Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

This report provides an overview on the progress of the Surrey Lighting Services (a consortium of Skanska Infrastructure Services and John Laing Investments) contract after the first 3 years of operation both in terms of the day-to-day maintenance/fault identification and repair and the 5-year column replacement programme.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses: Paul Wheadon, Commercial and Performance Team Manager

Simon Woodford, Skanska

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Committee was provided with a progress report of the Street Lighting PFI Contract. Officers informed the Committee that the Street Light replacement programme was anticipated to finish 8-10 months earlier than originally scheduled, with 60,000 columns having been replaced. Officers highlighted a few key areas: the replacement of cast iron lights had not been covered in the contract, and there were occasions when privately owned roads had identified inventory errors. It was also highlighted that the majority of residential roads had now had the street lights replaced.

2.    Officers commented that the performance of this contract was considered good when compared to similar local authorities. The Committee was informed that the processes in identifying faults had made significant improvements, with regular light scouting being undertaken. It was the case that when the fault lay with the electrical network it could prove difficult to manage, as ownership lay with the Designated Network Operator (DNO), who had a 30 day target to carry out repairs. However, the view was expressed that Skanska had put in place a process whereby they communicated on a weekly basis with DNOs about outstanding repairs, as well as a post work inspection being undertaken. As a consequence, this had improved performance and shortened the time in which the repairs were being undertaken.

3.    The Chairman asked the Commercial and Performance Team Manager to comment on what key elements of learning from the contract and its management would be taken forward. Officers commented that being co-located in the same office had facilitated better joint-working. Highlighted in this instance was the management of conservation areas. It was commented that, despite the contractual risk lying with the Council, a joint approach had been taken to finding an appropriate solution to issues raised by conservation areas. Officers also identified that they were regularly monitoring performance, but doing so in a transparent and positive manner.

4.    Members raised concerns that communication with residents had sometimes been misleading. The view was expressed that although communication was good in general, it often failed to identify exemptions within the street lighting replacement program to residents. Officers commented that they had reviewed communications recently, as an issue had arisen regarding confusion over the lights being tested after installation. The letter sent to residents now included a more detailed explanation of what happens to test the lights post installation. Officers also confirmed that a different letter was being used to offer additional design options to private residential roads.

5.    The Committee raised a question regarding the willingness of District & Borough councils to pay additional costs where specific designs had been requested. Officers commented that the designs had been identified in advance and this had helped in such cases. In most instances it had been the case that lights were able to be replaced on a like-for-like basis, but there had been a few occasions where a new design had been requested as part of a civic improvement plan.

6.    The Committee asked officers to comment on the timescale between a light column being taken down and a new one being installed. It was explained that the 6 day response target was used for the implementation of a repair, with a further 10 days for the installation of a new column. The removal of the old column was dependent on the DNO disconnecting it from the network. However, officers indicated that Skanska’s contractors carried out the removal of the damaged column at the same time as the disconnection. It was confirmed that approximately 70% of these were like for like replacements, and the remainder were matched as closely as possible to existing designs.

7.    A question was raised regarding the seven designs available to residents and how these choices had been communicated to them. Officers confirmed that the seven designs had been presented to Local Committees for consideration.

8.    Members raised a question as to where the funding for additional lights was identified. It was confirmed that this was being managed through Local Committees, or members’ individual allocations.

9.    One Member expressed concern regarding the absence of communication to local members during a major town improvement work, in particular when lights had been installed due to regulatory necessity. It was acknowledged by officers that this was still an area requiring improvement.

10.  The Committee asked how the cost of new lighting was recouped in the case of new developments, and whether this was covered under the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Officers commented that this levy was normally applied to the developer through the development control team. It was confirmed that this levy also included an allowance for future maintenance of lighting. Officers agreed to clarify the relationship to street lighting funding and monies received through CIL.

11.  The Chairman summarised the agenda item by commenting that there had been significant achievements made in the preceding 3 years. However, it was also highlighted that there was a need to improve communication to both residents and Members in the future.  

Recommendations:

None.

Actions/further information to be provided:

Officers to clarify the position on street lighting funding in relation to CIL.

Committee Next Steps:

None.