Residents' Association Forum

Please see the update here: http://residents-association.com/news/streetlights.php

The choices may not be to everyone's taste but they are tightly constrained.  Your views?

Hmmm.... it's a difficult one, isn't it.  I'm very glad that the low pressure sodium orange lights are being replaced, but it does seem pretty short termist to replace them with anything inferior, given that the design life of a street lamp is about 25 years or so.  That's a long time to regret the wrong choice.

How much extra would be needed in total for proper heritage ones?  Would it be possible to have a few in the most 'sensitive' areas at least?  I'd be happy to make a small donation to the fund to get some decent ones on Giggs Hill Green.

As for the swan neck variety, they remind me of triffids.    They are a break from the norm though, and could be a reasonable compromise.  The other standard varieties look far too 'urban' for my liking.

Hmmm...
So, in a conservation area, residents must bear the cost of maintaining/upgrading their own properties in keeping with the conservation requirements. Yet councils do not have the same responsibility for their property and want it pushed onto residents instead. At least, that's how it seems to me.

I would not be allowed to double glaze my listed house regardless of environmental or cost factors. So the council should not be allowed to do the same with the street lamps.

A shame there is no picture of the heritage lamps but, assuming they are more fitting, then it should be that or nothing, in my view. The swan necked ones still look modern and out of keeping to me.

It is a shame we can't see the 'heritage' version and one does wonder as usual how they arrive at these figures (an extra £1000 to install).

Long Ditton residents did not get the option without a fight it seems.

(http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2093809_long_ditton_residents_in_street_light_protest)

I am afraid that this is another example of something (the conservation aspect) that the council / light manufacturers do not appear to have thought through first.  Central government (Labour, as it happens) made funds available on the energy-saving ticket.  Contractors were engaged, installations started.  Paperwork ping-pong began between SCC and EBC - I understand that EBC's heritage people took a strong line, but Surrey said that Elmbridge and not Surrey would have to bear the expense.  Elmbridge presumably think that they cannot afford to fund heritage-quality lamps for all the conservation areas.  The fact that they have contributed several hundred thousand pounds towards lighting for newer schemes in Cobham and Walton (I am sure that will have nothing to do with political pork-barrels) is a separate matter.  Elmbridge's rulers do not appear ready to draw on either reserves, which are something like £17million, or particular funds such as the S106 monies from developers (towards infrastructure) or the money set aside by the Cabinet  for local improvement schemes, which at the last time I looked remained largely unspent.

An apparent stalemate having been reached between the councils, and with contractors pressing ahead with a schedule, time is now running out and it seems that residents are being held over a barrel. 

Personally I do not find the standard or the cheap swan-necked designs attractive and Rhodrich's characterisation of them as 'triffids' will I'm sure be resonant with other residents.  However, practicalities must intrude:

- the smaller lamp heads have caused problems when installed in some other locations, as they spill light around - residents have found their bedrooms illuminated etc.  The larger lamp-heads, it appears, with a slightly different light-source I think, are said to provide better baffling and control.

- the chances of getting funding at £1000 per lamp post for all posts in the three conservation areas from residents or other sources  in the time available are minimal, I think; while the prospects of raising £150 per post are rather better (at the time of writing, the question of whether Elmbridge/Surrey might provide funding in conservation areas remains unresolved - but the prospects are not rosy)

- time and designs are limited.

We must therefore make the best of a bad job, while noting for future reference the attitude of the councils' ruling bodies.  Two questions: 

(1) Are the swan-necked variants better or worse than the standard, insect-like, eye-on-antenna designs that will be installed faute de mieux?

(2) If so, are all the residents in an area prepared to pay for them out of pocket?

The fact that this has been left to the summer season doesn't help.  It is only because of objections, one or two petitions elsewhere and the efforts of our councillor that we have a choice at all, at this late stage.

(Frankly, I think the aspect even of the swan-necked version is so grim that I am sure in an hundred years they will be regarded with great affection, and our successors will defend them against change.  But it is Hobson's choice that we have)

I'm sorry, but as a point of principle I would not be prepared to make any personal payment towards either type of streetlamp.

Either this is a conservation area or it isn't. If it is, then the council (whichever) is obliged to provide a suitable type of streetlighting in line wth conservation requirements. If it isn't, then the rest of us should also be freed of our 'conservation area' obligations (not that I would like to see that happen.)

Are EBC's heritage people only answerable to the council (thus allowing the council to flout whatever rules it likes) or is there a wider/national conservation body overseeing them who could also have some sway?

Two quotes from the Conservation area leaflet from EBC available here: http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=2079

Designation as a conservation area gives statutory recognition and protection to such areas. Whilst recognising the need for change and acknowledging that historic areas should not stagnate, their designation places a duty upon the Council to ensure that their character and appearance are protected and that the design of any new development that does go ahead makes a positive contribution to such areas.

The designation of a conservation area imposes on the Council a duty not only to preserve its character, but also to identify positive actions to
enhance the appearance of the particular area.

English Heritage is the official conservation authority.   They should be formally and speedily notified about the proposed lighting in TD conservation area - which they have placed in their At Risk category, together with several others in Elmbridge.   I think the council is obliged to respond to English Heritage's advice.

Could we see an image of the 'conservation' lamps ? 

Do we know why the council is reluctant to draw on reserves ?

I guess the big stumbling block is that this is all being done through a PFI agreement. Therefore the contractors are quite within their rights to charge what they like for non-spec items. However, such problems should have been considered by whichever MBA graduates/ genii wrote and approved the original tender documents back in 2008 (or earlier).

Following a further conversation with Peter:

(a) The situation with regard to conservation areas is still 'under discussion' and he has very recently - yesterday night - learned that there might be some money retained for upgraded posts/lamps in those areas.  How much that would be per lamp-post throughout the county is unclear.  (The conservation areas are apparently being left till last, partly because these things which should have been thought through earlier, remain to be resolved).  So whether and to what extent residents in conservation areas may have to fork out is unclear.

