- The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors

Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »
New Lamp Posts/Street Lights
Author Message

Posts: 812
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #21
18-06-2012 07:35 PM

These new lamps are intensely bright - floodlight is indeed the better word, with all the comfortable thoughts that brings: prisons, runways, interrogations, and Sainsbury's carparks.

The lamps are not more directional than the old and since they are a good metre higher, they shine in peoples' bedrooms.

The only good point is that many of them are now positioned in the middle of trees which gives the roads a Christmasy feel, but this defeats the object really.

As for savings, they seem to be on full power 24h a day, presumably to draw complaints so they can turn them all off.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 162
Joined: Mar 2011
Post: #22
19-06-2012 10:32 AM

Where even are these new lights? I desperately want them to hurry up and implement them in my area (Dartmouth Rd) as the lighting is not very good at all, especially on the side streets!

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 1,515
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #23
25-06-2012 05:11 PM

Im glad I am not the only one who has noticed that some of the decisions of where to place these lights is badly thought out at best.

Mid pavement, light heads in the canopy of trees, etc. All a little strange to me, but what do I know.

That said, some of the roads already done are greatly improved, so I shall have to wait and see how Church Rise ends up once lit.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #24
25-06-2012 06:43 PM

I note that Councillor Wise advises that Skanska representatives will be in attendance at the Perry Vale Ward Assembly to describe the Joint LB Lewisham and Croydon lighting renewal project.

Can I advise that in February 2012 I attended an adjacent Ward's Assembly and representation was made by Skanska staff and the Joint Representative of the two boroughs, whose name I believe is John Algar, was also present.

Four main issues arose:

1. Poor or reduced lighting levels in paths and streets
2. Poor lighting in public areas particularly at entrances
3. Installation of street furniture/poles in the middle of pathways, presenting problems for disabled and sight impaired pedestrians.
4. Areas formerly covered by public lighting but are not necessarily owned by the council do not now have lighting provision.

There was significant follow up correspondence with the Skanska team, copied to John Algar, about Point 3 and specifically that the design team within Skanska were applying a design parameter incorrectly that meant that some posts were being installed at a minimum of 800mm from the road kerb edge.

There are now at least six separate locations, some of them in the Perry Vale ward, where this mis-application has resulted in posts of one sort or another being installed in mid-path positions. Most frequently the passing widths around these posts are reduced to such dimensions as to be insufficient to allow the passage of a small wheelchair and certainly not a motorised or electric version.

The Skanska team at the meeting disagreed between themselves about this critical dimension and promised a review and then would follow up.

They were emailed highlighting the details of the issue once more.

They belatedly responded with a denial that any problem existed and that all the installations were fully compliant to an unspecified "Standard" and that installations had been endorsed by the Project's Compliance Representative.

They were emailed again, along with DoT data, reminding them of the minimum passing widths of wheelchairs and other relevant information.

This elicited an email response reversing their position and the conduct of a design review was promised and corrective action would be taken.

Now some four months from the ward meeting, no action has been undertaken by Skanska and neither has the Joint Authority Representative been in touch to explain. More installations have been completed, replicating the problem in other locations.

It is evident that the project's Control and Compliance processes for the Design Development is proving not to be sufficient to prevent this problem from recurring.

Separately, Skanska were working on the stretch downhill from junction of Paxton Road and Perry Rise. The separation measures and temporary ramps were so inadequate that I witnessed a wheelchair user having to make a run on the road against the heavy flow of traffic including a bus, because he was unable to get back on to the pavement. (I had offered some assistance but he declined.)

Safety management systems do not seem to be one of the project's strengths either.

Copies of emails available on request.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 360
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #25
03-07-2012 02:23 PM

Thought I might update the position as of today and just before the Perry Vale Ward Assembly on 4th July.

The growth in number of badly designed installations is evidence of 3-4 months of perceived inadequate corrective action by Skanska and clear evidence of their failure to grasp any lessons learned.

The following locations have had columns or poles erected in mid path positions.

1. Bus stop on Perry Rise named Garlies Road and TfL Reference 77042 – street pole erected in mid path position. Additionally the incorrect re-use of splayed sign set at eye-level for a child, protruding with a sharp edge some 50-60mm from the pole give rise to the possibility of grievous wound and is extremely hazardous. John Algar has committed to having this inspected without delay.

2. Junction of Woolstone Road and Perry Rise.

3. Junction of Lescombe Road and Perry Hill - the road-name sign has been repositioned improving clearance by 28mm or so but the clearance dimension is still only 1.23m from wall - some way short of the 1.35 to 1.50m clearance requirement – and we do have motorized users on that route.

4. Junction of Houston Road and Perry Hill – clearance distance is 1.24m from wall some way short of the 1.35 to 1.50m clearance requirement.

5. Junction of Priestfield Road and Perry Rise (not yet measured but it is narrow)

These are the instances in my immediate vicinity where the minimum passing distance of between 1350 and 1500mm, as recommended by DoT and other bodies, is not met and are therefore are not compliant with DoT requirements and standards.

I have stopped making notes and there may be more.

It is worthy of note that for each corner (and other locations) where a conflict arises between the proposed location of Skanska’s new equipment and existing installations or structures there is a very high probability that Skanska will install it in an a non-compliant way.

These actions reduce formerly clear pathways to such an extent that wheelchair users are dis-benefitted by being denied access to pathways that should provide clear access and compliant un-cluttered clearances, free of unnecessary obstacles.

Short of placing gates across pathways, wheelchair users could not be more effectively stopped in their tracks.

It as a grave matter when best practice design cannot restore these locations to their formerly compliant position because of one company's inflexibility.

