The report of the Strategic Director, Place, Document “G” provides a progress report on the Smart Street Lighting Project and the work undertaken to date.

Recommended –

1.    That the progress of the Smart Street Lighting Project be acknowledged and further updates be welcomed.

2.    That the Smart Street Lighting Project, and the positive impact for the Keighley constituency and its wards be endorsed.

(Allun Preece – 01274 434019)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place, Document “G” provided a progress report on the Smart Street Lighting Project and the work undertaken to date.

Members were reminded that the Council had approved an invest to save project of £45m to update its current lighting stock, of approximately 56,500 assets, with the aim of significantly reducing energy consumption, maintenance costs and reducing CO² emissions. The project would replace the existing inefficient lighting with energy efficient LED’s whilst retaining most of the existing lighting columns. It had been envisaged that there would be a need for the replacement of approximately 15,600 life expired lighting columns which were identified during a survey of all existing assets (carried out in 2019-20). The new lighting solution would be controlled using a Central Management System (CMS) to control the lighting via a Low power wide area network (LoRaWAN) platform to facilitate Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity for a variety of sensors and devices.

The project was split into two work streams “In Scope” works around 48,300 assets which were the standard column replacements, connections and luminaire replacements on the majority of streets across the district and “Out of Scope” works around 8,200 which were the more challenging assets such as heritage assets, pole mounted and wall mounted luminaires, columns in back streets, overhead cabled columns etc.

It was reported that the “In Scope” works were being undertaken by the external contractor Amey OW Ltd. and the “Out of Scope” works were by a mix of the Councils in house delivery teams for the luminaire replacements and a further contract resource for the remaining column replacements and connections.

Appended to the report were charts outlining load reduction; energy savings and CO2 savings by ward and identifying the smart street lighting works by work type and completed works, by ward, to date.

Following a detailed presentation Members asked a number of questions including if vehicle charging posts were to be attached to lighting columns and queried if those columns had been moved near to the roadside.  It was explained that it had been intended to utilise the columns for electric charging, but it had been found that the cables feeding the lights were not big enough to support that proposal. 

It was questioned if any of the lights would be turned off as opposed to being dimmed at certain times.  It was explained that at the current time there were no proposals for any lighting to be turned off. A report, including the approach to overnight dimming, was to be considered by the Regeneration and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 28 November 2023.

Missing signs on columns was raised and it was confirmed that, contractually, any signs which featured on the old columns must be replaced.

The installation of shields was discussed, and Members were advised old shields would be replaced on the new columns.  The new lighting was at six metres as opposed to the previous five metres, so they cast light differently. Work would be undertaken with residents.  Clip on shades, which could include bespoke shields if required, could also be provided if necessary and if those measures were not effective the lights could be dimmed later in the evenings. 

The removal of column numbers during the replacement period was discussed and it was confirmed that the old numbering sequence had become out of sequence.  It was intended with column replacements that entire streets would be renumbered sequentially.  The CMS system would be able to identify faults accurately and that information would be sent to fault crews.

A Member whilst acknowledging the advantages of the project felt that implementation had been disjointed and questions why sub-contractors had been appointed when the project end date was not imminent.  In response it was clarified that targets for the installation of luminaires had been impacted by the COVID pandemic and supply chain shortages leaving the project behind targets.  To address that issue the installation had been increased from 135 per week to 185.  It was acknowledged that when those works were condensed in one area it could be disruptive.  The contractor was aware of issues and the majority had been rectified.  There were still some issues with open holes in the ground and officers had met with the contractors recently and requested control measures to mitigate those problems.  It was explained that holes should not remain open for more than10 days.  Officers had asked for a track of each stage of installation; they had been provided with a screen tracker developed and would receive more information shortly and had been assured that measures were in place to prevent further issues.    

In response to concerns about the public expectations of the Council; the danger to the public if lights were out and holes open during dark evenings and the reputational damage caused to the Council Members were assured that pressure was being exerted on the contractors and they had been instructed to utilise smaller barriers to prevent the blockage of pavements.

It was questioned if commercial lawyers had been involved in the development of the contract and it was confirmed that a project team, including legal officers, had been involved in the development of the contract and procurement officer meetings were held in house regularly.  The contract had been developed through a contractor led process to prevent any reprisals if the Council had caused any prevention to the project. 