(b)  The 'heritage quality' lamps (£1000 upgrade) are shown at the bottom of the pdf file downloadable from our page above - for ease of finding, the fle is here: http://residents-association.com/pdfs/new_streetlamps.pdf  ((Sorry - I had uploaded the file that had just the standard patterns - now replaced))  Note that it is not clear whether the (rather nice) quality lamp heads shown are the ones that would actually be fitted, or whether the 'heritage' posts would be fitted with the rather more ungainly heads that house the smart technology in the other variants.  Peter will ask.

Latest likely time for actual installation in conservation areas is said informally to be from October.

The matter wants close watching.

Have to????

Options A, B and C are all much better, but sticking the 'smart' heads on them would rather defeat the object, as it is the heads that are the out-of-character part.

The whole thing has the potential to be another 'award-winning' messup (at least as far as our heritage is concerned).

For yes, Surrey have already announced they have won one award for this programme, and were in line for another: http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/Surrey+streetlighting+scheme+in+line+for+second+national+award?opendocument

Indeed, as one of you remarked earlier, they should be in line for the Awards award for award-winning award winners.

Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,

Section 71 of the act requires LPAs to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas. There is also a duty to consult the public on the proposals.

Section 72 of the act requires that LPAs pay special attention in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This means that they must take account of this in the adoption of planning and council policies, development control decisions, enforcement and in exercising their highway powers.

Grants for repair and maintenance: These can take the form of discretionary grants from local planning authorities under sections 57 and 58 of the act and public funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund through a Townscape Heritage Initiative Scheme or Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas from English Heritage. Such schemes and their precursors have taken a comprehensive approach, not only repairing historic buildings but funding improvements to the public realm including new street lighting and furniture. In the past ten years English Heritage has contributed some £60 million.


MacCullagh, R. (2009), 'Conservation Areas', The Building Conservation Directory, Cathedral Communications. (http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/conservareas09/conservareas09.htm)

For TD's two conservation areas the proposals were considered and formulated by Elmbridge & English Heritage consultants  in 2008 during the CHIP project. http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/heritage/chip.htm

In which quite a few of us gave up time to help: http://residents-association.com/news/chip.php

The result was a good report but I questioned at the time the very weak enforcement language with repetitive use of "will seek to .." "will try to..."  rather than "will".  My questioning was brushed aside.  The recommendations with the seek-to's and try-to's are here: http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Planning/ThamesDittonAppraisalpart2.pdf  The part relevant to highways reads:

"The Council will seek to work with their partners at Surrey County Council as the highway authority to  try to  ensure that any new highway works will bring about environmental improvements to the conservation areas.  The Council will  recommend  that all new street works are in accordance with English heritage Guidance Streets for All."


I am sure that the process absorbs a great deal of paid time and overhead as well as the free time of us who volunteer to help it; but its real worth along with that of the council departments concerned will be measured at times like these.

Weston Green has yet to be re-Chipped

Do you know if the Triffid lights are available in all heights?   The ones on Giggs Hill Road/ Watts Road appear to be the 8m columns, and I'm not sure that in retrospect they would look right at all at this sort of height.   I guess there wouldn't be a possibility of getting the column heights reduced to something less 'industrial'?  I can understand the need for this sort of height column on the Portsmouth Road and Hampton Court Way, but as for the rest of Thames Ditton, I'm not so sure.

Whatever's done though, anything has to be better than the concrete column low pressure sodium monstrosities that we have at the moment, which light up my bedroom with a sinister orange glow.  I'll be very glad to see the back of them.

On my way to work today, I noted the wonderful gas lamps (yes - real gas lamps!)  that they still have in Green Park, and the 'Heritage' street lamps all over Westminster (that look like Option A's and Option C's).  Such a shame that we couldn't have similar gas lamps (or at least option B's) in on the greens and in the centre of the village, with option A's or C's on the main roads...... 

Well, while the question of lights in the conservation areas 'remains unresolved' we shall still be batting hard for decent ones, while preparing for inferior options, so let's hope for the best - late news that SCC have retained some funds, and pressures on both councils, may yet yield results.

Meanwhile Peter has established directly with officials that the 'heritage quality' lights as shown in the catalogue do indeed come with the right technology, so that residual question is cleared up:  " The alternative lighting equipment options all come with the lantern shown, this lantern will be pre wired with the leaf node technology"

Further digging: I am obliged to Peter for this: The Elmbridge Cabinet consideration of the street lighting issue (Cabinet, 30 March) is for download here:
http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Committees/SCCs%20Street%20Lighting%20Replacement%20Prog%20-%20CBNT%20-%20300.pdf

Extracts:

• Recommendations
  £30,000 made available from Elmbridge Civic Improvement Fund for 'enhanced street lighting' to be provided in each of  the district centres of Cobham, East Molesey, Hersham and Weybridge

• SCC 'be asked' to adopt a more environmentally sympathetic attitude to the replacement of historic street lighting within conservation areas with non-standard apparatus, potentially funded from section 106 tariff funding secured by the county council

• From report:
  lighting columns will be replaced one for one using modern style columns and more efficient lights [[ of the standard form ]]

• Districts can choose from six further design options .... upgrades cost from £732 to £2,270 depending on design and column height.

• County Council has confirmed that within Conservation Areas it intends to replace existing columns with a standard column and lantern

• in most conservation areas swan-necked lights have been highlighted during appraisals as adding to the special historic character

• SCC have identified only three columns in the whole borough as having historic quality and merit

• Despite discussions county officials intend to replace them with the standard design and have allocated no funds to restore or replicate these columns

• No district has opted to fund the upgrades

The council anticipates adverse public reaction if existing columns in conservation areas are replaced with the standard lights.  You may agree that it is time the prediction came true.

That's good - 'modern' smart heads on heritage poles would be a harsh conjunction!  Perhaps a vote on options A, B or C in the link below? 

http://residents-association.com/pdfs/new_streetlamps.pdf

It would be worth asking English Heritage if they would provide funding for the conservation area lighting  - and EH is a statutory consultee for councils.

