Solar on car parks and electric vehicle charging: government response – Section 2
Updated 26 November 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/solar-on-car-parks-and-electric-vehicle-charging/outcome/solar-on-car-parks-and-electric-vehicle-charging-government-response-section-2
The government welcomes the contributions received in response to Section 2 of the call for evidence on electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and planning. We are grateful to stakeholders across local government, industry, academia, and civil society who provided detailed insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with scaling up EV charging infrastructure in support of net zero.
As transport remains the largest emitting sector of greenhouse gases, decarbonising road transport through EV adoption is critical, requiring a substantial expansion of EV charging infrastructure. We were keen to understand and receive evidence from stakeholders to better understand any concerns or views that they may have around existing planning policy, guidance and permitted development rights (PDRs) in relation to the widespread adoption of EV chargepoints.
This report contains a summary of the responses received and highlights the main themes arising from the call for evidence. It includes comments and evidence received from those responding as individuals, and those responding on behalf of organisations.
Alongside responses from individuals, there was a wide variety of experience and expertise amongst those who responded, including chargepoint operators, installers, trade associations, local authorities, NHS trusts and businesses.
Not all respondents answered every question, and some submitted general information or an overall summary.
The call for evidence was launched on 7 May 2025 and closed on 18 June 2025, with a total of 125 responses received from a range of stakeholders with an interest in EV charging infrastructure.
Executive summary
The UK government, through the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV), launched a call for evidence to gather stakeholder views on planning policy and regulations affecting the rollout of EV charging infrastructure. This response summarises the key themes and insights from over 125 submissions received from local authorities, chargepoint operators (CPOs), businesses, and individuals.
Key findings
Planning barriers
Respondents highlighted inconsistent local planning policies and delays in approvals as major obstacles to EV infrastructure deployment, particularly in public and mixed-use spaces.
Permitted development rights (PDRs)
There was strong support for expanding PDRs to include cross-pavement solutions with some support for battery storage. Stakeholders also called for parity with devolved governments, such as Scotland.
Grid capacity and renewable integration
Grid connection delays and capacity constraints were frequently cited. Respondents advocated for better integration of EV infrastructure with renewable energy sources and on-site storage.
Equity and accessibility
Ensuring equitable access to EV charging especially for those without off-street parking was regularly raised.
Listed buildings and conservation areas
Respondents supported simplifying planning for EV installations near listed buildings.
Cross-pavement solutions (XPS)
Most respondents supported streamlining the consenting process for XPS to improve access for residents without driveways. Safety and accessibility were raised.
Consenting, permitting and licences
Support was expressed for proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which aim to reduce costs and delays by integrating CPOs into the street works permitting system.
Next steps
The government will take forward a series of consultations and policy development, including:
- launching a consultation on expanding PDRs for XPS installations and associated chargepoints, and alterations to PDRs for equipment housing
- publishing improved guidance for EV installations near listed buildings and in conservation areas
- launching a training and capability package for local planning authorities and developers
This call for evidence has reaffirmed the importance of a responsive and enabling planning system to support the rapid expansion of EV infrastructure. The government remains committed to ensuring that everyone, everywhere can make the switch to electric vehicles.
Methodology
A call for evidence was chosen to enable respondents to offer open-ended responses and provide as much quantitative and qualitative data as possible. Respondents were invited to submit their views via an online form or by email.
Responses were analysed using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Closed-format responses were reviewed to identify common positions and areas of consensus, while open-ended responses were subject to thematic analysis to identify recurring views, concerns, and suggestions. Due to the quantitative focus of many of the questions, and the variation in the number of responses per question, qualitative summaries have been provided, with quantitative examples included where appropriate.
All data was analysed internally by DESNZ and Department for Transport officials. The analysis aimed to reflect the range and strength of views expressed, with a focus on areas of broad agreement or repeated concern. The summaries do not attempt to capture every individual submission or comment but highlight the key themes that emerged across stakeholder groups.
Summary of responses around charging on private land
This section is the analysis of responses for Question 1.
Are the current planning rules, including planned changes, around charging on private land appropriate? Are there further potential changes that could be made to the planning system in relation to EV charging installations and the associated site in residential and commercial settings, including listed buildings? What evidence can you provide that would support this position?
