Tuesday 22 September 2009 4.43pm
I felt the same, and Southwark said...
Lighting was indeed highlighted by a good number of people in the first round of consultation both for safety and aesthetic purposes. At the time (well in the site
walk over) I mentioned that Parks weren't always in favour of this approach and that there was a lot of debate about how effective lighting is in making parks safe.
Since that walk over, Parks have made available a draft policy where Parks do not want to install lighting if the following situations are relevant
1. there is the possibility that wildlife and insect life could be affected - in fact we would have to undertake a bat survey to insure there were no bats living around the park (approx cost of £2000) if we were going to install any lighting - Fines and court action if you don't!
2. there is a well lit street alternative that does not lengthen the walk time by more than 5-10 mins - Abbey St and Tower Bridge
3. there will be ongoing maintenance and management costs with no budget.
- it is therefore understood that Parks would oppose lighting along the path in St Mary Magdalen
I purposely left lighting out of the voting buckets as I did not want to raise expectations when it is highly unlikely that we would be able to ever install lighting.
The discussion about feature lighting is still going on however there are still the same issues regarding ongoing management and maintenance and the debate about encouraging people into the park when it may not be safe - also to get the most visual benefit aesthetic lighting would need to be around the periphery of the site which to me wasn't what people really talked about in the first round of consultation.
At the display on Sat In the information summarising the last round of consultation I stated that lighting was raised and also included a statement to the above effect. I was told yesterday that Parks are about to discuss with Councillors and will update us in due course.