Agenda item

With reference to Article 5 of the minute of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee of 15 April 2010, and the background report in relation to the motion by Councillor Graham, the Committee had before it an update on the investigation of floodlighting options for the football pitch at Manor Walk, Middlefield.  

The report advised that two options for floodlighting had been identified, namely:- 

Option A – to light the pitch area from around the perimeter, including power supply, cabinet, timer, underground cabling and eight 8 metre columns with floodlights;  and

Option B – to light the pitch area from the Manor Walk side only, including power supply, timer, underground cabling and two 12 metre columns each with two floodlights.

Option A was estimated to cost £21,245.86 plus VAT and Option B would cost £7,286.56 plus VAT.   It was noted that Option A, while significantly more expensive, would allow for floodlighting to be introduced around the perimeter of the pitch, at a level which would be expected for a permanent all-weather facility.    However, Option B provided lighting from one side only, at a lesser cost, whilst still providing a lighting standard which would be acceptable for the pitch area.   It was also noted that this option would provide a cost effective solution, which could allow the equipment to be reused at some point in the future on an alternative site as and when the current site was developed for housing.    The report advised that local representative groups and services had been consulted on the floodlighting proposal and both options, and that responses received indicated support for the floodlighting as well as a preference for Option B, in light of the fact that the site was likely to be developed in a few years.    It was further noted that a budget had been identified to cover the purchase, installation and the ongoing revenue costs associated with Option B.   However, given the significantly higher cost, a budget to fund Option A had not been identified.   The report advised that Option B could be progressed immediately and that manufacture and delivery of the floodlighting could take approximately ten weeks, with installation of the equipment taking a further two weeks.   Where possible, all efforts would be made to expedite this timescale to provide the facility as soon as possible to allow the young people to have use of the facility during the darker nights ahead.  

The report recommended:-

that the Committee –

(a)       note the two options (A and B) and their attendant financial implications;

(b)       note that while the site is zoned for future residential development, local services and community representatives are in support of the floodlighting proposal as a short-term measure;

(c)        note that Option B would allow for the equipment to be dismantled and reused elsewhere in the event of future residential development;

(d)       note that funding had been identified to fund the installation and annual maintenance and electricity costs associated with Option B;  and

(e)       in light of the above points, approve Option B and instruct officers to progress the installation of the floodlighting.

The Committee resolved:-

(i)         to approve the recommendations contained in the report;  and

(ii)        to thank officers for their work on this matter.