The suggestion about English Heritage noted.  One problem of course is that this is a borough-wide matter.  I think that any kind of 'vote' on 'heritage-quality' fittings would be premature, fruitless, and likely to provoke unnecessary discord  unless funds were secured first, and the amounts known (and best not limited to those who get their news electronically here).  Moreover, some roads/areas may be better suited to one style (e.g. Church walk - late Victorian or early Edwardian), others to a different style.  If funds were forthcoming, it would be better to leave the official heritage people to make those decisions.

I have been walking the conservation areas to look critically at the existing lamp posts and sort out my own thinking.   They are a complete hotchpotch, many are ugly, and most are in a shocking state.  My conclusions are that

- their replacement with the new standard lamps would be little worse, but would simply replace one visual aspect of low merit  with another (that should work better)
- their replacement with the swan-necked triffid version would be less bad, indeed an overall improvement over the current situation, and rather that by far than the standard version; but
- this is an opportunity lost to fulfil the intentions of the conservation area appraisal by installing heritage quality posts and lanterns and the two councils are culpable.
- It is totally objectionable to install the standard versions in the conservation areas unless residents stump up for the swan-necked variants, especially while Elmbridge in particular is sitting on very large reserves of taxpayers' money, that are depreciating in real value daily.  As one of those taxpayers, I would like to see some of that money  invested in hard infrastructure.

What are our borough councillors doing about this?  It looks urgent and important for the village.

I think it would be helpful if, as well as emailing Peter Hickman,  everyone who is concerned by this matter contacted them by email or other means to express and justify your concern: it will strengthen their hand in dealing with officials and with counterparts in other wards. 

The worst thing is to allow things to proceed by default because officials, or other councillors, can turn around and say: "Oh - but nobody seemed to mind."  Or to let the all-too-familiar bureaucratic ping-pong between the two councils be used as a pretext for not taking hard decisions.  It is only a matter of some ten weeks before contractors will go ahead with the installations (October - but they will need to order the posts and lanterns first). 

And it's the summer season - with all that this implies.  Normally, developers try to get objectionable things through while we aren't looking.  This time, it seems to be the councils.

I was under the impression from the 'New Lamps for Old' page on this website that this forum was being used to gather opinion that would then be passed on to Peter etc. Is that not the case? Are we all supposed to email as well?

I have to say working lights would be a bonus! Ash Path is unusable at night. So far we have waited 4 months for light bulbs to be changed.

The forum is one of the means to consult residents and for residents to air their views where all can see them, but emails can be helpful, add weight more directly, and can be used by the councillors to bolster the case. 

See latest update here: http://residents-association.com/news.php#streetlights_update_22July2011

I'm a bit late to this ...but do we know anymore on what streetlights we will be getting in the conservation area and whether we need to take action as individual roads - as with Kings Road? I for one don't want to come home one day to find some brutalistic, modern monstrosity outside my house without having at least made an effort to get something more appropriate for the conservation area.

Just wondering if there have been any further developments on this of late?  I see that the works are finally coming to Thames Ditton on 10th October (but not yet in any of the conservation areas as far as I can see)

For the conservation areas, by now SCC's PFI lighting team should have submitted their recommendations to EBC's conservation officers; I have today asked Peter to find out what they are for TD & WG and let us have an update.  I shall be very surprised if for TD & WG they are anything more, in general, than straight columns for main roads e.g. Hampton Court way, or the continuation of Weston Green Rd across the commons; and the swan-necked variant for smaller and cuter roads.  The next point of inspection/action should be in the Conservation Area Advisory Committees - residents' bodies - for TD & WG respectively, if as expected the borough conservation officers refer the proposals to them.

For areas outside the conservation areas, the situation remains as in the long brief I posted in Aug:  if residents in a road have not got together to request from the PFI team, and raise funds for, an upgrade for the whole of their road, then the standard straight colums will be installed by Surrey.  Their current schedule, which lists several roads in TD, is here (http://surreystreetlighting.skanska.co.uk/CIP/Programme.pdf)

See the'comprehensive briefing' link   on this page: http://residents-association.com/news/streetlights.php (http://residents-association.com/news/streetlights.php)

So the works start today (in non conservation areas)

Given what you've said above, I'm not hopeful that we'll get decent lights on Giggs Hill Road and Watts Road.  I guess they are too busy to be considered 'cute'.

I gathered behind the scenes that the admirable conservation team at Elmbridge have been locked in battle with the Surrey pfi team.  The Surrey team's recommendations for our conservation areas were as predicted (standard eye-on-stalk and modified swan necked standard Triffid, with no 'special design' columns) but the conservation team have robustly asked for better for some streets, and there's a budget battle.  At this stage I don't think there's much we public can do except await the outcome of office combat.

Thanks for the update.  The sooner the orange light that shines into my bedroom is replaced, the better!  I guess even eye on stalk lights are better than what's there at the moment.....

The old swan neck lamposts on Kings's Drive already appear to be in the process of being replaced!!

The new post has been put in place along side the original this morning, but they have yet to attach the lamp.

[img width=373 height=500]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/IMG_3435.jpg[/img]

update

The head as now been attached and is clearly of the standard issue variety so I guess this is what we are all getting? It does allow an easy comparison, but I imagine another set of contractors will be along soon to remove the lovely original one.

[img width=373 height=500]http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff485/TDRatty/IMG_3440.jpg[/img]

Update: as of last weekend,  I gather that the situation in our conservation areas is apparently that:

- EBC Heritage/conservation staff have accepted SCC's proposals for modern lights throughout the Giggs Hill Green conservation area.   In the Thames Ditton village conservation area they accept the proposed 22 modern lights in Church Lane, High Street, and Watts Road, while the proposed 17 replacement swan necks in Ashley Road and Church Walk must be 'of a better design'.

In the Weston Green conservation area the 5 replacement swan necks in Weston Green must be better designed.  The rest are the modern snails-eye-on-stalk lights, which have been installed in several roads outside the conservation areas and do at least look better than the hotchpotch they replaced.  SCC must add Alma Road and Chestnut Avenue, which they had omitted altogether!

