Agenda item

3.1       Martin O’Brien (Asset Management Planning Manager) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·           In 2015 a report had been presented to the Committee which presented a proposal for variable street lighting.

·           In November 2015 a pilot had been conducted where in every electoral ward the street lights of three streets had been dimmed. No feedback had been received from residents following this pilot. A similar pilot had been conducted in Croydon, where no feedback had been received either.

3.2 Martin O’Brien answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           Every street light in the borough could be operated independently, so the dimming of street lights could be implemented flexibly. The strength of an individual street light could be adjusted by 1% at a time. Street lights on junctions were one the locations were an exemption to overall policy of dimming lights would likely be applied to ensure road safety.

·           There was no hard evidence available that the dimming of street lights had led to impacts on crime or road safety. However its impact on feelings of safety may be different.

·           The figure of 20% mentioned in the report as the maximum number of street lights that could be exempt from the overall policy would not be fixed target but an estimation of the number of exemptions and therefore of the costs savings that the policy would achieve.

·           Councillors had not all been notified about the trial taking place, partly to avoid influencing the results but an email had been sent to the relevant Cabinet Members and the Chair of this Committee to notify them.

3.3 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·           Some residents may have noticed and found it difficult that streets had become darker but not enough to contact the Council. The fact that no feedback had been received did not necessarily indicate that people felt neutral or positive about the change.

·           The trail seemed to have taken place in individual streets instead of intersecting ones. If lights were dimmed in intersecting streets than this may lead to a cumulative impact on visibility. It would be good it this was tested before implementation across the borough.

·           The Committee welcomed the opportunity for the Council to make a budget saving in this area as well reducing light pollution.

·           The Committee felt that a variable street lighting policy should be applied sensitively, with recognition of the circumstances of the specific streets and lights, and not be implemented to achieve a cost saving at all costs.

3.4 RESOLVED: That the report be noted, and that the following views of the Committee be referred to Mayor and Cabinet:

The Committee commented that although a trial of dimmed lights had taken place, the streets in this trial did not seem to intersect. This meant that any cumulative impact of light dimming in a large number of intersecting streets at the same time could not be adequately assessed, although this would probably lead to darker streets. The Committee therefore recommended that an additional trial take place of the dimming of street lights in one area of roughly the size of a polling district and that the results of this trial should be reported to Mayor and Cabinet when considering whether the Council should adopt a variable lighting policy.  

The Committee felt that although a saving should be welcomed, the implementation of the policy to dim street lights in the borough should be driven by the particular circumstances of each street, and these should not be overshadowed by financial considerations.

The Committee felt that Members’ extensive knowledge of their wards could be a useful asset to officers when implementing a variable lighting policy. Therefore, if a variable lighting policy was adopted, Members should be offered the opportunity to highlight any streets where dimming of lights may create particular concerns.