We received 54 responses to this question.
The majority (42, 77%) were supportive of further changes to the planning system to make it easier and simpler to install EV charging infrastructure.
2 respondents were not supportive of any future changes. 10 respondents were content with how the system operates currently.
Figure 1 – Summary of responses around charging on private land
| Response | Support for potential further changes |
|---|---|
| Supportive | 42 |
| Not supportive | 2 |
| Neutral | 10 |
Of the 2 respondents who were not supportive, 1 provided detail. Their concerns were predominantly around safety. They cited concerns around removal of any distance restrictions as encouraging trailing cables over the public highway. This is a risk but with Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) projects rolling out across the country and cross-pavement solutions becoming more popular, government is keen to continue to promote safe, accessible and plentiful EV infrastructure installed properly. Trailing cables remains an offence under Section 178 of the Highways Act 1980.
Most respondents were supportive. Several responses mentioned that rules on listed buildings should be relaxed, a ‘right to charge’ could be introduced for renters and permitted development should be extended for cross-pavement solutions.
In terms of listed properties government should consider the publication of guidance for CPOs on deploying EVCPs adjacent to listed buildings and/or in conservation areas like the supplementary planning and guidance documents issued by local authorities across the UK.
Challenges remain around complex and inconsistent processes for listed buildings and conservation areas.
Whilst we acknowledge additional care and attention must be given to these sites, simpler consent routes would improve efficiency and increase options for charging infrastructure to be installed.
Some stakeholders mentioned issues when installing EV Infrastructure associated with existing planning consents. They mention difficulties in submitting applications that seek to vary such consents (either via Section 73 or Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).
These applications occur when businesses want to add EV charging to their existing car parks, they currently must submit variation applications even though the site already has planning permission. This results in months of delay and additional costs for what are often very minor layout changes.
Some stakeholders mentioned the need for EV charging Infrastructure to be designated a critical national priority (CNP).
We urge the government to designate EV charging infrastructure, including associated grid and storage assets, as critical national priority (CNP) infrastructure under national planning policy, thereby ensuring that the same presumption in favour of development applies to high-powered EV charging as already applies to strategic generation and transmission infrastructure. The national policy statements EN-1 and EN-5 should be updated to reflect this designation, particularly in relation to infrastructure proposed at MSAs and similarly high-priority sites. Doing so would give local planning authorities a clear and unambiguous signal that planning decisions must give significant weight to the public benefit of EV infrastructure.
Summary of responses around equipment, housing and energy storage systems (batteries)
This section is the analysis of responses for Question 2.
Are the current and planned planning rules around equipment housing and energy storage systems (batteries), and the use of solar appropriate? Are there further changes to the planning system that could accelerate the installation of energy storage systems to support chargepoint installations? What evidence can you provide that would support this position?
We received 39 responses to this question.
Responses were limited to this question, with many responses focussed on broad considerations associated to battery energy storage systems (BESS) - themes have been set out below.
Figure 2 – Summary of responses around equipment, housing and energy storage systems
| Response | Support for changes to planning system re batteries |
|---|---|
| Supportive | 17 |
| Not supportive | 6 |
| Neutral | 16 |
Respondents were asked whether current and planned planning rules around equipment housing, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and solar integration are appropriate, and what further changes could accelerate deployment.
A number of respondents expressed concerns as to the current limitation imposed on the installation of equipment housing that limits the installation to one unit. Respondents referenced similar permitted development rights in Scotland that do not have this kind of restriction and instead indicate that the cumulative volume of equipment cabinets cannot exceed 29 cubic metres and asked for parity with such an approach.
A number of respondents highlighted the need for clearer national guidance to reduce inconsistent interpretations by local planning authorities. Suggestions included fast-track approval processes, standardised templates, and clearer definitions of terms such as ‘off-street parking’ and ‘equipment housing’.
Others raised concerns about fire safety and technical standards, particularly in domestic settings. They called for updated regulations (for example, PAS 63100, BS 7671) and better risk mitigation strategies. Some respondents also noted grid connection delays and capacity constraints, recommending improved coordination with distribution network operators (DNOs).
