Meeting documents

Members will review the Council's current policy, approach and performance in relation to street and footway lighting, with a focus on the fixing of defects.

Contributors:

Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation

Mark Averill, Head of Highways (Client)

David Stewart, Operations Manager (TfB)

Phil Lain, Street Lighting Manager

The Cabinet Member and supporting officers introduced the item and provided Members with an overview of the report.

The full overview can be viewed on the webcast alongside the supporting paper within the agenda pack.

The following points were made during the overview:

• There had been a significant reduction in complaints on street lighting over the past year.
• Performance indicators had all improved over the last year.
• There were 35,000 street lights in Buckinghamshire.
• Bucks had moved to an LED street lighting strategy which had produced the savings hoped for.
• By the end of the year all the old SOX orange lights would have been replaced with LED lamps.
• TfB were also doing a lamp column replacement programme.
• The biggest challenge was electricity supply issues – this could cause significant delays to street lights being fixed.
• Solar powered lamps were being used as temporary solutions whilst defects were being fixed.
• The budget of £2.8 m also had to cover the SALIX (LED lamps) loan repayments. There was £600,000 in the budget for repairs. Repairs were currently prioritised based on reporting of defects.
• The LED lamp replacement capital programme was almost complete.
• Responsibility for columns caused difficulty.
• Lots of activity was focussed on the lamp, but not on the columns, the life profile of a column asset was 25 years, however our current columns were at 40 years.

Member questions and the resulting discussion raised the following points:

• Statutory Responsibility: There was no statutory responsibility to provide light; the council had a power to provide light where it was deemed necessary for safety reasons. It had a duty to maintain minimum standards where lighting was put in place.
• Ownership and responsibility of street and footway lighting: Members asked about whether there was an accurate picture of ownership and responsibility for different street and footway lamps that Members and residents could have access to. Members were told that "Fix My Street" has all the County Council owned street lamps on, but not those provided and owned by parish, district and town councils. It was hoped that this information would be gathered within the next couple of years. Members were also told that every visit the crews did, they had been re numbering the street lights, by the end of the year, every light that had been worked on would have been re numbered.
• Street Lighting Maps: Members suggested that information on the ownership and responsibility of all street and footway lighting should be mapped and recorded, and made accessible to Members and the public to enable accurate reporting of defects and to manage public expectations around responsibility for lighting within their areas. This could be made accessible on "Fix my Street". This should include a summary of the authorities who own the lighting within each area.

·         Devolution of footway lighting: Members were told that the Council were looking to devolve more to parish councils for the fixing of defects. The County Council would have responsibility for maintaining highways lighting. Footway lighting is where there were opportunities to devolve more.  There was an issue around those who were already the lighting authority and those who we had devolved to. In some areas it would be easy to devolve as County Council lights were few and far between as other authorities had responsibility for the majority of lighting already.

·         Consistency in how lighting assets are managed from a resident’s point of view: Members were told that it would be difficult to get consistency as street and footway lighting was owned by different authorities in each area. In areas like High Wycombe which was unparished it would be difficult to get consistency. In some areas there were no county council owned lighting.

·         Performance: Members questioned the 28 day target for defects to be repaired and whether this was acceptable. The target in the key performance indicator was also not being met. Members were told that delays were often as a result of some locations not being accessible by vehicle, so require different equipment. All crews were run from Griffin Lane in Aylesbury, and deployed on a day/week basis to specific areas, so this could cause some delays where defects occurred and missed the next programme of works and deployment of crews. However, Members were told that TfB were actually pushing targets of 7 days for repair. Members heard how in the winter sometimes the 28 day target could be harder to reach as the crews would also be out gritting.

·         Performance and programme of works: A Member asked whether defects that are included within the programme of works were taken out of the performance targets, or whether they drew the targets down. Members were told that they were not taken out of the targets and could drive them down.

·         Members questioned whether defects that are within the programme of works should be included within the performance targets as they could drive the performance down. Members suggested that the pros and cons of recording these differently should be considered.  This could give a more accurate picture of the planned works and performance monitoring.

·         Opportunities to change programming of works:  Members asked whether there were opportunities to deploy crews from other depots rather than all being deployed from Griffin Lane in Aylesbury, with a view to reducing travel costs, time and improve efficiency. Members were told that TfB had considered this, there would be cost implications of storage, and delivery etc. of equipment, but a full cost analysis had not yet been undertaken.

·         Members suggested that the costings be looked into to consider whether deploying crews from a southern depot could improve efficiencies, or if the costs would outweigh savings of programming works in this way.

·         Joined up working with other TfB works: Members  asked how TfB collaborate their work programmes across different areas of work within the contract to make best uses of resources. Members were told that each week TfB went through coordination of works to look at how they could be combined to work smarter and more efficiently. Examples were given where road works in areas had been combined with lamp replacement works to minimise the length of time disruption was caused. Members also heard that whilst combining works did not mean that works costs would be reduced for street light repairs, the efficiencies come from the fact that road closures would be minimised and each road closure cost £1000.

·         Improving work with other utility companies: Members asked how TfB could improve working with other utility companies when carrying out works. Members were told that due to the danger posed by utility (gas and electricity) companies works on the highway, they did not usually want council contractors working on site at the same time. It was easier to work together where the council was the lead of the works. The costs that were saved would be the costs of road closures. Members were told that the Council and TfB wanted to see coordination of road closures improved.

·         Members suggested that TfB should identify ways to improve coordination of road closures to minimise impact of works being carried out and reduce costs.

·         Degradation and replacement of lamp columns: Members were told that by the end of the year TfB would have an accurate picture of the degradation of every column unit. There was a shortfall of 1877 columns that needed to be replaced and an Medium Term Financial Plan bid was being used to replace the columns and bring those up to standard.

• Budget: Members heard that the budget was constrained; therefore the policy had to ensure that it was structured in a way that allowed the service to perform within budget. For example, whilst the 28 day target for repair, could be seen as too long, it was what could be delivered within budget. The LED programme had reduced outage costs and the gain of the programme (Salix) would be realised later down the line. However, the programme had not reduced the budget as the reduction in costs was being used to pay back the SALIX loan.
• Removal of column stumps: Members heard that there had been a significant number of stumps caused this year through road traffic collisions. 93 stumps removed to date, 165 stumps remaining, with all stumps planned to be removed by March 2019. Members were told that TfB were looking at how to build the removal of stumps into the programme of works.
• Members agreed that the removal of stumps should be added to the programme of works to ensure that all remaining stumps were dealt with by the target of March 2019.

• Night Switch off: Pilot night switch offs in the county during 2006-2008 had evidenced that there had been no increase in collisions as a result. The Council installed lights where there were safety issues on the highway. Members asked whether night switch off would be extended and were told that the Council could consider further wholescale night switch offs where evidence based assessments of safety prove that it would be safe to do so. Members asked if there was any evidence of crime increasing where lights were switched off at night. They were told that the council had looked to Essex County Council for evidence, and they found that crime went down when the street lights were out at night. If the Council implemented night switch off there would need to be liaison with the districts to ensure it would not have any impact on CCTV. Switching off every other column could mean that the council would go below minimum standards of lighting – where they had installed lighting they had to meet minimum standards, however if safety assessments had been carried out and it was deemed safe to do so, they could switch light off completely at night.
• Members were of the view that where safety assessments had been carried out and it was deemed that there were not any safety issues, night switch off should be explored.