Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I emailed James McAsh who then copied in someone from the lighting department but as I said, they investigated and decided the light level was appropriate. As many above have said I find the white light is very intrusive but they seem to be operating off some guidelines which suggest they are acceptable.
be operating off some guidelines which suggest they are acceptable. These would be the guidelines which suggest that they should happily ignore the needs or wishes of residents. The apparat are always right, we are always wrong. Live with it. It turns out our 'representatives' represent Tooley St. - their job is to tell us why the apparat is right.

Oh well, that's okay then. Clearly those numbers who are complaining that the lighting is way too bright need to try much harder to adjust their perceptions so they align with council policy and guidelines.


Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> be operating off some guidelines which suggest

> they are acceptable. These would be the guidelines

> which suggest that they should happily ignore the

> needs or wishes of residents. The apparat are

> always right, we are always wrong. Live with it.

> It turns out our 'representatives' represent

> Tooley St. - their job is to tell us why the

> apparat is right.

Contact [email protected]. I also contacted [email protected] as she is my councillor. She referred the query back to street lighting and [email protected]. Richard is a cabinet member for the environment, but he has not responded.

This is the guidance they use: https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/obtrusive-light/guidance-notes-light-pollution-2011.pdf. It is unsurprisingly complex to measure obtrusive light and is not just about Lux?s, but as the ILP says ? Remember, lighting is there for a purpose and it is the residents who have to live with it?. I think they have forgotten this. I sympathise with Southwark struggle with having to manage huge cut backs and respect their drive to reduce co2 emissions, but they have done it so badly. It?s a win win if they reduce the luminaries as they also make more savings.

i actually feel sorry for the council as you complain when the lights was yellow and highlight how you feel vulnerable when walking home during the short day months

they now have replaced them with energy saving led lights which no you can clearly see the whole length of the street and you still have a moan


REALLY GIVE IT A BREAK IF ITS TO BRIGHT CLOSE YOUR CURTAINS OR MOVE OUT

HOW SE22 HAS REALLY BECOME AN AREA OF NOTHING MORE THAN STUCK UP NOSE MOANERS

Agreed, those who don't like streetlights would be better off living in the countryside. But then, what would they moan about then? Which council's time and resources would they waste with ridiculous complaints?
I have never moaned about the old streetlights, not about personal safety. I appreciate the efforts to reduce energy usage, however I like a previous turn of phrase - "our right to night". LED's are neither warm nor inviting. We simply do not need our streets bathed in light the entire night.

Until now I have never made a complaint to Southwark council and I have lived here for 25 years. I don?t believe the supposed security offered by an over light residential street at night, or the argument that the few cars on our street at night need brighter driving conditions is justified given the impact these harsh, physiologically and ecologically damaging lights will and are having.

I have had an email from Southwark?s light engineer, he is responsible for the new lights. I quote ?the perception is that white light (3k) in this installation gives an appearance of being a lot brighter?. I think if it appears brighter, it is experienced as brighter, it therefore is brighter. 3000 kelvins is a bright white light. He is scouting our streets on the 20th and so if you haven?t written yet try to do so before he comes as he has to look at all complaints.

They will never remove LEDs to go back to sodium lamps. Councils are saving serious money as LEDs need far less maintenance (bulb changes, burnt out ballasts etc) and are many times more efficient (saving electricity - which they DO pay for).
  • 2 weeks later...

Had a reply from councillor that they had received numerous complaints and would be looking into it. Anyone had any feedback regarding the inspection on the 20th?


One thing i have noticed, is that they seem far less bright on stormy windy rainy nights (obviously) - given this has been almost every night for the last weeks, I really hope they inspect on a calm clear evening.

Proper (and visible) street lighting is surely a good thing? - sodium (yellow) lights give false colours - the issue is light leakage - one 'up' as this contributes to night-sky light pollution and secondly 'sideways' into bedrooms. Shielding can deal with both issues, whilst ensuring roads and pavements are visible - this will also discourage those whose intents are nefarious - being bathed in white light can be sufficiently disconcerting to discourage wrong doing (and gives better shots for security cameras). If these lights can give reduced running costs this should be a win-win. Better and cheaper is surely good? But the council must listen to (and deal with) legitimate complaints of intrusive light pollution. And not tell residents they are 'wrong' because Tooley St. deems what is 'right'. In the end we (and they) should remember that the council are our servants, not our masters.


Amended to add - and yes, I do live in Underhill, and near a street light, so, for once, I do have a dog in this fight.

Hi all,


If you have experienced issues with the new lights please email me with your address and a brief description of the issues. If you have already emailed me then you should have received a response by now - sorry if there was a delay, I went away and it?s been difficult catching up with a huge number of emails that accumulated during my trip!


Best wishes

James

If you complain you may get the same response I did Penguin68 - and here is my evidence


I have a response to your query about the lighting.


The night scout was performed 20/02/2020 by the principal lighting engineer, who took light readings on site.


They have reported back that there was some intrusive light. Following this the entire road will be set on a dimming profile which means at 10:00pm the lights will dim considerably meaning the level of light will also dim considerably. We will also be fitting front and rear blinds to the lantern to stop from light intrustion.

Yes...I?m not sure why there are different responses. I would assume that the lights are much the same. The one I objected to was on a very tall post, so had the effect of a stadium light. Maybe on a lower post they constitute a lower level of light pollution?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...