nfrastructure for charging electric vehicles: Approved Document S - GOV.UK} sets out requirements for EV charging in new development, with an EV charger required for every house with dedicated parking, as well as non-residential development requirements.
The policy notes the greatest challenge is installing EV charging infrastructure in existing areas, in particular this will include urban areas with terrace housing, where the lack of charging infrastructure and low-cost charging is a barrier to uptake of EVs. Any provision beyond the Building Regulations will need to be justified, evidenced and considered as part of a viability assessment.

No

Representation ID: 107973

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

No

Representation ID: 108087

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

No

Representation ID: 108230

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (South Midlands)

Agent: Pegasus Group

Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

No

Representation ID: 108589

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Corbally Group (Harbury) Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

9.3. Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

Other

Representation ID: 108636

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 32 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy
9.3.
Electric vehicle charging is addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Policy Direction 31 also refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear if the Plan requires a freestanding EV policy, or if this is not more readily addressed through Policy Direction 31.

No

Representation ID: 108749

Received: 19/03/2025

Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)

Agent: Savills

We object to Draft Policy Direction 32 on the basis that electric vehicle charging points are already required under Building Regulations Approved Document S for all new dwellings and commercial developments. Therefore, there is no need for the duplication of Building Regulations within planning policy, as supported by NPPF paragraph 16f which requires planning policies to serve a clear purpose.
We note that the draft policy direction makes reference to the Councils’ strategy to provide electric vehicle charging points within its own car parks. We consider that this is a matter to be dealt with outside of the planning policy arena and should therefore not form part of the SWLP.

No

Representation ID: 108836

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land east of Stratford-on-Avon

Agent: Savills

Bellway object to draft Policy Direction 32, providing that it does not seek to go beyond the Building Regulations Approved Document S which states:
‘’In respect of new residential building, the number of associated parking spaces that have access to an electric vehicle charge point must be a minimum of either of the following:
a. The number of associated parking spaces.
b. The number of dwellings that the car park serves.
If some associated parking spaces are not required to install electric vehicle charge points, then cable routes may need to be installed.’’
As the Council is seeking to go beyond these requirements in emerging policy, then suitable evidence is required to be provided to ensure it is justified in line with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.
Turley, Sustainability and ESG, have undertaken a review of Policy Direction 32 and state that in addition to setting out a strategy for EV charging infrastructure within Council buildings and public realm the Policy notes the need for robust policies for EV structure in new development.
Bellway supports the installation of EV infrastructure and notes that Part S of the Building Regulations { Infrastructure for charging electric vehicles: Approved Document S - GOV.UK} sets out requirements for EV charging in new development, with an EV charger required for every house with dedicated parking, as well as non-residential development requirements.
The policy notes the greatest challenge is installing EV charging infrastructure in existing areas, in particular this will include urban areas with terrace housing, where the lack of charging infrastructure and low cost charging is a barrier to uptake of EVs.
Turley have agreed in their review that any provision beyond the Building Regulations will need to be justified, evidenced and considered as part of a viability assessment.

Yes

Representation ID: 108943

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

WCC fully support this policy.