Agenda item

To assist Members, the following documents are attached:-

·                     Copy of the report of the Director of Environment - Portfolio of the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment

·                     Copy of the Record of Decision

·                     Copy of the Call In Letter

That the explanation be accepted but not endorsed by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Option 2).

The Chairman referred to the call in of the decision of the Cabinet, from its meeting held on 19 March 2013 on the Street Lighting Policy.  A call in notice had been received signed by five Members of the Council.  To assist Members with their deliberations on the issue, the following documents had been circulated with the agenda:

(a)    A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet on 19 March 2013.

(b)    A copy of the Cabinet Record of Decision, Record No. 2826

(c)     A copy of the call in notice signed by Councillors R.J.T. Guest, R.B. Jones, M.J. Peers, C.S. Carver and H.D. Hutchinson

(d)    A copy of the Procedure for dealing with a called in item

The Chairman invited the call in signatories to address the Committee via a spokesperson or individually to which the decision makers could respond.

Councillor M.J. Peers said that he understood the proposal to employ part night lighting (part 3.10 of the Street lighting report) and the estimated savings, but felt that there was no criteria in the Policy (point 5.9) nor in the report (point 3.10) to identify which lights would be affected.  He asked if the 3000 illuminated signs maintained by the Council would be suited to part lighting.  Councillor Peers then referred to point 3.12 in the report which referred to unadopted lights on adopted roads or footways which should be considered to be adopted by the Council and voiced his concern at the consequent costs that would be incurred (Financial implications 5.03 of the report ‘The cost of adopting the unadopted lights will be from current maintenance budgets’.) and sought clarification on this matter.

Councillor R.J.T. Guest voiced concerns about the process around the development of the Policy and report and felt it was wrong that the matter went from the Overview & Scrutiny workshop to Cabinet, without first going to an Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting.  Councillor Guest advised the Members of the Committee to opt for Option 3 and to refer the Policy and report back to Cabinet.

Councillor C.S. Carver pointed out that section 3.08 of the report stated that the most appropriate lighting system to be installed on the Council’s highway network was the white light Cosmopolis option and that this should be specified in future on all new developments and utilised during any replacement or upgrade work carried out by the Council.  He pointed out that the lower energy lights could not be replaced in isolation, in order to maximise the savings of part lighting/dimming.  All Council lights would have to be changed which would incur additional costs.  Councillor Carver said that point 3.04 of the report which related to Town and Community Council Footway lighting was in conflict with 3.12 of the report which stated that unadopted lights on adopted roads should be adopted.

Councillor R.B. Jones asked for clarification on point 5.9 of the Policy in relation to part night installations as to which roads/areas would be affected.  He advised the Members of the Committee to choose Option 3 and to refer back to Cabinet.

The Head of Streetscene said that part night installations (switched off 12 midnight -6 am) would be in non residential areas subject to a new robust risk assessment, backed by local Members and Police involvement. In response to Councillor Peers’ question about illuminated signs, the Head of Streetscene informed him that it was a statutory requirement to have some signs lit on the highway.  In response to questions about ‘unadopted’ lights, he made it clear that Town and Community Council lights were not unadopted as they were adopted and maintained by the relevant Town and Community Councils who also had lighting powers on the highway.  Unadopted referred to a small number (under 100) lights where there was no record of ownership and where the Council, under duty of care, had effectively adopted them.  Where there were new developments, the developer would put in a Commuted Sum and pay maintenance and power for a specific period ten years prior to adoption.

The Director of Environment explained that because of the previous work done by the Member Task & Finish Group and because the feedback from the Overview & Scrutiny workshop had been so positive, it had been decided that the report would then go straight to Cabinet.  He explained that the policy document sought to set out the criteria for matters such as part lighting, and not give specific details of locations.

The Leader of the Council conveyed apologies from the Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Environment who was unable to attend the meeting.  The Deputy Leader had said that the Street lighting workshop was one of the best workshops he had ever attended.  He explained that the part night lighting was one way of making efficiency savings with as little impact as possible.

Councillor C.A. Thomas asked if the part night lighting would cause more maintenance costs, thus negating the perceived energy savings.  She added that she felt that her views shared at the workshop had not been taken on board.  She also said that she was not aware that non residential A roads would be partly lit.  The Team Leader for Street lighting said that new technology such as ‘soft start’ gearing enabled lights to switch on and off without causing additional wear and tear.  All new electronic gearing would come with an eight year warranty and bulbs had a longer life expectancy with this technology.  The Head of Streetscene said that he had a full record of comments from the workshop and was happy to share it with Members of the Committee.  In response to the question about A roads, the Head of Streetscene said that the roads affected would be non residential through routes.

Councillor C.J. Dolphin asked what the target response time was for rectifying street lighting faults.  The Team Leader for Street lighting said that the key performance indicator target was three days.

Councillor R. Lloyd asked how long developers of new estates had to maintain lighting equipment before it could be adopted by the Council.  The Director of Environment said that the developer paid for ten years maintenance costs but that the lights would be maintained by the Council once the lights had been brought up to adoption standard and following a twelve month maintenance period.

In summing up, Councillor Peers said that the call in could have been avoided had the Policy and report come to an Overview & Scrutiny Committee before Cabinet.  He recommended that the Members of the Committee chose Option 3.

The Leader of the Council said that the Policy was a positive step to reduce light pollution.  He accepted the comments about the workshop and acknowledged that it would have been helpful to discuss any issues or misunderstandings at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting before going to Cabinet.

Councillor V. Gay proposed Option 2 of the call in procedure.  This was duly seconded by Councillor R. Lloyd.

Councillor D. Butler proposed Option 1 of the call in procedure.  This was duly seconded by Councillor A.I. Dunbar.

On being put to the vote, Option 1 had five votes in favour and five votes against.  The Chair used the casting vote to vote against the proposal.

Option 2 had five votes in favour and seven votes against the proposal.

Option 3 had four votes in favour and eight votes against.

There was not a proposal to vote on Option 4, so the Committee agreed to vote on Option 2.

On being put to the vote, Option 2 was carried with 11 votes in favour and one against Option 2.

RESOLVED:

That the explanation be accepted but not endorsed by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Option 2).