Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Project Manager, KCC Highways, Transportation and Waste.

The Chairman advised that a representation from the Dover Society had been circulated to Members by e-mail. 

The Street Light Asset Manager (SLAM) introduced the report which updated Members on the Safe and Sensible Street Lighting project.   The Board had previously considered a report at its meeting held on 10 December 2015.  At that meeting Members had raised concerns regarding the consultation on LED lighting which had concluded in November 2015.  Those concerns had been raised with the KCC Cabinet Member, and it was confirmed that the autumn consultation had not related to the trial switch-off sites.   The purpose of this report was to seek Members’ views and any further information that might influence the recommendation that would go to the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee in July 2016.   In response to Councillor S C Manion, it was clarified that the costings given in the report were for LED lights.

Councillor T A Bond stated that around 10,000 houses were due to be built in Whitfield and surrounding areas which meant that Whitfield Hill would be heavily used in the coming months and years.   KCC had spent more than £2,000 on the consultation which was what would be saved each year by switching off these lights.  He was of the view that the lights should remain.  Councillor G Lymer urged KCC to retain the lights.  There had been fatal and serious injury accidents on Whitfield Hill during the last 5 to 10 years.  The route was frequently used by night-shift workers at the industrial zone.  He expressed concerns that the lorry escape route was on the bend next to the footpath.  With no lighting on this bend, it was an accident waiting to happen.   When viewed against the cost of each road fatality at £1 million, the minimal savings that would be achieved by switching off the lights were simply not worth it. 

In response to Councillor G Cowan, the SLAM confirmed that reflective markers would be installed.  Councillor Cowan stated that he could not support the proposal which would put people’s lives at risk and save only £2,000 per annum over 15 years.     

In respect of the A257 Ash By-Pass, Councillor S S Chandler commented that lighting made no difference to what was a bad junction.   However, Councillor Cowan disagreed, arguing that it was not worth removing columns to save such small amounts of money, particularly when LED replacements would offer further savings in the long term.   Councillor M R Eddy agreed, stating that lights were most definitely needed at the junction if it were used by agricultural workers who were unfamiliar with the roads and/or conditions.

Councillor Bond and Councillor P Walker commented that it made no sense to keep the lights off at Betteshanger Road when the district was trying to attract investment for growth and regeneration.  Councillor S C Manion disagreed, stating that there was no sense in keeping the lights on while the road was not in use.  Councillor Lymer supported the proposal, arguing that it was an unused road and taxpayers’ money should be saved where possible.  Councillor Cowan believed the columns should be fitted with LED lights and switched on immediately.  Councillor Eddy concurred, pointing out that it would cost only around £1,200 to switch all of the lights back on. 

Councillor Cowan commented that he could not accept lights being switched off in the built-up area at Farthingloe.  He corrected comments attributed to him in the report, advising that it was houses that had been burgled and not the farm shop.  In his view, there were sixteen columns in total that were crucial and should be switched back on, these being all the columns from the 40mph zone to columns GAP 83 and 82.  He was not asking for all the lights to be switched back on and, indeed, was content for those columns heading towards Capel to be removed.  Councillor Lymer agreed but argued that all the lights should be retained due to the large development at Farthingloe.  

Councillor Eddy reminded Members that the Campaign to Protect Rural England was litigating against Dover District Council to try to prevent the Farthingloe development.  However, should the development go ahead, the columns would need to be re-instated.   Due to measures on the A20, Folkestone Road was currently being heavily used by traffic entering and exiting the town.  In his view all the columns should be retained.   Several Members agreed, arguing that it would be nonsensical to remove all the columns, knowing that they might have to be reinstated for the Farthingloe development which would see over 500 houses built.  

The SLAM advised that it cost £1,500 to install a new column.  She would report Members’ views to the Cabinet Member.  However, there was likely to be a cost in leaving the columns in place as they would still require maintenance.   This matter would be investigated with UK Power Networks.

Councillor S C Manion, with the support of five other Members present, requested that voting on the Whitfield and Farthingloe proposals be recorded in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.4.

RESOLVED: That it be recommended to the KCC Cabinet Member:

(a)  That the street lights on Whitfield Hill be retained and lighting re-instigated for the safety of road users. 

(b)  That the street lights on the A257 Ash By-Pass be retained.

(c)  That the lights on Betteshanger Road be switched on immediately and kept on permanently.

(d)  That 22 lights (the 6 referred to in the report recommendation plus a further 16 from the 40mph zone to GAPs 82 and 83) at  Farthingloe be switched back on immediately and converted to LED in due course. 

(e)  That all other columns at Farthingloe be retained and switched off until such time as the Farthingloe development is constructed.   Reflective strips should be fitted to these columns.

(Councillors T A Bond, S S Chandler, N J Collor, G Cowan, D G Cronk, M R Eddy, G Lymer, S C Manion, M J Ovenden, D A Sargent and P Walker voted for the motions on proposals relating to Whitfield Hill and Farthingloe.   There were no votes against the motions or abstentions.)