Issue - meetings

Balfour Beatty representative to attend and explain the project in depth.

The Committee received a presentation from Balfour Beatty: Ed Baldwin (Interim Head of Client Liaison – Lighting Cambridgeshire) and Joshua Cooke.

 

The presentation outlined:

       i.          Street lighting would be undertaken through a private finance initiative (PFI). PFI is a way of creating "public–private partnerships" by funding public infrastructure projects with private capital.

     ii.          City street lighting was historically underfunded. The County Council had sought a PFI agreement as it did not have the budget for the upkeep of old expensive street lighting.

   iii.          The County Council was in competition with other authorities for funding.

   iv.          Work was being undertaken to replace 60,000 old lights, but Central Government required losing 10% of these in residential areas when replacing them with new lights.

    v.          Lights were protected in areas used by traffic, but not residential ones. The legal process set the criteria for this, not Balfour Beatty, it was not within their control.

   vi.          Balfour Beatty were in a 25 year maintenance contract for Cambridgeshire lighting.

 vii.          Street light operating times had changed from being on all night; to full power until 21:59, dim 22:00 – 23:59, then off 0:00 – 06:00. This was general policy now for local authorities to get a 46% energy reuse reduction and lower carbon emissions.

viii.          Concerns regarding the previous consultation process had been noted and were not expected to occur in future consultations. It was re-iterated that the restriction on the number of lights, was set out in the legal process, and not by Balfour Beatty.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Street lighting was an on-going issue.

     ii.          The times when lights would operate had changed without City Councillors’ knowledge. They and residents expected lights to be on all night, albeit dimmed 22:00 – 04:00. Requested details on when the change had occurred.

   iii.          Expressed concerns regarding:

·       Street lighting in Trumpington Park&Ride plus Cherry Hinton.

·       Crime levels would rise when lighting was switched off.

·       Residents had difficulty in contacting Balfour Beatty to report issues.

·       Residents’ drives being blocked by contractors during change over from old lights to new.

 

Action Point: Balfour Beatty representatives to liaise with South Area Committee Members post SAC 30/03/15 regarding issues raised in meeting.

 

In response to Members’ questions Mr Baldwin and Mr Cooke said the following:

       i.          There was no correlation between crime levels and hours of darkness. Dimming of lights was a general, but not national trend.

     ii.          Undertook to pass on study details showing there was no correlation between crime levels and hours of darkness.

   iii.          Undertook to find out if city street lighting hours matched, or were different from other areas of the country.

   iv.          Undertook to find out the impact of changes to lighting times on the number of reported accidents.

    v.          The overall number of street lights was being reduced by 10% in-line with the PFI agreement.

   vi.          The County Council made the decision to vary street light operating times, not Balfour Beatty.

 

Action Point: Balfour Beatty representatives and Councillor Crawford to check County Council’s discretion to vary times when street lights can be dimmed or turned off.

 

 vii.          The process for installing street lighting was as follows:

·       Team 1 plant the column.

·       Team 2 wires it up (for power)

 

It was more cost effective to have two separate teams undertaking the two different tasks. For example, only specialist contractors could undertake work on some steel wire frames. There could be some delay in work being undertaken between the two teams as the contractors worked to different timescale to Balfour Beatty.

 

viii.          Cherry Hinton street light columns had been installed in 2013 but not lit up due to undergrowth around the columns. Contractors were unable to undertake tree work. This was the responsibility of the Highways Authority, the City Council and residents.

   ix.          Noted Councillors’ concerns regarding the consultation process and their request for future Balfour Beatty letters to residents to include plans to show which lights would be moved or removed. These should be sent to residents in addition to details being published on the web as people may not be able to access it. The County Council contract with Balfour Beatty required lean (ie limited) consultation costs, but any action that could be undertaken within the project scope (ie resources available) would be done so.

    x.          Balfour Beatty phone lines were staffed 09:00 – 17:00 between Monday and Friday. The intention was to respond to residents within ten working days. Alternatively, contact could be made by letters or through the Balfour Beatty website.

   xi.          Lights could be turned on/off individually, but it was normal for them to be done so in groups.

 

Members of the public asked several questions as set out below.

 

1.       A member of the public asked if the number of street lights could be varied if there was no overall change to the project cost.

 

Mr Baldwin said this sometimes happened in rural areas where parish councils etc took on (budgetary) responsibility for street light maintenance, but was harder to do in urban areas. Councillor Taylor suggested a local highways improvement scheme could be used in urban areas.

2.       A member of the public asked why older model ‘bulb’ street lights were being introduced instead of more efficient LED ones.

 

Mr Baldwin said the cost of LED lights was prohibitive at the time the PFI contract was agreed, but had since fallen. It was not possible to amend the contract now.

 

Councillor Avery said he had experience of PFI contracts and offered to share this with interested Councillors. Changes to PFI contracts needed to be made through a bid for variation. This was a complex process due to the impact on costs.