There is a pause in bureaucratic and budgetary skirmishing while Surrey and its contractors look at the 'better design' question: apparently not by buying the expensive but attractive "special designs" offered by the suppliers but by pursuing cheaper DIY improvements to the 'Triffid' design (Rhodrich's apt description is becoming current among the citizenry)  - basically, this is understood to be mounting a smaller, less top-heavy luminary on the swan neck.

I'm glad that some progress is being made, but it's a shame that the Giggs Hill Green conservation area is effectively being ignored.

I also note that despite the claims, the 'modern' lights that are currently being installed on main roads in Hinchley Wood are not 'white' as claimed by Surrey County Council, but are the cheaper high pressure Sodium (SON) type.  These give out pink light, which is better than the orange low pressure sodium (SOX) lights that are in place at the moment, but decidedly inferior to Metal Halide (HPI) lights, which is what I was expecting after reading Surrey's web page, where they go on about 'white lights' http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/lookupwebpagesbytitle_rtf/street+lighting+replacement+programme?opendocument

The only 'white' lighting is the CFL type that is being installed in side roads.

This means that those of us on Giggs Hill Green will have to continue to endure poor quality sodium street lighting for some time to come.....

It is abundantly clear from my research into the documentation surrounding the contract that no  proper thought was given to conservation areas when Surrey signed it.  They were so eager to get out of a disastrous accumulation of old equipment, poorly maintained (by them and their contractors) and a dreadful and inefficient mix of styles with few or no spares.

The new lights may look better than the worst of the old ones, but their posts are hollow and not very robust.  They are easily knocked awry or dented by cars - the first Triffid on King's Road Long Ditton was dented by a car within days!  Their official lifespan is thirty years.  There's no sinking fund to enable their replacement when the contract runs out then.

In the case of the triffids, a standard post has been hacked down and a swan neck welded on; then that bit of "wrought iron" has been welded on in turn.  You just know that within a very few years of being erected, the welds will start to rust and the things will look a sorry sight.  Especially where drab green rather than black has been chosen.

I hadn't realised they were not the promised white light.  I guess I will find out their idiosyncrasies when I take night shots with the camera under the new lights!

It is indeed a shame that the opportunity to improve conservation areas is being passed by.  In other places like Petworth, there are lamps similar to the Victorian 'special designs' and they look very nice.  But in so many areas Surrey is a shambles, and I feel for Peter, whose patience, persistence and pragmatism with the county apparat is outstanding.  I don't think Surrey will change until we get enough Residents' councillors to shake the existing oligarchy's cosy complacency. 

hear hear!

Lets start an occupy Giggs Hill Green camp in protest until they give us proper lamps!

Lawks!  We'd have those squatters back in no time.

The reality is that there are not enough parts of Surrey that have active residents' associations prepared and equipped to run candidates.  So with the LibDems hopelessly contaminated by the coalition ("why vote LibDem when you might just as well vote Conservative?") there is absolutely no realistic prospect that the cosy majority in Surrey will ever be threatened.  It seems certain, therefore, that complacency, arrogance and self-praise will continue to prevail in Surrey CC with all the bumbling and inefficiency that arises from a self-perpetuating oligarchy where the only changes come from 'coups' that follow from personal squabbles and ambitions.  And dissent whether within "The Party" or from independents or residents reps is ruthlessly squashed or suppressed.

The new lampost in Elsworthy is already leaning considerably - does anyone have the email address to report it ? 

Try this thread (http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=548.msg4989#msg4989) or the SCC online portal for highways complaints - street lights.

The new streetlamps have been installed in our road...and residents are not very impressed.  They consist of two unshaded fluorescent tubes in a fitting welded on to the old posts.  

The lights are dazzling and glaring when looked at directly, and throw a harsh bright white light, which actually seems to provide less illumination than the old lights did.    

On one lamp, the tubes have become loose and are dangling down at a precarious angle.  Another lampt has failed already.  No doubt the contractor has charged the maximum price to install the cheapest possible product.   

Compare these lights with the street lighting in Kingston - eg Westfield Road, Surbiton, near the river.   These are shaded and have an attractive rounded form.

Residents did not receive the promised letter in advance of the new lights being installed.  Is there anything we can do to get these changed to decent lighting?

Agreed.  I'm not sure what road you live on Emberman, but I walk down Basingfield Road on my way to the Station in the morning/evening, and the lights that have been installed there look decidedly cheap.  Some of the existing modern columns were leaning at jaunty angles, and the new luminaries have just been installed directly on them.  Seems to defeat the object of having 'new' lights completely.  I was under the impression that new columns would be installed, not just that new luminaries would be installed on the old columns.

Just seems a bit ironic to me that Surrey County Council are happy to keep lichen covered modern columns that are leaning at silly angles, and yet they're so determined to get rid of the pretty Victorian columns around the county that have stood the test of time, and solely need a lick of paint to ensure that they give another 100 or more years service.

I gather that contractors have now fixed the leaning lamp-posts in Basingfield Rd; this followed on your post, which Peter Hickman picked up from the forum to inform the council officers.

I too was earlier under the impression that new columns (for the sake of standardisation and efficiency) would be installed throughout, except where there were existing columns of particular conservation merit (the number of those kept remarkably small by SCC officers).  But it became apparent in the Autumn that this was not the case.  Custom and practice has been similar - if you look at the lovely old cast-iron column by St Nicholas' church door, SCC's number 9 of the twelve streetlights along the walk, the current and soon-to-be-replaced luminary was mounted on a spike that must have replaced a fine old gas or electric lantern.  The  existing solid cast-iron swan-necked columns have been shamefully maintained.  Layers of gash paint jobs over rust:
(http://residents-association.com/images/bad_maintenance.jpg)

The example by the church door is due to be removed and junked, to be replaced by a Triffid if SCC have their way.  I am tempted to make Skanska an offer for it and mount it with a decent lantern in our front garden along the Walk.  But I haven't the time or the energy, in reality (or the dosh).  Here it is:
(http://residents-association.com/images/antique_lamp_soon_to_be_memory.jpg)
Cast by the Thames Bank Iron Company which existed from 1871 to (at least) 1981; anyone want to research the company and date that particular lamp-post before the philistines destroy it?

is it stanska who install the new ones then and therefore dispose of the old?