Some respondents emphasised the importance of integrating solar and battery systems with EV infrastructure, proposing incentives to encourage co-location and reduce grid demand. A few also expressed interest in smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies to enhance demand flexibility.
Summary of responses around cross-pavement charging solutions
This section is the analysis of responses for ‘Question 3’.
What changes could be made to consenting processes for cross-pavement charging solutions, if any? What evidence can you provide to support this position?
We received 61 responses to this question.
Overall, most respondents were supportive of further changes to the consenting process for cross-pavement solutions (XPS). In total, 35 respondents were supportive of changes, 12 not supportive, and 11 respondents were neutral to changes.
Figure 3 – Support for changes to reduce planning barriers to cross-pavement solutions
| Response | Support for changes to reduce planning barriers to XPS |
|---|---|
| Supportive | 35 |
| Not supportive | 12 |
| Neutral | 11 |
Most supportive respondents expressed general backing for XPS as a means to increase access to EV charging for residents without off-street parking. Many called for simpler consenting processes, noting that planning requirements and fees can be a barrier to adoption.
A number of respondents also supported other technologies such as cable mats and lamppost chargers. Suggestions outside the planning regime included: increased grant funding, mandating local authorities to publish local guidance, and establishing national standards for XPS.
Some respondents outlined safety concerns with the potential for hazardous installation and stressed the importance of ensuring works are only carried out by approved contractors. There were also concerns about electrical safety risks, including simultaneous contact hazards, and the use of extra-long cables, and 3-pin plug sockets. A number of respondents believed trailing cables were the cause of safety issues, despite XPS designs encasing cables to mitigate this risk.
Others raised broader concerns about the impact of widespread XPS deployment. Such as the potential parking disputes, where residents may perceive ownership of public highway space and accessibility challenges for disabled users and the need to protect streetscapes.
Other respondents highlighted a lack of clarity around liability and risk, which some felt justified maintaining a rigorous planning process. There were also concerns about vandalism and long-term maintenance of XPS infrastructure.
In other cases, submissions reflected broader views about the technology rather than specific objections to streamlining the planning process.
Some suggested changes to the current system were removing planning permission costs and annual fees by creating a PDR for EV chargepoints and associated XPS infrastructure.
Simplifying Section 50 licensing, with capped costs and reduced timeframes were also mentioned. Some respondents proposed giving XPS installers powers similar to statutory undertakers, potentially via amendments to Clause 43 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Others suggested introducing a single unitary sign-off by local authorities to streamline approvals or by creating a presumption of approval to reduce the risk of installations being blocked due to inconsistent local policies.
Summary of responses around on-street charging
This section is the analysis of responses for ‘Question 4’.
Are the current rules for planning and consents around on-street charging appropriate? What further changes would you make? What evidence can you provide to support this position?
Out of a total of 43 responses, 18 were supportive of the current proposed changes and implied that further changes should be made. 15 respondents were neutral and thought the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill were appropriate. 10 respondents were not supportive and expressed caution and the need for highways to be safe for all users.
Figure 4 – Summary of responses around on-street charging
| Response | Support for further changes to planning/consents |
|---|---|
| Supportive | 18 |
| Not supportive | 10 |
| Neutral | 15 |
Many responses believe that the current system was adequate but needed further streamlining to ensure quicker turnaround times and more consistent processes across local authorities.
Some responses, that were supportive of further change, believe that EV chargepoint applications should be automatically approved without any checks or balances.
Some responses in contrast were more cautious and outlined the need for due care and attention to be paid to the public highway especially when it has a wide range of users.
Summary of responses around other comments
This section is the analysis of responses for ‘Question 5’.
Overall, and having regard to the contents of this call for evidence are there any other comments you wish to include in the role of highways permitting and licencing or national planning policy / guidance in better planning for and delivering electric vehicle charging infrastructure? What evidence can you provide to support this position?
We received 61 responses to this question.
Comments in this section varied greatly. Respondents mentioned the cost of public charging, the challenge of connecting to the grid and associated costs, and the need for more signage of EV charging infrastructure on the strategic road network.
Some respondents raised concerns about grid infrastructure limitations, calling for binding timelines and cost transparency from DNOs.
A number of respondents suggested mandating EV infrastructure in new housing developments and retrospective support for early adopters.
