Agenda item

The Committee considered the Joint Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships and Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services that provided Members with an overview of the Street Lighting Energy Reduction Project (SLERP) (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

 

Mr B Buckley, Strategic Highways Manager and Mr D Hubbard, Street Lighting Manager were in attendance to deliver a presentation that provided the following information:

 

·       Introduction

·       Street Lighting Policy

·       Scope – Phase 1

·       Timetable – Phase 1

·       Financial Performance

·       Benefits

·       Kay Issues – removals

·       Key Issues – LED Retrofits

·       Phase 2

·       Phase 2 Scope

·       Phase 2 Delivery

·       Phase 2 – Projected Outcome

 

Members were advised that the SLERP took place from 2013 to March 2019. The project was procured in collaboration with regional procurement of street lights and delivery of the project was in house using Durham County Council Street Lighting Team with support from contractors.

 

Retrofit of the street lights started in June 2013 and the policy was updated in November 2013 to accommodate the project. Originally the project intended to remove 7000 street lights but following a desk top study this figure was revised. A Road Safety Auditor checked all removals and lights were only removed where it was safe to do so.

 

The first phase of the project took six years to complete. The project was well managed, and the actual costs were just a little short of the original business case. The net revenue savings were incorporated into the Council’s medium term financial plan savings.

 

The Strategic Highways Manager advised members that LED street lighting had a much longer life span than low and high pressure sodium street lighting and therefore the maintenance costs are much reduced.

 

Members were advised of the key issues raised during phase one that included concerns raised via town and parish councils in relation to removal of lights. An example was given of a location in Weardale where it had been proposed to remove a light, local councils highlighted that where the light was situated next to a bus stop. The Road Safety Auditor reassessed the location and while the bus stop was not an official bus stop mini buses picked up and set down children in that location – the light remained in situ.

 

Other complaints related to lighting levels in communities, colleagues went to the location with a light metre and the levels were checked and reported back as being within the correct level.

 

Following the presentation, Councillor Avery asked if there were any improvements on the intensity of the light.

 

The Strategic Highways Manager responded that they continued to meet British standards.

 

Councillor Avery then raised concerns of lighting in areas of A167 at Ferryhill to Chilton and Ferryhill to Thinford and where lighting had been removed between Croxdale and Cock o’ the North Roundabout and advised that he had received complaints from road users.

 

The Strategic Highways Manager responded that they had appointed an independent road safety auditor to look at the lights that was well documented. The auditor had been out to conflict areas and crossing points to assess the areas and advised that local town and parish councils had service level agreements to keep lighting columns.

 

Mr D Hubbard, Street Lighting Manager, indicated that a number of parishes had ten year agreements and that another assessment would be undertaken at the end of the agreement.

 

Councillor Avery indicated that there were areas on estates where better lighting was needed in places such as pathways between streets and that he intended funding a light in this area.

 

The Strategic Highways Manager advised that some members had used their budgets to fund improved lighting on estates such as pathways between properties.

 

Councillor Higgins asked why some columns had more LED lights than others and why were industrial estates lit better than some streets.

 

Members were advised that some fittings had more LEDs than others to meet British standards, they were not aware of industrial estates been lit higher than the minimum standard. Lighting Columns on industrial estates were higher, and the roads were wider so it could just be a perception of being better lit.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Dunn, Members were advised that the pay back was over 12 years for phase one.

 

Councillor Dunn then asked what the difference was between heritage style lights and those in the Environmental Zone E1. The Street Lighting Manager advised that stringent checks were carried out in relation to those in the E1 zone because this was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) the illumination was not reflected upwards to preserve the dark sky whereas heritage style lights the light was reflected upwards.

 

Councillor Dunn then referred to the street lighting energy reduction project which he found a success and the environment impact was excellent with benefits to areas such as the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with dark skies designation and the improvement in the quality of light was also fantastic. He asked if the dimming of the lights had commenced.

 

Officers responded that the dimming was in force which was hardly noticeable but created energy savings. A meeting had taken place on site at Framwellgate Moor to show the dimming of the lights and nobody could tell the difference.

 

The Chair confirmed that he was in attendance at this site meeting and you could not tell the difference.

 

Councillor Dunn referred to Appendix 1 of the report and climate change implications that he was pleased to see in the report. He asked that future reports show the risk implications and also quantify the impact on carbon emissions. The Chair responded that climate change would be included in all reports coming forward.

 

Councillor Henderson asked when work would start in the Teesdale area to retrofit lights. He also mentioned the plans for an astronomical observatory to be built at Grassholme and the need for planned lighting installations to help reduce light pollution and preserve dark skies status.

 

The Street Lighting Manager responded that they would be looking at Teesdale in the second year of the project.

 

Councillor Coult referred to the table at paragraph 42 of the report that showed the number of existing units and those that had been retrofit and asked why the remaining units could not be changed.

 

The Street Lighting Manager responded that this was to do with the type of fitting that meant that they could not obtain an LED light, so the problem was manufacture led. As they were going through the project there could be more advances with technology so they may be able to change more lights to LED in the future. Members were also advised that the weight of the lantern meant that some columns were not suitable and could not take the weight of an LED lantern, but the weight of the LED lanterns was reducing, so as time passes changing to retrofit may be possible. Members were advised that all lighting columns were tested for weight and windage.

 

The Chair suggested that if the issue was viewed from an environmental point of view could a business case be put forward to change all columns not be replaced so that the lights could be changed to LED.

 

The Street Lighting Manager responded that it was linked to the column replacement programme and had replaced 1000 columns over three years and if a column had come to the end of its life then it would be changed. Members were advised that a report would be considered by Cabinet at a future date in relation to the age of the lighting stock but this would be a capital investment.

 

The Chair asked if bollards and street signs were included in the retrofit.

 

The Street Lighting Manager stated that there was a capital cost of replacing bollards which were only guaranteed for 4/5 years, so the savings were not financially viable. However, any damaged bollards would be replaced with LEDs.

 

Councillor Dunn referred to paragraph 42 of the report that indicated there were 1037 non-LED lights in conjunction with column replacement programme and asked if the 5,000 lights were still to be replaced and if this was due to the type of column and if they would remain after phase two.

 

The Street Lighting Manager confirmed that was correct and added that the 5000 still to be replaced was because of the type of column and not because of the condition of the column. The Street Lighting Manager continued that a number of the columns belonged to the Northern Power Grid (NPG) and that a number required new control boxes that cost up to £1000 each to be replaced.

 

Councillor Dunn asked if there was scope to negotiate a programme to make the change more viable as he was sure they would also be committed to carbon reduction.

 

Officers responded that they had a joint user agreement for lights on NPG poles but they could be asked to remove the lights from the poles, which had been done in some areas. They did work closely with the NPG, but more and more cables were now underground.

 

Councillor Avery mentioned of a fatal road collision within his division and asked if lights would be staying in that area. The Strategic Highways Manager advised that if the lights had been replaced, they would not be removed.

 

The Chair thanked the Officers for their report and presentation which was very informative.

 

Resolved: That the report and presentation be noted.