The Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee met on Thursday, 23 April 2026, to discuss the council's gully cleaning policy and street lighting column structural surveys. The committee reviewed the effectiveness of the new gully cleaning regime, which has shifted from a reactive to a planned preventative maintenance approach, and discussed concerns raised by councillors and residents regarding the clarity and responsiveness of the service. They also examined the council's strategy for managing its aging street lighting column stock, including the prioritisation of replacements and the impact on community safety.

Gully Cleaning Policy

The committee reviewed the council's revised gully cleansing regime, which was approved by Cabinet in January 2025. This new approach aims to move from a predominantly reactive service to a planned preventative maintenance regime, with a two-year intensive programme to cleanse all highway gully assets. This has led to a significant reduction in reactive cleansing costs, with investment increasing in planned cyclic cleansing.

However, concerns were raised by councillors regarding the lack of specific cleansing dates provided to residents and the perceived lack of transparency. Councillor Paul Stubbins highlighted that an 86% reduction in reactive cleaning costs seemed severe and suggested that the criteria for reactive cleans might be too strict, leading to issues such as continuous water streaming down streets and the risk of ice formation in winter not being adequately addressed. Councillor David Whipp echoed these concerns, particularly regarding the criteria for reactive cleans and the need for clearer communication.

Kirsty Williams, Interim Head of Service Highways Operations and Design, acknowledged these concerns, stating that the council was reflecting on the feedback and refining the criteria. She noted that while the preventative approach is designed to reduce problems long-term, there are short-term frustrations during the transition. The council is collecting data to inform a new five-year cyclic approach and plans to consult with councillors and parish and town councils.

Several recommendations were put forward:

• Supplementary Guidance: The committee recommended that supplementary guidance be developed to expand upon the existing criteria for gully cleansing, particularly to address situations where the criteria might be too restrictive. This guidance should be shared with all councillors to ensure a better understanding of the underlying criteria.
• Communication: A recommendation was made to ask the Cabinet to review how communications are managed when residents report blocked gullies, ensuring that the messages received reflect the reality of the timescale for the problem being addressed. This aims to reduce duplicate reporting and manage resident expectations.
• Increased Funding for Drainage Works: Councillor John R Singleton JP proposed a recommendation to request Cabinet to increase the funding available for drainage works to address the backlog, estimated at over £7 million, and to mitigate the consequent damage to carriageways.
• Pursue Funding for M65 Drainage: Councillor Singleton also proposed that the committee ask the Cabinet to urgently pursue structures funding for the drainage work on the county section of the M65, highlighting a significant £15 million bill for this work.

Street Lighting Column Routine Structural Surveys

The committee also reviewed the council's approach to managing its street lighting column stock, which includes approximately 176,000 streetlights. The report highlighted that a significant number of these columns are aged 40 years or older, with the current condition of the stock considered POOR .

Paul Binks, Highways Asset Manager, explained that the council uses Guidance Note 22 (GN22) to assess the risk associated with older columns. While the number of columns over 40 years old has seen a slight reduction, the council is still densely lit compared to other authorities, and the cost of replacing all aging columns is substantial.

Concerns were raised by councillors regarding the impact of removing lighting columns on community safety and the perception of safety, particularly for vulnerable groups. Councillor David Whipp highlighted that people's feeling of safety is significantly affected by public lighting. Councillor Joel Michael Tetlow noted instances where single lighting columns on country lanes or at the end of estates had been removed, leaving residents feeling unsafe.

The committee discussed the budget for column replacement, with £3.5 million allocated for column replacement in 2026/27, of which £2.75 million is for planned bulk changes and £0.75 million for risk-based testing and replacement. However, it was acknowledged that this funding is insufficient to replace all columns recommended for removal, leading to 295 columns already removed and not replaced.

Several recommendations were put forward:

• Notification Process for Column Removal: Councillor Tetlow proposed a recommendation for a notification process to inform local councillors when a street lighting column is removed and not immediately replaced. This would allow councillors to communicate with residents about the reason for removal and the likely replacement timeframe.
• Inclusion of Local Police in Notification: Councillor Paul Stubbins suggested expanding this notification process to include local police, in addition to councillors, to provide a more comprehensive partnership approach to assessing the need for lighting in areas where columns are removed.
• Third Priority for Replacement: Councillor Stubbins also proposed adding a third priority to the replacement criteria: locations where their removal could significantly reduce actual or perceived personal safety, particularly for vulnerable or protected groups.
• Increased Funding for Street Lighting: Councillor John R Singleton JP and others emphasised the significant gap in funding for street lighting replacement and recommended that the Cabinet Member should consider increasing the budget allocation for street lighting.
• Repair and Strengthening of Columns: Councillor Tetlow raised the possibility of exploring options for repairing or strengthening existing concrete or metal columns, rather than solely relying on replacement, as a potential cost-saving measure.

Paul Binks stated that he would discuss the possibility of repairing and strengthening columns with operations engineers and would include this in the response to the committee. He also committed to talking to the council's community safety team to see if they had advice on how to address the community safety aspects of lighting column removal.

Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2025/26

The committee noted the work programme for 2025/26, which includes planned reviews of various council services. An in-year request to review street lighting structural surveys was added to the work programme, with a report to be presented at the next meeting. The committee also discussed the timing of future meetings, with a general expectation of meetings running from 10:00 am to 12:30 pm.