Yes - see the comprehensive briefing I put together for the 'new lamps for old' page last August - http://residents-association.com/pdfs/street_lights_summary_8Aug2011.pdf

gotcha

I really don't get why they are allowed to do this, when I am not allowed to replace my garage door unless it is identical to the existing wooden, impractical, prone-to-warping one.  >:(

Given the rate at which LED lighting technology is progressing the new lamps will be archaic before they're even installed. I also can't help but feel that in years to come we will look back with nostalgia to the warm orange glow of the sodium bulbs. Also, whilst I understand the merits of less light pollution towards bedroom windows, the downside is that there will be contrasting pools of light and dark along our streets with resultant concerns for crime and safety.

Advertiser December 01, 2009 (http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2061813_street_lights_bring_cost_and_environmental_benefits)

"Private Finance Initiative (PFI) funding will be used to upgrade all of the county’s 89,000 lights with new energy-saving technology.

The agreement, which involves replacing 70,000 lighting columns and refurbishing 19,000 more, in addition to installing 1,600 extra lamps, means bright white lights will replace the current orange glow lamps.

The deal with private sector consortium Skanska Laing will see individual lighting columns remotely controlled from a new control centre in Merrow, Guildford.

Dr Andrew Povey, leader of Surrey County Council, said: “....Bright white lights managed by remote control will mean a more reliable system.... reduced light pollution and reduced energy consumption make this a better deal for the environment."

The ... times the lights are switched on can be controlled more easily, increasing lighting where it is needed most, and reducing it where it is not.
Under the current system, Surrey’s streetlights are programmed to come on and go off at set times of the day. The new lamps would also mean that lights can be repaired more quickly and efficiently with new remote monitoring technology, enabling broken and faulty lights to be automatically reported via the system.

Ian Lake, Surrey County Council cabinet member for transport, said: “For parish councils that have particular conservation areas,  they will have a choice of six designs for the columns that can go in."

Well done Peter!  The lights in Basingfield Road are indeed now straight!

With regards to column number 9, that would be a project that I would love to do.  My father did a similar thing in his younger
days, buying a gas column from his local council when they were getting rid of them, restoring it, and putting it in his front garden (where it still stands, despite the house being sold some years ago).  Of course I couldn't place no 9 back in Church Walk, but I would happily install it in my front garden (with a gas type fitting on top) where it could be enjoyed by all who pass.  Who would I speak to to find out whether it would be possible to purchase?

In fact, if that didn't work, out, wouldn't it make a suitable scout memorial on Giggs Hill Green to replace their vandalised one?  I gather that that their memorial was placed at the site of the original gas lamp that they met under.  What could be more fitting than a replacement gas lamp instead of a sundial.  Relatively vandal proof too!

Both good ideas - especially the Scouts one.   It seems to me likely that the column dates from the period when the Scouts were instituted here.   (The scouts do have the lamp that used to be on Giggs Hill Green erected in front of their hut, btw)  Until the negotiations between EBC and SCC concerning the conservation area is completed the exact fate of that column may not be definite.  But I have heard nothing that suggests a fate other than destruction.  I suggest you contact Peter and subject to anything he suggests, write/email Skanska and the PFI team to say that if the column in question is being removed rather than restored in place, you wish to preserve it.  And that you consult Dittons Scouts - Search members here for Dittons Scouts to send pm, or see details on our groups page.  You might also clear lines with St Nicholas - I haven't asked whether they also have designs on preserving the column.

UPDATE!
(For those who have been closely following developments...)

Following a question in the open meeting last night, it appears that all is not lost on the conservation area front.   There is a new design of street lamp for conservation areas to replace the 'triffid' lamp, and it looks much better to me.  Additionally, it looks like funding has been secured to equip more roads in conservation areas with these lamps, including Giggs Hill Green I am told.

On the buying old lamp posts front, it looks like there may be a private company handling the sales.  Councillor Shipley has seen notices on some old lamp posts prior to their removal with for sale signs on them!  Has anyone else spotted these?

These ones in Reigate look suspiciously like they may have been recent Surrey removals...
http://www.reclaimeddoors.com/64288/pair-of-victorian-cast-iron-lamp-posts.html

As do these (which still have the amber luminaires, and a lovely pattern at the bottom):
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/320840336945

I'm quite tempted!

Yes, we learned about this only yesterday but it appears that EBC's Heritage section is doing very well in negotiations with Surrey.  They have managed to reach agreement, I understand, on a rather nice 'heritage quality' light and that the pattern will replace all the existing swan-necks in the conservation areas.  But more, they are negotiating hard with Surrey to try to get double the quantity of that pattern agreed for some other lights in the conservation areas.  Negotiations are not yet concluded, so the final outcome is not settled - but the news is good.

We gather it will be one of these two, with a ladder bar added:
[img width=500 height=397]http://residents-association.com/images/new_lamps.jpg[/img]

What happens to old columns is still not clear but (on the basis of the discussions Long Ditton residents had on this issue last summer with Surrey officials) I believe their disposal rests with the contractors and not with Surrey.

Had a letter through about installing new streetlights - anyone know if we're going to be getting the heritage design above?  I had tried looking on the surrey website but could not work it out.

Have a look for your road here: http://surreystreetlighting.skanska.co.uk/CIP/Programme.pdf

If it says 'standard' in the second column, you're getting the standard lights.  If it says 'Type G', then you're getting a heritage light.

Incidentally the details for the old lamps for sale are now also on Surrey's website here:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-maintenance-and-cleaning/street-lights-traffic-signals-and-signs/street-lights/street-lighting-replacement-programme/cast-iron-street-lighting-columns

The standard price for a column, delivered is £300.  I've put down a deposit for the one by the church door.....

Well done.  I am so glad that one is going to a good home, and moreover will be refurbished and have a nice luminary after all these years of SCC neglect.

Thanks.  I can't promise it'll be done instantly though.  I remember with horror how long it took me to restore an old cast iron fireplace that had been painted - I suspect that this will be a lot more of a challenge.

I did look into the possibility of getting a real gas fitting for it, but despite a company still making them (Suggs Lighting - http://www.sugglighting.co.uk/pages/gas_lighting.php ), the costs are prohibitive.  I'm currently trawling eBay for something suitable.

There's a cracking one on the junction of Weston Road and Weston Park with a fluted column that was cast in Kingston that I'd love to see 'saved' too.  Let's hope some more locals take up the offer.

No update as yet as to when they'll be doing the conservation areas in Thames Ditton, or indeed as to what lights they'll be putting in. 

I see that they're half way through getting rid of the cast iron ones on Weston Green (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=weston+green+road&ll=51.385067,-0.344744&spn=0.000007,0.004125&oe=UTF-8&hnear=Weston+Green+Rd,+Surrey+KT7,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.385154,-0.344725&panoid=rF7n7CvmCeg9z7fqjM6Stg&cbp=12,269.75,,0,6.17)(near Lime Tree Avenue), and replacing them with the fluorescent monstrocities, so it's not looking good for the rest of the village......

I've rather lost sight of this and will ask Peter where we've got to.

Latest programme (http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/_media/surrey-county-council/links/6-week-on-line-programme) has now been released, and it looks like they'll finally be getting round to some of the Thames Ditton conservation area lighting.  Station Road is starting on 2nd October, and will be having Green Iffleys.  Despite what I wrote above, it's looking promising for the rest of the village!

Yes - also Ashley Rd, Angel Rd and Alma Rd are scheduled for early October and no doubt the rest will follow...

How strange.....  all the roads mentioned above have now disappeared off the replacement programme......

Odd.  This will be news to our county councillor too....

Is there any update on the replacement programme? I notice Ashley Road now has the new type G lamps which actually look quite nice (apart from the colour).

Church Walk seems to be a missmash of every possible variation.

I should probably have paid more attention to it at the time, but I cannot find mention of the length of Summer Road within the conservation area (between Tagg's and the Swan) and also the High Street on the list (http://surreystreetlighting.skanska.co.uk/CIP/Programme.pdf)

The subcontractors made a complete cockup of Church Walk.  They mixed up the postcode with that of Church walk in Cobham.  A resident spotted them installing one appalling bug-eyed standard new lamp and immediately called SCC, who halted works and apologised (though it was not their fault but that of Skanska's evidently incompetent subbies).  The subcontractors had also begun work around the base of two other lights.  They abandoned those works and we've been like that for about two months now!

Almost needless to say, since the wrong, bug-eyed example was installed it has been on 24 hrs a day - so much for the new automated technology they sold us on LOL

So much for "the private sector is more efficient" ....!

And by the way, Thames Water appear to have abandoned attempts to find and fix a mains leak outside Three Corners on Church Walk.  Contractors simply filled the hole in, and water seeped up again, where it will freeze.  Oh, and several of the street lights along the walk are not working at all.  So there is a clear health and safety issue there - one of us oldsters is bound to come a cropper in the dark on the frozen water leak.  Then SCC and TW can pay their lawyers to argue over who was more responsible!

Thanks, I wondered why it's such a mess these days.

So did Church Walk in Cobham get some nice Type Gs?

I couldn't bear to go down there to look!

You never read about these things in either council's (or TW's) press releases telling  you how wonderful everything is, now do you?!  Yet here on Church Walk, in a conservation area listed as 'at risk' by English Heritage, the crumbling patchwork surface of the Walk, the street lights, and the trenches and water leak are a thorough disgrace.

No less than six - that is, half - the street lights along the dark, frosty Walk are not working at the moment.

Thames Water are being pressed to fix the water leak across it which predictably has been freezing.

I won't mention that SCC have again been claiming to residents erroneously that the walk is "private" and at the same time Thames Water have been saying that their licence (from SCC!) to dig has expired.....

The contractors have now filled in the holes round two of the lamps, which were dug out two whole months ago when they were trying to install the wrong type of new street lights .

Word is that the right new lights (the Iffley) might be installed at last in January.  (Shame all the new lights are in drab olive green, rather than smart black which would be less likely to show the rust in ten years' time)

Oh, and yes: one resident of the Walk who telephoned SCC to say that the combination of no lights and icy mains leak was a danger to health and safety was told by the officer responding that Surrey no longer had a health and safety person for that.  We all find that impossible to believe!!

It is a crying shame. Church Walk was one if the amenities that first attracted us to living Thames Ditton. Walking along it to and from the station and schools used to be one of life's simple pleasures. In the dark it now resembles the sort of route that gets referred to as 'murder alley' and is best avoided. This is no good for the village and no good for the empty offices trying to attract new tenants.

Lights of the type on the left were installed at the N end of Angel Road a week ago

[img width=500 height=397]http://residents-association.com/images/new_lamps.jpg[/img]

After the installers had left, the area around the base of the column was neatly asphalted.

The contractors were back already today with a spirit level to re-plant the light - apparently it had been put up "drunk"!

The previous streetlamp was an elegant concrete design and surely had many years left in it.

Above all, the new one is much shorter than the new one and the light is located more or less over the base of the column rather than stretched out over the street - so that places previously lighted are so no longer and the light shines into new places. And where the new light is located in overgrown tree branches, although the new light shines out 360°, the illumination is restricted.

The overall effect of the new lights is quite pleasing and the illumination they give at night is good.

You do have to wonder how much all this is costing. I counted no fewer than four different types of streetlamp on Rushett Road (not conservation area) anyway - and we are now having a single, elegant design on some roads replaced by two types? Is the effect of a conservation area really supposed to be that the shared features are a kind of Disneyland? Where ordinary residents cannot carry out important improvements, while massive character-altering new houses and even estates are approved to be shoehorned onto small spaces?

If we went back to the Angel Road even of the 1920s (when the majority, not all,  of the houses N of the railway were already standing) , it would be a dirt road without pavements!

