Street Lighting Benchmarking Meeting 23/05/05

LoLEG - London Lighting Engineers Group

Notes of meeting held on the 20th Jan 2009, 10:00am - 3:00pm at London Borough of Enfield, Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Silver Street EN1 3XY.

Present: Phil Thress (PT) TfL Andrew Porter (AP) LB Richmond Annette Bowdery (AB) LB Islington Paul Stack (PS) RB Kingston Graham Shoesmith (GS) RB Kingston Andrew Dodkins (AD) LB Enfield Richard Booth (RB) LB Enfield Nick Holstead (NH) LB Southwark Rob Sergeant (RS) Westminster CC John Bowdery (JB) LB Harrow Tim Edwards (TE) LB Hillingdon Brian Elliott (BE) City of London Ash Iqbal (AI) LB Hackney Carl Woodward (CW) LB Hackney Steve Carroll (SC) LB Hackney Trevor Rawson (TJR) LB Hackney

Apologies: Paul Dillon LB Sutton Steve Lain LB Haringey Ian Coombs LB Bromley Bill Neate LB Newham David Kiteley LB Hammersmith and Fulham Gary Noble RB Kensington and Chelsea Ian Goodger LB Hounslow Eddie Henry LB Southwark

1. Introduction & Apologies

a. Introductions made and apologies received as noted above

2. Notes of the last meeting and matters arising

a. NH pointed out that he had been present at the last LoLEG meeting of the 7th October 2008, but had been omitted as being present.

b. The EDF SLA was launched during November 2008, and that it did not contained any of the “robust commitments” expressed by London Councils, LoLEG or TfL. EDF had apparently made reference in their covering letter to these commitments, but Hackney had not seen the covering letter.

c. At the time of the current meeting, Hackney had not signed the SLA and was awaiting their Head of Service to make a decision, but it is likely that they would. d. TJR and SC had attended a meeting with EDF, where the question of who should sign the agreement was raised. EDF intimated that the agreement was largely between itself and the boroughs. However, they were not adverse to London Councils signing on the boroughs’ behalf.

e. Although the majority of the authorities present had not signed the SLA, a number of them had been operating within its guidelines with some success. Those authorities who have (at the time of the meeting) already sign up to the agreement included Westminster, Kingston, Sutton and Hillingdon.

f. TJR attended the regional Technical Liaison Group of the ILE, where he met two of EDF’s Highway Service Managers, John Ford and Graham Mace from Hubs 3 and 4 respectively, who were asked about targets within the SLA and the fact they were not at 100%. After some discussion TJR said that he was positive with the aims of the managers who are working towards 100% on all indicators and not just what’s covered by the SLA.

g. AB raised her concern, stating that she had heard that those authorities who had not signed the SLA would not be invited to comment on any future reviews of the SLA. TJR confirmed this, adding that the next review is to take place in the summer. SC added that he personally would like to see Hackney sign up to the SLA as currently he was unhappy with EDF’s clock stopping policy.

h. TJR informed LoLEG that for those authorities who opted not to sign the SLA, EDF could still forward performance figures. This may suggest that they have met all indicators and it would be for that authority to challenge those figures through Ofgem. SC added that this was stated at a meeting which he and TJR attended.

i. To a comment made from AD about challenging the performance figures put forward by EDF, TJR responded that from past experience he felt that Ofgem would investigate and more than likely take the side of EDF, if no evidence could be provided to the contrary.

j. BE requested an indication of who had and had not signed the SLA before the next meeting, which had since been actioned.

3. Presentation – Lighting PFIs, by LB Croydon/ Lewisham and Hounslow

Postponed to another date as IG was unable to secure the attendance of Hounslow’s Technical Advisor

4. Benchmarking

a) PIs - TJR apologised for the delay in undertaking the definitions of the PIs and hoped to have them completed by the end of the January.

b) Energy cost data - A spreadsheet showing the energy costs of a number of authorities was passed amongst LoLEGs members (See attached for latest spreadsheet). CW pointed to the differing prices obtained by the authorities, highlighting the need for a more unified buying consortium or more aggressive energy procurement by individual authorities.

AI informed LoLEG that he was working on a new tender document of behalf of Hackney as its energy contract comes to an end in September and therefore would encourage any other authority wishing to join LBH as a consortium to achieve greater buying power when procuring energy.

of 5 Notes of the CSS Lighting Group meeting from MT to be circulated along with an energy speculation graph. AB said that her PFI authority was also examining procuring energy through other alternatives and was also looking at whether purchasing as an individual authority or part of a larger PFI group was viable.

TJR put forward Gary Noble’s suggestion that modifications be made to the energy spreadsheet (see spreadsheet attached) to incorporate Contract type: Unmetered or Half Hourly and Electricity Contract: Highways Lighting only, Part of a larger LA and Other Organisation. TE also added that he would like to see Fixed price, Flexible purchase within period and Purchase in advance.

Hackney was being audited on 25th January by EDF and returning with the results in March/April, confirming that they would be allowed a 2.5% tolerance covering 500 units of inventory. They also intended to test 10% for power factor. SC stated that the only authority to have passed was Medway with 1.8%.

TJR said that he would keep LoLEG informed of the results when they arrived.

AB as asked LoLEG whether it would be possible to conduct a survey into the number of client and permanent staff in their respective street lighting teams and what their functions are as well as what scheme work they where doing. This was agreed. AB to send out questionnaire and make information received back available to the group.

c) Any other business There was no other business

5. LoLEG Issues

a. 1. LoTAG Group 2 Meeting - UK Lighting Board; TJR said that David Yeoell gave a presentation on what Westminster council were doing in relation to Street lighting works and wanted to arrange for David Yeoell or Dave Franks to share with LoLEG some of the works currently being undertaken by the council.