A Member was concerned that she was not aware of the timetable of works in her ward.  She was advised that the information had been provided to ward members and reports had been taken to the Area Committee. The supply delays due to COVID could not be envisaged and that had been the biggest issue encountered.  Whilst the column replacement was the most difficult element assurances were provided that the project was still on target. Accurate progress reports would be uploaded to the Council’s web site shortly. 

It was queried how any issues with the lighting system should be reported and Members were advised to use the existing reporting systems.

A Member raised an issue with contractors cutting hedges which left massive gaps and Council officers being blamed for the damage.  In response it was explained that in advance of installation works inspectors visited to identify access issues.  The Council’s Arboricultural Service was utilised but had outsourced some of the work due to capacity issues. 

An emergency issue in the Ingrow area was reported by a Member who explained that a lighting column which had been dug out and was still lit, had ended up in the road.  An emergency response had been provided and barriers erected. It was agreed to provide the exact location of that incident.

In response it was confirmed that there had been three incidents were evacuation had undermined columns and winds had blown over lighting columns.  Contractors had been asked for incident reports and to implement control measures to prevent any recurrence.

A Member referred to complaints from constituents that the lights were too light but believed that residents did feel more safe and secure.  Assurances were provided that the locations of columns had not changed but that each asset had been designed for individual areas. 

It was questioned if during the project any repairs the responsibility of the contractor and it was confirmed the contractors were responsible for the new lanterns and for 12 months following completion of the project. No holes should be left open for more than10 days and no more than 140 holes should be open at any one time.  If the Council slowed down the project, it could incur penalties. 

A number of failed lights in the Central Ward were reported and it was stated that once repaired failing was recurring.  In response it was confirmed that faults with the luminaires should be dealt with within one week.  If there were issues with the power supply that was reported to Northern PowerGrid and was guaranteed to be fixed within 35 days. 

The source of the lighting columns was questioned with a Member referring to two producers based in the Keighley area.  It was confirmed that the supplier was decided by the contractor but that there were social elements built into the contract which must be adhered to.  It was believed that the columns were sourced from manufacturers based in Nottingham and Sheffield.

The payback period for the project was queried and it was confirmed that this was within 37 years.

A Member believed the lighting seemed brighter but cast light over a smaller area and some areas appeared to be darker.  The position of columns was discussed, and it was questioned if columns in trees would be addressed.  In response Members were advised that the LED lights were mor efficient and designed to cast light where required and to throw light across roads.  Columns should not be within trees and the Member who had raised that issue was asked to identify the location so that measures could be taken.

It was felt that some lighting columns did not fit into the character of their locations and conservation areas. It was explained that work had been undertaken with the conservation officers.  Columns which had been painted black would be re-instated although this would happen at the end of the project.

The sustainability of the replacements was questioned, and it was reported that there was a 20 year lifespan.  In response to questions about less maintenance requiring reduced staffing to repair it was agreed that, in theory, that was the case, however, the maintenance teams did not just deal with streetlights.  The age profile of the existing team had been considered and it could be that naturally occurring vacancies may not be replaced.

The scope to commission additional lighting in the future was questioned and it was explained that the budget which was previously devolved to Area Committee’s had been removed.

The effect of the new lighting on animals was questioned and Members were advised that research had been conducted and considered in the contract.  The lighting provided was a warmer colour which was not harmful to animals and similar to the old-style lighting.  It was difficult to confirm the impact, but research had negated the negativity around the new lighting.  Work had been conducted with bio-diversity officers and it had been confirmed that the new lights did not have the harmful effect on bats which the old system had created.

The Chair complimented the project team on their responsiveness and the savings which had been made.  She requested that Members be informed when the programme of works was uploaded to the Council’s web page and when new reporting systems were in place. 

Lessons learned throughout the project were questioned and Members were advised that a ‘lessons learned’ log had been developed and were being documented.  The inclusion of legal officers in procurement meetings had resulted in the development of a more robust contract. 

Resolved –

1.    That the progress of the Smart Street Lighting Project be acknowledged, and further updates be welcomed.

2.    That the Smart Street Lighting Project, and the positive impact for the Keighley constituency and its wards be endorsed.

To be actioned by Strategic Director, Place

Overview and Scrutiny Area – Regeneration & Environment