Plans to create an electric vehicle (EV) charging site in Bath have been thwarted at appeal, with the planning inspector criticising the developer’s failure to address key issues.
May Lane in Newbridge
Zest Eco appealed to the Secretary of State to try to secure permission for four EV charging bays in May Lane, a private road off Evelyn Road at Newbridge. The freehold land was sold at auction last year for £12,500.
The company had accused Bath & North East Somerset Council of “falling short” of its duties after four times delaying a decision on whether to permit the commercial site.
People living nearby had raised objections about the plans, saying the narrow lane is unsuitable, and is well used by pedestrians, cyclists and dog walkers, providing access to local schools, doctors’ surgery and Royal United Hospital.
It was flagged up that the lane acts as an access to and from seven homes and some lock-up garages, that there is no lighting, and that charging bays being used round the clock could impact on residents.
Zest Eco, which is backed by the government’s Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund, initially sought to install five charging bays but reduced it to four.
The application was submitted in May 2024. In its appeal statement, Zest Eco said that between August 2024 and February 2025 it had agreed “in good faith” to four requests from B&NES Council for extensions of time.
The council said in its statement to the Planning Inspectorate that had the planning officer made a recommendation, it would have been to refuse permission due to concerns about the impact on a public right of way and a lack of information about biodiversity net gain (BNG).
The footpath runs from Newbridge Hill to Chandler Close and provides access to the western end of May Lane.
Planning inspector Gwilym Powys Jones said in his report that Zest Eco had not taken the opportunity to comment on the council’s statement, or on local residents’ comments and concerns.
He noted that the council’s statement said that four letters of objection had been received but based on the information made available to him, the level of public comment “far exceeded that”.
The EV charging facility was being proposed at the end of the lane where it joins Evelyn Road. The intention was to remove greenery, surface this part of the lane with asphalt and lay out the facility in accordance with the plans.
In his assessment, the inspector considered that users of the public right of way would not be put at an “unacceptable level of additional risk”.
However, he questioned the accuracy of the analysis which showed that the facility would not impede the accessibility of others, including emergency vehicles, as it was not based on a site survey but created through desktop exercises.
He also said that a lot of key information had not been provided by the developer.
He wrote: “The appellant says that the parking bays’ dimensions have been designed in accordance with recommended guidelines, but omits to identify the guidelines. I know of no recognised planning-related guidelines which recommend a parking bay width of 2.0 metres, as seems to be proposed.”
“Absent” information included what provision had been made for the space requirements of disabled drivers; whether the layout design took account of the fact that charging ports appear on both sides of vehicles; whether commercial vans would be allowed to use it; the estimated level of use in the day and at night, and how long drivers would stay and whether they would wait with their cars.
The inspector also queried how the facility would operate in the dark and whether external lighting would be needed; whether the equipment would generate noise and, if so, at what levels; and whether refuse vehicles collecting residents’ waste need to use the lane.
The inspector concluded that in the absence of “important relevant information”, he was unable to make a proper assessment.
Regarding biodiversity, he was critical of the report provided, saying “its content comes nowhere near addressing the minimum information requirements”. He said he had “no alternative” but to dismiss the appeal.
Following the result of the appeal, which was published on 7th August, Zest has withdrawn its application for advertising consent for three small pole-mounted signs promoting the site for EV charging.