2. Trials and innovations; TJR asked if any trials and innovations currently being undertaken could be fed back up to LoTAG and that he was happy for Hackney to carry out the collating of the works going on in the various authorities. TJR to forward spreadsheet to LoLEG members, requesting details of any new projects that are planned or on-going.

3. Lighting policy; TJR also asked LoLEG members whether they had a lighting policy in place, as LoTAG were suggesting that a generic lighting policy and maintenance management plan be compiled. However, TJR’s personal opinion was that a policy for London might not be appropriate from a political stand point.

b. UK Lighting Board – Tim Edwards; TE circulated notes from previous meeting, commenting on Design and Maintenance guidance for local roads, TfL Capital ambitions not sure what amount of lighting exposure will be featured, 12th November 2008 talk to London Boroughs. TE to send through papers to be placed on LoLEG area of website.

c. CSS Lighting Group – Mick Trussler; TA96 looks at the life costing of Street Lighting is published later this year, covering feasibility through to design, maintenance and disposal. TJR to forward MT’s email containing spreadsheets and research, including CSS’s business activity aims and business plans for the current year. In addition, under energy charges there was a group of 23 Welsh authorities who bid through the OGC and bought energy at 9.27 pence, and 12 Scottish authorities bid and bought at 12.6 pence.

Next meeting of the CCS LG was at TfL offices on the 12th Feb. d. DNO Issues – TJR wishes to include at future meetings feedback from the various EDF user groups. He proposed that a representative from each group provide a short report into LoLEG with the aim of getting consistency amongst authorities with information supplied by EDF. This was agreed. e. TfL issues - PT discussed how relationships between TfL and authorities needed to be improved with regular and more open dialogue. He hoped that by the next meeting to have more information to share with LoLEG.

TE raised the issue of boundaries on the highways between TfL and the authorities. PT stated that TfL were aware of the situation but due to the lack of local knowledge, would be working towards a solution with borough contacts and asked the authorities for there patients and assistance. Another valid point raised was whether there were two lots of energy charges being paid by the authority and by TfL.

Hackney’s approach to highway boundary issues was to get an inspector and a TfL rep to walk the boundary and resolve any issues as they go. Hackney was subsequently told that this was what TfL would be planning to do with all the boroughs. f. Lighting PFIs – RB provided an update of the performance of Enfield’s PFI, stating that they were behind in column installations largely due to EDF and late starting. Despite reassurances from EDF that they will be up-to-date in April RB was not convinced.

A concern had been raised previously that the PFI boroughs would acquire all the jointers. TJR had been assured that this would not happen as EDF would train up more jointers, which they had done.

JB said that his authority had received approval at the PRG meeting to proceed with their PFI however they had decided to delay the programme pending a corporate funding review.

AB said Islington’s core investment programme was almost complete, apart from approximately 500 units which must be completed by June 2009. However, EDF has removed Islington from their PFI fast track scheme and this has had an adverse effect on timescales to complete. g. HEA Sector schemes - SC gave an overview of the HEA Sector Scheme training, attended by a number of authorities claiming it a success and recommending other authorities attend. He also advised that authorities sending their officers on the training also need to be HEA registered, as the individuals attending could not be without this happening. In addition authorities need to be ISO9001 registered otherwise they would have to be assessed by the HEA. SC queried the CSCS cards validity as it was similar to the HEA card and Gareth Pritchard confirmed only one was necessary.

SC stated that for the next session to run, a minimum of six officers need to attend, with a maximum of twelve, also required is a venue with computers to match the numbers. He added that anyone opening a column door needed to be HEA trained and have G39 certificate to get full certification.

JB offered Harrow as a possible venue but would confirm with CW at a later date. Other venues offered were Hounslow, Hillingdon and Enfield. Page 4 of 5 Those interested in attending addition HEA training with numbers include:-

Annette Bowdery + 4 Brian Elliot + 2 John Bowdery +1 Tim Edward +1 Richard Booth Paul Stack Rob Sergeant Andrew Porter +2 Steve Carroll +1

h. Trials and Innovations - SC advised that Hackney’s new lighting scheme in Shoreditch Park in collaboration with Shoreditch Park Trust, using 54 RUUD LED street lights was now complete. On inspection, light readings (under each lantern) was 17.5 lux and at 13m spacings ( central between columns) readings taken were 3.5 lux and finally away from the column at 4m forwards 10.5 lux. The feedback was positive and SC invited anyone interested to visit the site. AB commented that two of her officers where in the area and gave positive feedback on the lighting.

SC went on to say that the unit had a cost valuation of £600/unit and would equate to a £65,000 saving on the 54 units in total over a 20 year life span at today’s prices.

PT asked whether anybody has carried out research or was looking into fuel cells as a possible source. Trial sites exist currently in America.

i. AOB – a) Phil Lain has moved from Croydon to Westminster. b) Asset Management LoTAG bid – still no news, TJR to inform when more information available. c) Element 1 asset management bid – again no news. Nine or ten boroughs did not submit bids.

Date of next meeting:

21st April 2009 City of London – 10 a.m. Guildhall, City Marketing Suite 7th July 2009 TBA 6th October 2009 TBA

D:\Docs\2018-04-19\0cfa0928dfc8857523134b8875226c44.doc