Skanska must be called upon through the council to correct their inadequate Safety Management and Design Development systems, without further prevarication and improve the qualities of the installation that ultimately the borough pays for.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 93
Joined: May 2008
Post: #26
03-07-2012 03:12 PM

I have to say the new street lamps are great and light up our street so much better than before, all in all it feels much safer at night than it used to be, so not all bad!!

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 1,375
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #27
04-07-2012 12:37 PM

I agree. The new lights produce a brilliant white light that does not distort colours as much as the old sodium lamps. They give a much higher level of illumination.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 14
Joined: Nov 2008
Post: #28
04-07-2012 01:46 PM

But because they are very bright small sources of light, the shadows are much more striking. Where the luminaires are up in tree branches, it creates too much contrast and you can't see the dog poo on the pavement, the mugger behind the bush, the snails crawling everywhere.

Oh, and I'm reserving judgment on the impact on the night sky - could be good, could be bad...

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 1,375
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #29
05-07-2012 07:48 AM

Yes. They give brilliant concentrated pools of light.
OK for me as the lamppost is opposite my house.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 294
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #30
10-07-2012 12:11 PM

I asked Lewisham for an update on the year 2 schedule and got the following from Skanska's Public Liason Officer.

We are looking to add additional content to the [Lewisham] web pages in the forthcoming months, this includes lists of roads and scheduled dates for commencement of works.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 12
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #31
20-08-2012 02:54 PM

Hello all,

Apologies if this has been covered before.

On Devonshire Road we have what appear to be lovely old period poles/lamps. As this is a conservation area, will they be replaced with period sensitive poles here? Would be such a shame to lose these! They're really lovely and add to the area.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 371
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #32
20-08-2012 06:22 PM

I understand from the Sydenham Society that the lamp posts in Conservation Areas will be replaced by a single 'Conservation Area' design of lamp post. So unfortunately the character of the existing posts will be lost. I'll see if I can find a picture of the new design.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 12
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #33
20-08-2012 06:24 PM

Oh thank you! Would love to see a picture. At least they have given some thought to conservation areas. Thank goodness! Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 371
Joined: Dec 2005
Post: #34
21-08-2012 06:55 PM

I haven't been able to find a picture but apparently they have curved necks.

I have seen a review carried out in 2010 which reviewed the conservation areas to identify which streets would best benefit from the alternative lamp posts. Each street within a CA was assessed on various criteria to give the street a score from 0 to 15. Presumably the streets will then be prioritised with the higher ranking ones getting the alternative posts and the lower ranking getting standard posts.

This is what the review said about the CAs in SE23:

Forest Hill: “More informal and organic than other conservation areas, reflecting its notable topography. Some strong streets but not characterised by the more ordered layouts as others are (such as Sydenham Thorpes, Telegraph Hill and others). It may therefore be appropriate to single out individual streets for special treatment.”

Perry Fields: “The streets defining the boundary of the conservation area, particularly Woolstone Road and Perry Rise, are part of a wider network of through routes and therefore not considered a priority for special treatment. However, the internal streets of Allenby Road and Garlies Road area enclosed streets fully contained within this conservation area and considered very suitable for inclusion.”

The review didn't identify which rankings would get the alternative design (it probably depends on how many Lewisham are willing to pay for). The highest ranking in the Forest Hill CA weren't particularly high:

score of 10:
part of Dartmouth Road

score of 9:
Benson Road
Havelock Walk
part of Wood Vale

score of 8:
part of Taymount Rise
part of Devonshire Road
Kings Garth

although Perry Fields CA fared a bit better:

score of 11:
Allenby Road

score of 10:
Garlies Road

I think it fair to assume that not all streets in a CA will get the alternative design. But as we don't know what the design looks like they may not be missing out on much!

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 1,515
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #35
28-08-2012 11:56 AM

I have to say, now that Church Rise is completed..... what a disaster it has been!
Some roads we walk the dogs down at night are well lit and its a credit to the design and new lights.... Others such as Church Rise, Westbourne and other wider roads are a complete joke.
Not quite sure why the aims and goals of the plans seem to differ so much from one street to the next, but with the tree roots and uneven pavements of Church Rise for example, its flippin dangerous walking up that road at night now. Thumbdown Cursing

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 557
Joined: May 2010
Post: #36
28-08-2012 09:28 PM

Very impressed with the outcome on our road - much brighter and far better colour rendition. Whether they actually reduce light pollution is difficult to judge.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 3,228
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #37
28-08-2012 09:34 PM

Have they finished Westbourne Drive? I just came down it and could hardly see the humps that festoon the road. The South Circular end was ok, but the other end was very dark, much darker than I remember it being.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 285
Joined: Feb 2006
Post: #38
28-08-2012 10:33 PM

I live on the Southwark side of Wood Vale and we had the leaflet put through our door last week. I'm curious whether they are doing to do just the Lewisham side or both sides?

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 18
Joined: May 2010
Post: #39
29-08-2012 08:45 AM

The lighting on WBD is very poor and not helped by the fact many of the lampheads, towards the Perry Vale end, have been positioned within tree canopies. This is also adjacent to the little area of open space and does not have a secure or safe feel about it.

They also restrict the pavement where there are safety barriers in place. These works in particular appear very ill conceived.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Posts: 1,515
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #40
29-08-2012 04:04 PM

Michael, I would assume most bit have been, they dont tend to turn the old ones off til the new are up and running. I agree, it looks terrible down there now. CR is not much better.

WBD, I agree, its the same on CR, the lamp heads are all in the tree canopies. Usually smack bang opposite a clear area on the other side of the road.

I would love to see the plan, and know the logic behind this planning, as its poor beyond comprehension.

Maybe before they carry on making a mess of the streets they should re think it all. Preistfield Road on the other hand is amazing now, as is Houston Rd and the others around there. Just goes to show the lighting is very good, if its put in the right places, not in the trees Confused

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (7): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields