
How the shift to electric cars is being tripped up by health and safety
Being able to charge a vehicle at home can be make or break for drivers wanting to go electric. Home charging can cost as little as 6p per kilowatt-hour (kWh) — almost nine times less than public chargers, which cost about 52p/kWh on average.
Charging at home is easy if you have a driveway or garage. Those without would have to run a cable from their property to the street, which can obstruct the pavement — an offence under the Highways Act. A number of companies argue a better option is to dig shallow channels into the pavement to run the cable through, which is topped off with a flat lid that sits flush to the ground and typically costs about £1,000.
Residents first need planning permission and a street works licence from their local council, and sometimes have to pay an ongoing annual maintenance or licence fee to the council or company. Advocates argue that gullies are safer than loose hanging cables, which can obstruct the pavement.
About 35 per cent of households in the UK, and 56 per cent in London, do not have off-street parking according to the RAC Foundation, a think tank. These households must rely on expensive public chargers.
Fully charging a Renault Zoe with a 52kWh battery would cost £3.12 at home at 6p/kWh, and £27.04 on a public charger at 52p/kWh, according to ZapMap, a site that compiles information about public charging spots.
In a survey of 5,000 drivers by the energy supplier Eon Next, 59 per cent said the cost of going electric was the biggest barrier to making the switch, and 28 per cent cited the lack of public charging infrastructure.
Michael Goulden, the cofounder of Kerbo Charge, which has installed about 1,000 gullies across 30 council areas since January 2023, said: 'People repeatedly tell us that home charging is the only way to make the numbers work. Electric cars are more expensive to lease, but they can make it work as the running cost is cheaper than petrol. But only if they can charge from home.'
• Can you still save money with an electric car?
Drivers can apply for a £350 grant towards the cost of buying a home charger (which typically costs £800 to £1,200) if it is installed alongside some kind of 'cross-pavement solution'. Last month the government also opened a £25 million fund for councils, incentivising them to allow cables 'to run safely beneath pavements'.
Some councils including Bromley, Enfield, Lancashire and Suffolk have either trialled or fully approved cross-pavement charging. But other local authorities, despite touting their net-zero credentials, have rebuffed residents' calls to trial them.
Lewisham borough council in southeast London told one resident who was keen on trialling a company called Charge Gully that it posed 'an electric and tripping safety hazard'. The council also said in the email in December, seen by The Sunday Times, that gullies raised issues of liability for maintenance or in the case of an accident, and created 'potential access issues for utility companies'.
Goulden said there were about 150 residents in Lewisham on his company's waiting list, all unable to install a charging gully because of the council's stance. He said the council had refused to meet the company.
He said: 'In London nearly 60 per cent of households have no driveway, and it has the highest level of electric car adoption, so those two together make it the highest priority area to make cross-pavement charging available.'
Lewisham council said on its website that it was among the first local authorities to 'declare a climate emergency' in 2019.
In its 2024 climate action plan it said its ambition was 'to make Lewisham a place where low-carbon travel is the easy choice'.
• Fix our woeful rollout of EV charging to rescue our car industry
Lewisham council said there were still concerns about the long-term safety and practicality of cross-pavement charging, including risks to people with mobility challenges, and potential electric shock hazards. It added: 'Even when installed correctly, these mechanisms can degrade over time or be misused, creating hazards homeowners or the council could be held responsible for.'
The Sunday Times understands at least 11 councils in London are blocking requests for cross-pavement chargers, as well as Birmingham city council and Oldham borough council in Greater Manchester.
Birmingham council, which said 30 per cent of its residential properties have no access to off-street parking, 'does not licence or permit the use of trailing cables on the highway' because it deems them to be a tripping hazard.
Installers including Charge Gully and Kerbo Charge have insisted that the lids of their gullies fit flush to the pavement and require little maintenance.
• Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts
Goulden said residents would also be liable for any accident involving a cable. 'It's no different to if someone's using a lamppost charger where there's a trailing cable, so there's precedent for that.
'Most car insurers now include cable trip cover provided someone's taken reasonable care. But the whole point of this is that it removes trip hazards. You can walk around a city and see people trailing free-hanging cables along the pavement. A gully would rectify that.'
