Agenda item

Report CO0001 from the Chairman of Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(To follow)

Members had been circulated with report CO0001. The report concerned street lighting and an initial report had been considered by Cabinet at their meeting in July. The Cabinet had referred the issue back to the Committee for further consideration in relation to lamps in conservation areas and more details in relation to the financial aspects of the Committee’s recommendation.    A further working group had been held in October to review the options for potential methods of investment in replacing South Kesteven owned street lights with LED’s.

For clarity the following questions were asked and discussed:

-       Does the Committee still agree that SKDC streetlights should remain on throughout the hours of darkness

Yes street lights would remain on all night

-       What was the status of the Street Lighting Policy agreed at the Committee on 24 April, the Member proposed that the Committee recommend to Cabinet the Policy be adopted without amendment

The Cabinet Member for Environment stated that the Cabinet had no issue with the Policy that had been proposed, their query was in relation to lamps in conservation areas and the financial budget implications to replace the lights. Recommendation 1 within the report addressed lamps in conservation areas.  He also made reference to Lincolnshire County Council’s proposal to charge Parish Councils if they wanted to keep their street lights on overnight.

-       A question was asked in relation to the spreadsheet and calculations considered during the working group meetings – It was confirmed that Members had been circulated with this information, the Member had originally provided the figures.

-       What was the p/kWh unit rate on which expenditure reports are derived, was it a static unit rate or was there any prediction made for energy price inflation?

-       The p/kWh unit rate was 10pence

-       Did the unit rate include any inflation and had this been increased in the last five to 10 years?

-       No a static unit rate had been used within the calculations. The Cabinet Member for Environment asked for clarification from the Assistant Director Resources in relation to utility increases. The Assistant Director Resources stated that as far as he knew the Council’s financial team had not been asked to validate any of the figures that had been put forward. They had not been independently validated and the assumptions made tested.  Any decisions made should be based on solid financial information.  The framework used for the utilities responded to the market and was secured on best value.  A five percent cost growth was generally included for inflation, this was an annual growth across all utilities.

-          A further question was asked in relation to the £50,000 reduction in annual maintenance costs had these been taken into account? (e.g. re-invested? reported as savings?)

A discussion then followed on costs. The Corporate Operations Lead indicated that figures that had been used were in the proximate area of the energy costs, the framework was currently holding firm. However, it was noted that any increase in costs would lengthen any payback period.  The energy costs in relation to street lighting were linked to the corporate utilities, any savings from the £50,000 would not be specific to street lighting it would go to the General Fund area to contribute to savings on energy costs.   The maintenance savings were then discussed as these would also be impacted by the changeover to LED as they would not need to be replaced every three years as was currently the case as these were more reliable and therefore maintenance costs would be reduced.   Maintenance savings could then be used to accelerate the programme of change.   The Cabinet Member for Environment then asked about the period for reinvestment and replacement, how quickly did the Committee wish to accelerate the programme, how much of a kick start was needed.

-          What was the anticipated RoI for LED streetlights? The Members calculations based on a unit price of 10p/kWh and £350/lamp would result in a 5.7% return. He believed this was significantly better than some of the Council’s capital investments – it was agreed that 5.7% was a good return but investments capital was a smaller figure and a longer return would be a longer return.

Further discussion then followed on timeframes and the amount of investment the Committee were asking the Cabinet to consider was it in order to pump prime the replacement programme.     A proposal was proposed to recommend to Cabinet the first recommendation as shown within the report, a second recommendation was that the street lighting policy agreed by the Committee at their April meeting be recommended again to Cabinet and a third recommendation be proposed that they invest a figure for invest to save in street lighting (£100,000).

It was noted that the financial figures needed to be more “fleshed” out and a sensitivity analysis undertaken on what would be the impact using different figures and timeframes.  Members agreed that the financial team should be more involved.  A question was then asked about the contract and it was noted that the Committee had indicated at the beginning of the discussions on street lighting that until the policy and a way forward had been determined the contract would hold over.

The proposal before the Committee was again read out. Further discussion on whether or not any figures should be included in the proposal was discussed.   The proposer read out an amended recommendation that an annual investment in LED lighting of a meaningful amount over and above the ring fenced maintenance and energy savings which should also be reinvested.  This represented a positive financial investment and a positive investment by the Cabinet in reducing the impact of climate change.

The Chairman made a proposal not to have a capital investment and to take the route of reinvesting the savings made in the replacement street lighting programme but this did not receive a seconder.   Further conversation on the amount of investment and timeframes followed and the proposer was asked if he agreed to amend his proposal to include a timeframe of five years to which he agreed, the following recommendations were then put to the Committee, that the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommended to Cabinet;

1.    That conservation style lighting columns in villages will only be provided by the Council upon request by the Parish Council, who will be required to fund the installation and all initial costs.  Thereafter, the Council will take responsibility for on-going maintenance and energy costs. Conservation lights will be compatible with LED replacement bulbs.

2.    That the Cabinet adopts the Street Lighting policy as recommended to Cabinet at their meeting on 12^th July 2018.

3.    That an annual investment in LED lighting of a meaningful amount over and above the ring fenced maintenance and energy savings which should also be reinvested over a period of five years. This represented a positive financial investment and a positive investment by the Cabinet in helping against climate change.

The proposal was seconded and on being put to the vote the recommendations were agreed.

Recommendation

The Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends the following to the Cabinet

1.  That conservation style lighting columns in villages will only be provided by the Council upon request by the Parish Council, who will be required to fund the installation and all initial costs.  Thereafter, the Council will take responsibility for on-going maintenance and energy costs. Conservation lights will be compatible with LED replacement bulbs.

2.  That the Cabinet adopts the Street Lighting policy as recommended to Cabinet at their meeting on 12^th July 2018.

3.  An annual investment in LED lighting of a meaningful amount over and above the ring fenced maintenance and energy savings which should also be reinvested over a period of five years. This represented a positive financial investment and a positive investment by the Cabinet in helping against climate change.