Agenda item

Members to receive an update.

A vote was taken on whether the press and public should be excluded during the discussion of the following item due to the commercial sensitivity contained within the presentation.  On being put to the vote the exclusion of the press and public was agreed however, Councillor Baxter wished that his vote against the exclusion be recorded.

It was anticipated that, in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public may be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business because of the likelihood that otherwise exempt information, as described in paragraph 3 of the Act (as amended) would be disclosed to the public.

The Strategic Director Commercial and Operations referred to the slides that had been circulated for Members information and the reason that the exclusion had been read out due to the commercial sensitivity of information contained in some of the slides which could affect future procurement. 

The context and background of the street lighting issue was contained within the first few slides and the recommendations made by the Committee and the response from Cabinet.  The slides showed the current arrangements both for the General Fund contract and also the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) arrangements which had not been included previously but related to circa 300 lights and how many of the total number of lights had been replaced to date with LED lights which totalled 110.  Repairs and maintenance of lights under the HRA had been undertaken on an ad hoc basis.  The GF replacement was on a three year cycle currently on a rolling contract.   A key slide showed options for LED Replacement over a number of years.  The slide was not comprehensive and was there to give Members an idea of the different levels of investment and the timescales.   Funding options were discussed both recurring and one off funding such as Invest to Save funding. Other considerations including conservation style lights and suitability of columns and brackets were also included.   Dimming of lights and automatic fault reporting had not been included within the cost model options.  The HRA lights had not been included in the cost modelling as they came from a different financial source however, plans would be made for HRA street lights to take advantage of the arrangements (and financial rates) put in place for GF lights.

The Committees preferred option would be taken forward to the Cabinet Member for Environment for him to consider how the issue would be taken forward.

The Assistant Director Resources indicated that the options showed were modelling examples and it was for the Committee to decide their preferred level of investment. He informed the Committee to have regard to the working assumptions that had been made in making the projections which could be subject to change i.e. utility prices and the costs of the LED bulbs could increase.    The models assumed continued investment replacement over future years but this was only an assumption as Council can only approve a budget for the year ahead.  

A question was asked about the current provider to which the Strategic Director Commercial and Operations replied.  A question was asked about street lights generally and it was stated that the majority of street lights were the responsibility of Lincolnshire County Council, although there were privately owned ones such as those on railway stations and private retail units.    The location of the District Council lights were sporadic throughout the district although the main ones were on footways, cycle ways in parks and car parks.

Reference was again made to the commercial sensitivity of the information before Members which the modelling assumptions had been based on.   If the proposal was to go forward the contract would go out for procurement, it would be inappropriate for the prices shown within the presentation to become public knowledge as it would prejudice the current contractor and could negatively impact the market submissions.  Further discussion followed on the costs of the lamps and market testing.

Reference was made to Salix funding but it had been determined that the payback period of five years did not bring any benefits. Option 5 as shown in the presentation was proposed.  A comment was made about costs and a different provider.  The Assistant Director Resources assured the Committee that the assumptions made in relation to the options before Members were current.  At the time the market is tested the rates may go lower but the rates used were up to date. The issue was to “pump prime” a replacement programme but it was for the Committee to decide their preference.  More money spent would result in a quicker return over a shorter period of time, the less money spent would result in a longer period of time. 

The Chairman proposed option 3 as the way forward, the Member who had previously proposed option 5 did so again but did not receive a seconder. Option 3 did receive a seconder and on being put to the vote there was an equality of votes for option 3 and votes against option 3 with two abstentions.  The Chairman used his casting vote in favour of option 3.

Recommendation:

That option 3 is the Committees preferred option to be taken forward by the Cabinet Member for the Environment.