Others called for local authority control over EV infrastructure to ensure compatibility with community needs and avoid speculative installations.
Finally, some respondents proposed dynamic pricing models for public charging to align with renewable energy availability and reduce costs.
Conclusion
The government continues to support the rollout of EV charging through policy, regulation and funding. However, given the need to have an EV charging infrastructure network that ensures that everyone, everywhere can make the switch to an EV, and keep pace with vehicle uptake supported by measures including the ZEV mandate and the Electric Car Grant, further action is needed. The planning system needs to enable large-scale infrastructure delivery.
To date, there have been repeated examples of government amending PDR to ensure a simpler, more streamlined approach to rolling out EV charging infrastructure.
Private charging
Listed buildings
The protection of listed buildings must be carefully balanced against wider development needs. Development shouldn’t impact the current approach to protecting and enhancing these critical assets.
The government has noted the concerns raised, but little evidence of the scale of the problem has been provided and, therefore, at this time we do not intend to introduce permitted development rights or other legislation insofar as they impact on listed buildings or conservation areas and EV charging.
However, we do believe improved guidance in this space would be useful in empowering residents and installers to better navigate this area of the planning system and improve outcomes. That is why we will provide CPOs with guidance on the planning system - its processes, how to navigate it effectively, and how to engage with it to influence outcomes.
Training for local authority planning officers
More broadly, we recognise that local authorities need support with capability and training to better understand EV technologies and the wider needs of the sector. On this basis, the government will consider how to develop and publish appropriate guidance and launch a wider training and capability package for local planning authorities and developers engaging in EV chargepoint delivery.
This will build on our existing support for local authorities through the LEVI Capability (resource) Fund which enables them to recruit staff to plan and deliver local EV chargepoints. Operating since FY22/23 and extended this year, the fund has allocated £65 million, supporting around 350 staff (about 245 FTEs), including work on innovations like pavement channels.
This funding is complemented by wrap-around support, including expert advice, LEVI roadshows, a bespoke EV infrastructure training course (over 150 officers trained), and an online knowledge hub with guidance for every stage of delivery.
Equipment housing
The government recently amended permitted development rights to allow equipment housing up to 29 cubic metres, subject to specific size and location restrictions. Some respondents raised concerns about the current limit of one unit, noting that Scotland allows multiple units as long as the total volume doesn’t exceed 29 cubic metres. They have called for parity. The government acknowledges this and has launched a consultation in parallel to this response.
Cross-pavement solutions
The government recognises the challenges around XPS delivery and the need to expand permitted development rights to allow EV chargepoints and cross-pavement solutions at properties without off-street parking, without requiring planning permission. We understand this is key to accelerating EV rollout and ensuring parity for prospective EV owners. That’s why we are consulting on removing the current restriction and exploring options for cross-pavement installations. To ensure highway safety is appropriately considered and maintained we are not proposing to change current processes under Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 at this time.
Battery storage
In relation to BESS, any changes would require additional permitted development rights to be developed, and government would need to understand any associate risks of installation.
Most respondents supported expanding PDRs to include multiple equipment housing units, battery storage systems, and solar canopies. However, given most battery storage projects will be subject to a wider planning application there will be no material benefits to bringing them into the PDR system.
On-street charging
The installation of EV chargepoints on public roads is classed as street works and CPOs are currently required to apply for licences under Section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to install public chargepoints. The licensing process was not designed for such installations and is inadequate to handle the volume of applications needed to install EV chargepoints at pace.
That is why we are empowering chargepoint operators, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with greater authority to install chargepoints by integrating them into a faster, more cost-effective street works permitting system. This change will significantly lower costs - from as much as £1,000 to as little as £45 - and reduce wait times from months to just days, helping expand a reliable charging network for drivers across England.
Next steps
The vast majority of respondents supported the principle of simplifying the process of installing EV chargepoints. Furthermore, the responses have shown that there is broad support for further PDRs for EV charging and better training and guidance for both industry and local authority officers.
The government will take forward a series of consultations and policy development, including:
- launching a consultation on expanding PDRs for XPS installations and associated chargepoints, and alterations to PDRs for equipment housing
- publishing improved guidance for EV installations near listed buildings and in conservation areas
- launching a training and capability package for local planning authorities and developers