Edward Baker lives in Greenwich, southeast London, and is keen to make the switch to electric. But he has no driveway and there is only one public charger within a 20-minute walk of his house, so the only feasible option for him to afford an electric car would be to install a cross-pavement charger.
Baker, 47, has spent almost two years trying to persuade Greenwich council to let him trial a pavement charging channel, installed by Charge Gully using a technique approved by other councils. Charge Gully promises not to compromise pedestrian access, but Baker's efforts have been rebuffed.
• Can't charge an electric car at home? Then petrol may be cheaper
He said: 'About half of residents here live in terraced houses, so all of them are disadvantaged. It's about five times more expensive to charge on public networks than at home. It feels like this would reduce pressure on government budgets because we would be paying for the gullies ourselves.'
The Royal Borough of Greenwich also declared a climate emergency in June 2019, and has 'set an ambitious target to reach net-zero carbon emissions 20 years ahead of the national target of 2030'. It did not respond to a request for comment.
Ben Hopkinson from the Centre for Policy Studies, a right-leaning think tank, said: 'Enabling easy access to home charging is one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles. Yet this is another example of the planning system making commonsense solutions more difficult.
'Councils that have made climate emergency pledges should be keen to approve these kerb installations instead of blocking them.'
This year the Department for Transport said it was looking at how installing cross-pavement chargers could be made easier. It said: 'We are committed to delivering the charging infrastructure the country needs to drive the switch to electric vehicles.'
Has a council blocked your attempts to charge an electric car? Let us know in the comments
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Hours left to secure fixed energy deal that'll slash your bills by £129 a year ahead of winter spike
A MAJOR energy supplier if offering customers the chance to fix and lower their bills for the next 12 months, but time is running out. Households have only a few hours left to save up to £129 on their annual energy costs before the deal expires at midnight tonight. 1 The EDF Simply Fixed Aug26v5 tariff is priced at £1,619 a year - £104 below Ofgem 's current price cap and £129 cheaper than EDF's October price cap forecast. This deal could benefit millions, as over 22million households on standard variable tariffs remain directly impacted by the price cap which changes every three months. Currently, the price cap sets annual energy costs at around £1,720. Analysts at EDF predict this will rise by £30 to £1,750 from October 1. However, many households may still pay more than Ofgem's headline figure. This is because the price cap doesn't cap total bills but limits the maximum cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of gas and electricity, along with daily standing charges. By choosing a fixed deal, customers can lock in consistent rates for a set period, potentially avoiding fluctuations in energy prices. Of course, opting for a fixed energy deal carries the risk that, if energy prices drop further, you might end up paying more than you would on a variable tariff. However, analysts have long said that households should not anticipate any significant drops in prices this year. If you're interested in signing up for the EDF's fixed tariff, you can do so by visiting What is the energy price cap? It's worth noting that while EDF's offer is the most affordable among the "Big Six" suppliers, a smaller provider is offering an even cheaper fixed-rate deal. For example, Outfox Energy's Fix'd Dual Jul25 12M v5.0 tariff, costs a typical household £1,496 a year. This means it is £224 cheaper than Ofgem's April price cap and £254 a cheaper than EDF's predicted cap for July. It comes with a £50 exit fee per fuel or £100 if you lock in with a dual fuel tariff. When does the price cap change? OFGEM reviews the cap on unit rates for those on the default tariff every three months. This means the energy price cap can move up or down at four different points in the year. Price cap rates are updated on the following dates: January 1 April 1 July 1 October 1 How can I find the cheapest fixed deals? To find the best fixed energy deals, start by visiting price comparison websites, which aggregate various offers from different energy suppliers. The best sites include and MoneySavingExpert's Cheap Energy Club. Enter your postcode and current energy usage details to receive a list of available deals tailored to your needs - it'll take you less than five minutes. You'll then be able to compare the rates, contract lengths, and any additional features or benefits offered by each deal. Next, visit the websites of individual energy suppliers to check if they have exclusive deals that are not listed on comparison sites. Sometimes, suppliers offer special promotions or discounts directly to customers. Compare these offers with those on the comparison websites to ensure you get the best possible rate. Finally, consider customer service reviews and the overall reputation of the suppliers. Once you have identified the best deal, follow the instructions to switch your energy provider. What energy bill help is available? There's a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you're struggling to get by. If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter. This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period. If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don't think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal. Several energy firms have schemes available to customers struggling to cover their bills. But eligibility criteria vary depending on the supplier and the amount you can get depends on your financial circumstances. For example, British Gas or Scottish Gas customers struggling to pay their energy bills can get grants worth up to £2,000. British Gas also offers help via its British Gas Energy Trust and Individuals Family Fund. You don't need to be a British Gas customer to apply for the second fund. EDF, Octopus Energy and Scottish Power all offer grants to struggling customers too. Thousands of vulnerable households are missing out on extra help and protections by not signing up to the Priority Services Register (PSR). The service helps support vulnerable households, such as those who are elderly or ill. Some of the perks include being given advance warning of blackouts, free gas safety checks and extra support if you're struggling. Get in touch with your energy firm to see if you can apply.


Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why every Hong Konger in Britain lives in fear of China's mega embassy
A faded billboard near the Tower of London declares that a disused site behind high walls is set to become a 'new mixed use campus' with 'office, retail and leisure space'. That was the old plan for Royal Mint Court, where the coinage of the Realm was minted in buildings of 19th century grandeur for over 150 years until 1967. The new plan is for the People's Republic of China to transform this venerable location, beside the gleaming high rises of the City and directly opposite the Tower of London, into a gigantic new embassy. A final decision on whether to allow China to proceed will be taken by Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister, before Sept 9. Just how big China's new embassy would be is disclosed by the original planning application, rejected by Tower Hamlets Borough Council in 2022, but 'called-in' by Rayner for a definitive verdict. Royal Mint Court spans 5.2 acres and its fine Georgian buildings and their modern additions boast an internal area exceeding 563,000 sq ft (52,300 sq m) - approaching twice the floorspace of Westminster Abbey. If it goes ahead, China's new embassy would have a bigger site and a larger floor area than America's, which is built on 4.9 acres of Battersea. Not only would China's new mission be the biggest in London, it would be the largest of its kind anywhere in Europe: it would even have 30 per cent more floorspace than the Chinese embassy in Washington. There is simply no precedent for a diplomatic project of this scale on British soil. Plenty of concerns have been raised about the implications for national security but perhaps no-one has a better understanding of the potential dangers than people who are already bitterly familiar with the long reach of China. 'When I first heard of that I was really frightened to be honest,' says Chloe Cheung, a 20-year-old pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong. 'It's a really huge space in central London. Why would they need that?' Cheung left Hong Kong and moved to Britain with her family in 2020 after Beijing imposed a draconian National Security law on the territory. This bid to crush the pro-democracy movement caused over 150,000 of Hong Kong's people to seek refuge in Britain. Now some wonder whether they will always be safe. On Christmas Eve last year, Hong Kong's police published an arrest warrant accusing Cheung of 'incitement to secession' and 'collusion with a foreign country', and offering a bounty of HK$1 million (£95,000) for 'information on this wanted person'. That was not because of anything Cheung had done in Hong Kong: she was only 14 when she left. Instead she was targeted for having dared campaign for democracy in her old home while living in Britain and working here for the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong. 'It's because of what I did in this country: it's only because of that that I was given a bounty,' she explains. Cheung was subjected to the arrest warrant and bounty under Hong Kong's National Security law, which punishes anything the authorities might define as 'subversion' with life imprisonment. Most chillingly of all, Articles 37 and 38 say this law 'shall apply' to anyone living anywhere in the world, setting no limits on who might become a target of the Chinese authorities. Cheung fears this could help explain China's ambition to build a colossal new embassy in London. 'The location is not about us but the size is more about us,' she says. 'They want to have more space and more people to intimidate us, to do trans-national repression.' Her fears have been supported by Parliament's human rights committee, which on Aug 1 named China as a 'flagrant' perpetrator of 'trans-national repression', targeting Hong Kong's pro-democracy campaigners and other supposed opponents for threats, harassment and intimidation on British soil. While the latest version of the Diplomatic List names 139 Chinese diplomats based in London, the new embassy would include 225 residential flats, suggesting that China wants to increase its staffing by up to 60 per cent. Cheung is deeply disturbed by that possibility. 'They could have a huge surveillance office inside Royal Mint Court and the British cannot do anything because it will be their sovereignty, their embassy,' she says. 'And it's not just about giving them space: it's about giving them face. Giving them the biggest embassy in London is like saying 'you are the most important country'.' Already Cheung must vary her route every day and 'look over my shoulder before I get home to check no-one is following me'. Once, she says she was tailed through London by two men of Chinese appearance, who followed her into a restaurant where they simply stared at her, before disappearing into a nearby hotel. Every time she writes an article or speaks in public, she is inundated with 'sexual harassment and threatening messages' online. 'It has affected my mental health,' says Cheung. 'I have to be really cautious about meeting people.' 'The reality is that the Chinese are going to pursue you wherever you are. When I was placed on the bounty list they said they would chase us to the end of the world.' She adds: 'We thought that it was going to be safe if you move here, but if you are vocal against the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities, you are constantly being harassed. When people think the UK is a safe haven for activists, it's not necessarily the case for us from Hong Kong.' As for the new embassy, Cheung says it would 'make me feel a lot more endangered than right now…. it would imply that the British Government are less and less willing to stand up for our safety'. Last month, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, jointly condemned the National Security law, saying: 'This Government will continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong, including those who have made the UK their home. We take the protection of their rights, freedoms and safety very seriously, and will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm their critics overseas.' But words like these are of limited reassurance to George* (not his real name), a 22-year-old student from Hong Kong studying at a British university. Having attended some campus demonstrations in favour of democracy in Hong Kong, he now feels compelled to hide his real identity from the Telegraph. 'We still think that the UK has free speech and the UK government and police won't allow the Chinese government to exercise trans-national repression over us,' he says. 'So far I feel safe to live here.' But if the new embassy is constructed, George says: 'That would definitely change the way that we feel. The Royal Mint is a huge place so there may be a danger that the Chinese can bring their agents inside.' He warns of a chilling effect on anyone campaigning for democracy. 'Every Hong Konger in the UK may be free in body, but their minds are still in fear of the Chinese government. If the embassy is built, that may make this fear become bigger and bigger.' And George is struck by the internal contradiction in the British Government's position. 'You can't in one press release say the Chinese government is harming democracy and freedom in the UK and then, in the next press release, say we're allowing them to build a big new embassy,' he says. In January, Cooper and Lammy publicly supported the new embassy on two conditions. China would have to relinquish the seven diplomatic premises it already has in London and consolidate everything in the new embassy. In addition, China would have to build a 'gated barrier or fence' to control public access to the forecourt of Royal Mint Court in order to reduce the risk of security incidents. This conditional backing showed that the Government was, in principle, content for the embassy plan to go ahead. Back in 2018, Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, allowed China to buy the Royal Mint Court site for £255 million, a decision that began the project. But Royal Mint Court is next to the City of London, the biggest financial centre in Europe and the second most important in the world, representing the single most vital economic asset in the United Kingdom. The fibre-optic cables serving the City and transmitting countless transactions criss-cross the area around the proposed embassy: a secure BT telephone exchange is directly adjacent to the site. There is an irony in the fact that Angela Rayner is being asked to grant permission for this project not to a close ally but to a state described by Lammy in the House of Commons as a 'sophisticated and persistent threat'. But events this week suggest the British position may be changing. As Housing Secretary, Rayner has the final say and she has suddenly asked for further assurances. It turns out that plans for the new embassy submitted for her approval omit certain details for 'security reasons'. China aims to fill the imposing main building, completed in 1812, with reception rooms, offices and a banqueting hall. But a letter from Rayner's department - revealed by Luke de Pulford, the Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China - states that the 'internal physical arrangements' in this plan have been 'greyed out' in the version she received. Plans for the basements of other buildings have also been concealed, along with the proposed layouts of the flats in the accommodation block. In total, Rayner's department has identified 52 redactions which appear to obscure key elements of what China proposes for all the main buildings on the embassy site. Redacting those details inevitably stirs suspicions that China intends to use secure underground facilities for espionage. Rayner has given the planning consultancy engaged by China's regime until August 20 to rectify these omissions. Her department's letter also discloses that China has not satisfied either of the conditions set by Lammy and Cooper. The plans do not include the new 'gated barrier or fence'. And Rayner has asked the Foreign Office for an 'update' on China's 'progress towards consolidation of accredited diplomatic premises', showing this has not been agreed. A Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed that the department would provide this update but declined any further comment. De Pulford describes the letter from Rayner's office as 'easily the most significant development' in the embassy saga, adding that it was possible that the British Government was 'looking for reasons to say no' and reject the scheme. However, the spokesperson of China's Embassy in London says the 'resubmitted planning application for the new Chinese Embassy project has taken into full consideration the UK's planning policy and guidance as well as views of all relevant parties.' The spokesperson adds: ' It is hoped that the UK side will consider and approve this planning application based on merits of the matter.' Step by step, China is steadily extending its influence in Britain, from providing the technology for renewable energy to investing in research with UK universities and preparing to export even greater numbers of electric vehicles. A grand new embassy would be a fitting symbol of how Beijing is steadily entrenching its position and advancing its interests. And part of China's plan, it seems, is to make it steadily harder for any British Government to provide people like Chloe Cheung with a safe refuge and the freedom to campaign for democracy in Hong Kong. Like its predecessors, the Government wants to build a beneficial relationship with Beijing while also upholding Britain's values - and this country's status as a place where even those who are abhorred by China's brutally authoritarian leaders can still be safe. But one day, the balancing act may become impossible and a choice will need to be made. If China is allowed to have the biggest embassy in London, a milestone may be passed. 'We have told them that our safety is at risk from this mega-embassy,' says Cheung. 'But if they still let it be built? If the UK government is walking backwards and the Chinese government is walking forwards?'


The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Man Utd fans stunned at new beer prices in Old Trafford as cost of pint soars by 51 per cent
MANCHESTER UNITED have blamed the "rising cost of produce" for a mammoth 51 PER CENT hike in beer prices at Old Trafford. Fans were stung by huge price increases when they attended United's disappointing 1-1 pre-season draw with Fiorentina on Saturday. 3 Supporters arrived on the concourse to learn that bottles of Carling had increased by 30 per cent and pints of Madri were lifted by 51 per cent from last season. Fans will now have to pay £4.95 for a bottle of Carling and £5.75 for their Madri pint. United have explained that the previous cheaper prices were part of a two-season-long discounted beer trial and that some new prices are still cheaper than they were three years ago. In a statement shared with the Manchester Evening News the club said: "For the last two seasons, we have trialled discounting beer following fan feedback. "Unfortunately, this has coincided with high increases in food & beverage (25-30%) in the last three years since kiosk prices were last reviewed holistically. "To reflect the increase in operating costs, and the rising cost of produce, for the 2025/26 campaign we will not be able to continue offering this discount and therefore some kiosk prices will increase. "Most notably, bottled Carling (500ml) will increase from £3.80 to £4.95 (which remains cheaper than 3 years ago), and a pint of Madri will increase from £3.80 to £5.75. "Although this is an increase on previous seasons, it still means a pint of beer is beneath the £6 average in the Premier League, and well beneath the average cost of a pint of beer at five local pubs to Old Trafford used by fans on match day (£6.29). Man Utd's matchday prices Here's a look a how much fans will have to fork out for a drink on matchdays... Madri Pint - £5.75 Carling Dark Fruits Pint - £5.75 Carling Bottle - £4.95 Apple Cider Bottle - £4.95 Doom Bar Bottle - £5.20 Red Wine - £6 White Wine - £6 Prosecco - £7.50 Jack Daniel's & Coke - £5.50 Gin & Tonic - £5.50 BEST FREE BETS AND BETTING SIGN UP OFFERS "Based on prices known publicly, the revised pricing means Old Trafford will serve the 9th cheapest pint in the Premier League." In comparison to other clubs, Man Utd's beer prices remain relatively modest. Behind the scenes of Benjamin Sesko's first day at Man Utd, from meeting team-mates to interview Arsenal have increased their pint prices to over £7 for the upcoming campaign after signing new deals with Guinness and Asahi for matchday beverages. While, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Burnley charge just £3.20 for a beer at Turf Moor. Man Utd announced further increases in ticket prices this summer too, after a slew of staff redundancies has seen around 450 staff members affected since Sir Jim Ratcliffe's arrival as a minority owner. Fans protested increased ticket prices last season after learning of the jump. Despite this, the Red Devils have splashed £207MILLION on a new-look attack during the transfer window. Benjamin Sesko, Matheus Cunha and Bryan Mbeumo have all arrived at the Theatre of Dreams to try and right the wrongs of last season's turgid campaign. 3 3