As mentioned above, if there are two areas where technology is progressing in leaps and bounds, they are 1) LED and low-powered lighting 2) computing, remote switching, wireless and "smart" timing. If that new control centre is really being built, it will be completely redundant within only a few years.

Wonder when the men will be back? This must be costing nearer £1000 per light!

Andrew at Three Corners is locked in battle with Thames Water, and has an hilarious dossier of calls to them every day, when they promise that some action will be taken, then it isn't; on which the following verse submitted by the Bard of Ditton is based:

The Ballad of Church Walk

One fine October morning when daybreak promised fair
A team of men descended, as if from the thin air
To dig up the mains water, which needed some repair.
And came they not from Heaven, but from Consumer Care
In answer to a resident, who had his dwelling there

"O we are from Thames Water. Well, actually we're not
But subcontractors to a firm that contracts quite a lot
Of work to some contractors, that the said Thames Water got
To outsource contracts to contractors working near the spot
And once we've dug the pipes up, piff! - we'll fix them like a shot"

So they dug up all the pipes, and they thought they'd found the leak
And replaced them with some new ones so it wouldn't be Church Creek
But Church Walk once again, with its character unique
And residents could walk dry-shod, commuters in the week
Could pass without the need to ford the waters, so to speak.

But that is not what happened, to the locals' sad lament
For they filled the hole in though repair was far from permanent
And even though the water welling up was evident
They chucked the tar in anyway - which did no way prevent
The leak. They signed off on the job. "It's done!" they claimed.      It weren't.

So six more dreary weeks went by, or maybe it was eight
While passers by trudged through the mud and cursed their dismal fate
And children slipped and mothers swore and grown men grew irate
And dark and ice came down - which last did greatly aggravate
The health and safety perils. For the lights were out too, mate!

The contractors' subcontractors said their licence had expired
So they could dig no more, they claimed. The residents grew tired
Of hearing their excuses. "You people should be fired."
Phone calls to Thames Water left nobody much inspired
For all their promises they failed to do what was required.

You see there is no profit for suppliers to fix supplies
Though they're keen to sign new customers with promises (or lies)
"Our first-rate customer service.." you read with some surprise
Upon Thames Water's website, where the reader soon descries
Claims of "customer commitment," in PR-speak to despise.

And as I write, the leak's not fixed, despite twice-daily calls
They fail to show, with some excuse......  which, locals know, is balls.

That's really very funny, You should sing that to camera and put it on YouTube.

Then do a gangnam version.

Genius!  Is the Bard you?

I concur !

Excellent stuff!

Fancy writing a limerick or two?

;)

I live on Station Road and although the new street lights look good -  the light they give out is terrible.  The road is so much darker than it was a few days ago.  I think this is awful, not just for my personal safety but also as it is a main thoroughfare through the village.  How can we get the road lit to the same brightness as it was?

I recall that SCC told us, in the effusive PR material that accompanied the original announcements of new lights throughout Surrey, that all the new lights would be tunable to enable periods of brighter light before, say, 11pm, and less bright light thereafter.  They also said that each light would communicate with a central control system to enable individual tuning, and also to report automatically if any of the lights had a problem.  So....

I suggest you wait a week or two to see what happens and then contact the Surrey lights team, preferably after contacting your neighbours (who may or may not share your view) to see whether they are aware of the problem and what their intentions are to manage it with regard to levels of illumination.

I confess that I too am slightly disappointed that they remain orange rather than the near-white we had been given to understand the new lights would be (and the new standard lights are!).  But one can't have everything....

Thank you Keith for your information.  I will wait and and see if they do get brighter.  They seem to be "on" more than they should be - so maybe there is a settling in period after which they are assessed.  Form over Function.  They look really nice - but don't provide good light. 

I have to agree with MG on this on. Whilst the new lamps do look lovely, the light they give out is about half that of the previous ones in Station Road, mainly due to the fact that they are at a much lower height, with lamps that are more directional.  The junction with Basingfield Road is virtually unlit, as is the table pedestrian crossing between Basingfield Road and the Station.  I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of bright orange streetlights, and prefer the lower lighting levels in general, as it makes the road feel a lot less 'urban'.  However, I can see these two areas being a potential problem.  It would be a tragedy for someone to be knocked down on the pedestrian crossing because they couldn't be seen. 

Yes.

I see thee is no mention in the Skanska rolling programme of Church Walk lights being installed (only in Church Walk, Cobham).  So it looks like we've been put back to end Feb or later.  Meanwhile, Thames Water finally fixed the water-jump (http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=476.msg9435#msg9435) on Friday 28 Dec.  Well done Andrew Pratt, who badgered them twice a day for weeks on end to get a result.

On other Walk works: the main drain under the Guide Hut was found to be partially collapsed and I think the whole thing is now being replaced.  As part of the investigations it transpired that there's also a near-blockage somewhere at the outlet for all the buildings that were originally part of the old school there.  So it seems likely that there will be some more digging out on to the Walk.

But after yet another tussle, I am assured that SCC and its contractors no longer have the Walk erroneously listed as "Private" - which has sometimes but not always led to council officers saying 'we can't do anything - it's private" when telephoned.  This made residents (including me) irate.  I thought we'd fixed this a couple of years ago; but a month ago, one resident reporting a defunct light by phone was told to look up the owner in the land registry (the path etc is owned by SCC....).  That said, sometimes the response of SCC was right (not 'private', but acknowledging responsibility), as when I tested the system in mid-Dec by phoning in to report the same defunct street lamp after Peter Hickman again remonstrated with officials.  Let's hope.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2127029_water_firm_sorry_for_terrible_handling_of_leak

Still no sign in Skanska's programme of the new 'heritage-quality streetlights for Church Walk.

You will remember that the incompetent contractors started to install the standard bug-eye version until they were told they had the postcode wrong.....  The one they did install was then on round the clock for months but has now gone out altogether......

