Issue - meetings

To receive a report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport and to consider and endorse, or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member on the criteria for determining community requests for changes to current neighbourhood lighting

Roger Wilkin, Interim Director of Highways, Transportation and Waste, introduced the report which asked the Committee to consider and endorse or make recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on the criteria for determining community requests for changes to current neighbourhood lighting.

In response to comments made and questions raised by members, the following further information was provided by officers:

      i.        Consultation would be conducted more transparently in the future.

    ii.        Paragraph 6.1 of the report was intended to avoid situations whereby part-night lighting was reversed when a conversion to LED was imminent. This would avoid unnecessary cost and two sets of engineering works in close proximity.

   iii.        That there was a key point liaison with Kent Police.

Mr Caller welcomed the anticipated greater flexibility of the revised review process as detailed in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.6 of the report and proposed:

1.    That the following be added to section 4 as paragraph 4.7; Street lights that are converted to LED under a maintenance or replacement programme of works will be returned to AN (all-night) operation pending the outcome of the Post-LED consultation process.

2.    That the clear process set out in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 for dealing with requests for AN operation be endorsed.

3.    That paragraph 6.1 be amended to read:

Unless a site meets the criteria as set out in section 4 of this report, other changes should not be implemented until the installation of the new LED’s with Accompanying Central Management System (CMS) has been completed.

In regards to Mr Caller’s first proposal to section 4, concerns were expressed that, were it to be included in the report, KCC was pre-empting the result of the consultation and equality impact assessment process.

Mr Caller’s recommendation 1 was put to the vote;

Lost, 9 votes to 5.

Mr Caller’s recommendation 2 was put to the vote;

Carried, 12 votes to 2.

Mr Caller withdrew recommendation 3 and this was not put to the vote.

Dr Eddy proposed and Mr Bowles seconded that the committee welcomes the anticipated greater flexibility of the revised review process as detailed under 4.1 to 4.6 of the report.

It was RESOLVED that the proposed decision be endorsed and the clear process set out in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 for dealing with requests for AN operation be noted.