Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Decision approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Purpose: The report seeks Cabinet approval to implement adaptive lighting policy that allows the Council to adapt lighting levels to minimise the amount of energy used whilst also providing sufficient light across the borough’s Public Highway Network.   The policy is being proposed following a trial carried out between February and May 2024, of several sites across the borough. The proposal will allow for a reduction in energy consumption where the policy is implemented. The added benefit would be that the Councils Carbon Footprint would also be reduced, as the amount of energy consumption goes down.  

Content: Decision   For the reasons set out in the report and its appendices Cabinet RESOLVED to Agree to:   i)  Approve the proposed Adaptive Lighting Policy, as set out in Appendix A. ii)  Grant delegated authority to the Corporate Director of Environment & Sustainable Transport, in consultation with the Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Environment, Sustainable Transport, Children Services and Education to make alterations to the policy, as required to maintain the highways to an acceptable standard, in line with Para 4.16 and 4.17.   Alternatives Considered   a)  The first alternative is to do nothing, leaving the current lighting levels as they are, lighting areas to a different specification that is outlined in BS 5489. This would mean the Council has failed in its goal in reducing its energy consumption and its carbon footprint. It is expected that within the next year, energy unit rates 11 will reduce further, but this reduction is not likely to be sufficient to meet the needs of the budget setting for 2024/25, or ongoing savings targets. b)  The Council could consider whether to adapt light levels further from what has been proposed. This would potentially fall outside of the current guidance and best practice. This could raise a potential risk to road users during peak hours, that is not warranted. There is also a limitation on the lanterns adaptability, which allows the maximum amount it can be adjusted without affecting its performance. Although the proposed policy does not go as far as the limitations, increasing it further may do so. c)  The Council could consider trimming the lighting illumination times. Trimming is reducing the operating hours of the lighting, so that lights go on and off when it’s darker (typically to come on an hour later and go off an hour earlier). However, only minimum energy and carbon savings are achieved, and the option is not cost effective, unless combined with an additional option. This also raises the potential higher risk to road users during peak hours during the shorter days of winter. d)  The Council could also consider completely switching off street lighting columns between certain periods, such as midnight to 5am. This is classed as part nigh lighting, as has been adopted by several County Councils in rural areas. However, switching off of street lights requires a robust independent risk assessment for each lighting column. This risk assessment process will incur significant revenue costs. Also, switching off is more noticeable and visible for residents, which may lead to fears for safety and issues with anti-social behaviour and traffic safety. Part night lighting is also not generally considered appropriate for densely populated London Boroughs. e)  All of options above have been discounted as they do require additional funding to implement and maintain, and are not considered appropriate for urban areas. It is worth noting that there are highway authorities across the country that have implemented some of the measures above. Some of these in the south east of England include, Surrey and Essex, who operate part nigh lighting, on some of their networks.