Remember all that bullish PR and self-praise the council put out on signing this very expensive PFI contract?  Will work perfectly for 30 years, can be adjusted for light levels individually, lights will report their own malfunctions to Central Lighting Command....?  LOL

Peter Hickman has asked about this: Church Walk lights will be done from 5 July.  High Street, Watts Road, Giggs Hill Green likely to be done in July/August.

Thank you, Peter.

Do you know what the plan is for the half-height light on the wall at the edge of the churchyard near the High Street end of Church Walk?

Is there any way of finding out what they plan to replace it with?

As far as I know, SCC/Skanska intend to replace only the ten lights on columns that are listed on the SCC website along Church Walk (if you search for reporting faults with street lights on the SCC website, they list them by number and position there)

There are 20-odd lights listed if you choose Church Walk Thames Ditton - some clearly in the Walk, others variously listed as in cemetery, outside cemetery, adj chuch, in churchyard or opposite church so impossible to tell which one this is!

So - a couple of days ago Rhodri observed that the Skanska schedule for July included Giggs Hill Road and that they intended to mount standard bugeye lamps there, whereas he (and I) believed that Iffley heritage quality lights had been decided upon.

Yesterday, Peter Hickman checked with the Surrey pfi team to be told that indeed this was a mistake and the replacement lights there should be Iffleys.

Imagine my surprise therefore, driving back along Giggs Hill Road a few minutes ago, to observe a Skanska lights team busy installing bugeyes TODAY! I also observed a black-handed and disreputably pullovered county councillor (for he and julia had been working in the garden in advance of the imminent Open Garden days) engaging with the Skanska team.  I pulled over....

Peter, having returned home to get his card as credentials, managed to get the team to stop before they had installed too many of the wrong lights and will now deliver a wearied rocket to Surrey for not having corrected this yesterday, when it was brought to their attention.

Another day, another cockup and I really admire Peter's patience.  I could not stand having to deal with SCC daily.

This is the second cockup with the new street lamps that I'm aware of in TD and there have been several cockups elsewhere.  But of course, if you read Surrey's own PR material, they are just wonderful....

What a good job Peter saw it all happening and could stop it mid cock-up.  Reading this forum I have come to believe that our Representatives do have to have the patience of Saints and more than their fair share of "free" (though I am sure they do have better things to do with their time) time. 

Heritage ones have now been put in on Giggs Hill Road, and they look lovely!

Look out for Watts Road and Church Walk in the next few days, and the High Street in a couple of weeks, all of which should be 'heritage' quality.

Does anybody know, or how can I find out, if the lamp in Speer Road at the end of Church Walk is going to be changed?  Thanks.

I'm not sure which one you mean.  All the lamps in Speer Road have already been changed for the fluorescent style ones, including the one at the junction of Church Walk (the one with the 'Church Walk' direction sign on it).

If you're referring to any lamps on Church Walk itself, these now aren't currently showing on the renewal programme: http://surreystreetlighting.skanska.co.uk/CIP/Programme.pdf

This is strange, as they were listed as due for replacement on 5th July, and they haven't been yet.

Thanks - that probably is the one - just by Church Walk, on Speer Road on the opposite side of Church Walk from the church.  It's a shame as it looks ugly and the light from it is horrible.

Good to see that Watts Road has now had its lights replaced with 'heritage' ones.  I personally would have preferred the short 'Iffley' ones like the ones on Giggs Hill Road/ Station Road, but the ones they've put in still look good, and the light is beautifully warm white, rather than the pink of the others.

I haven't spotted whether the High Street has been done yet, but it was supposed to be done at the same time as Watts Road.

The white lights are million times better, I quite like the height, hopefully the high street will be done soon.

Still don't know why the council can't see why the council don't improve watts road with new Tarmac or more yellow. At they have made a start.

I personally don't like the white light. Some streets are now positively dark.  My vision is really poor at night time and I find the light very localised. The light from the old lights seemed to go further.

Anyone know when they are going to do the High Street lights...?

It's now showing here: http://surreystreetlighting.skanska.co.uk/CIP/Programme.pdf that they'll be starting the High Street on the 23rd.  They'll have the same lights as Watts Road.

The new streetlights on the High Street look very nice but has a standard bugeye lamp been fitted on the roundabout outside Picton House by mistake? It really destroys the aesthetics.

Possibly this is the boundary between inside and outside the conservation area. Someone will be correct me!

I did wonder if it was petty bureaucracy too, but the whole of the roundabout lies within the conservation area (https://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=3160). The whole of Station Road has heritage lamps even though most of it is outside the CA yet the length of Summer Road around the Swan and Ferry Works within the CA has standard lights. It seems to be pot luck?

Unfortunately yes.

The ones on Alexandra road that were put up randomly are not as nice as the ones they replaced even (I will try and take some pictures over teh weekend).

Such a shame that all that expense to put up an effective almost eye sore- I really would liek to know what the relative cost difference is between the lights and what 'logic' is used to make the decisions...

I gather that this is yet another mess-up by the contractors/PFI team.  They are supposed to be heritage quality lights in that location (Fountain roundabout).  Peter Hickman was on to the council officers as soon as this was spotted - we await confirmation that it will be sorted.

So that's at least the third messup in TD village - Church Walk, Giggs Hill Road and now High St near Picton House.  Poor showing by SCC/Skanska, who Lord knows are getting enough of our money for this.

They seem to have taken umbrage and walked off on the job.

The FOI response to Long Ditton residents stated

Does anyone know when the remote control centre will become active. From what I have seen around the village, many of the lights remain on constantly throughout the day, never mind dimming between 11pm and 5am to generate the energy/money savings touted.  ???

I'm afraid I remain too cynical to have believed the SCC propaganda that announced this expensive scheme some years ago.  I was under the possibly erroneous impression that as soon as lights were installed in a street, they would be under the all-singing remote control system.  "What could possibly go wrong?".....

Our long-suffering councillor will have seen this thread and will no doubt ask what is happening, at the next opportunity.

Street lights, a million times better in high street - how did this happen?

And about the other streets and terrible tarmac

Please confirm who "they" are please.

Any update on this being corrected? It's playing havoc with my OCD.