The results of the polls here at parwich.org produced a clear pattern of recommendations on part night street lighting: supporting the general principle of some lights being on all night along the prime access route of Shaw Lane and Main Street (including Nether Green and Sycamore and Chestnut Cottages), but the rest of the village being part night (including the Kiln Lane lights, proposed by the Council to be permanently switched off).
The County Council have responded positively to these poll results in general with three exceptions:
- That the light (065359) at the end of Croft Avenue be all night, because it covers a turning area at the end of a cul-de-sac
- That the three Smithy Close lights remain on all night, because it houses “vulnerable people“
- That the three Creamery Lane lights remain on all night as Parwich Parish Council recommends this (see their comment below)
They did however offered us chance to comment further. Here are the poll results for these lights for all of which our respondents’ prefered option was part night:
- 78% of our respondents objected to the Croft Avenue light (065359) being on all night
- a majority objected to the Smithy Close lights being on all night (093093 outside 2 to 7 Smithy Close 67%, 093094 outside 8 to 11 Smithy Close 65% and 104261 outside 12 Smithy Close 75%)
- a majority objected to the Creamery Lane lights being on all night (092988 opposite West View 73%, 065356 opposite Croft Avenue opening 70% and 065355 at the fork with Monsdale Lane 73%)
The County Council’s Street Light team hope to advise contractors tomorrow (Thursday 4th April), so any further representation must be submitted by first thing tomorrow. Please add any thoughts as comments below or email parwich@hotmail.co.uk this evening. (Please note that any decision is not irrevocable, as the County Council will review the changes after they have been in place for a while. Added 4th April: Cllr Simon Spencer confirmed his commitment to taking constituents views into account as part of any review process. He asked us to pass his thanks on to all who responded on the polls and with comments the Blog in this process.)
The following is an extract from an email from the Parish Council to the blog team, posted here by the blog team:
“Our decision regarding Creamery Lane was based on the fact that the lights are on the edge of the village, on a steep hill and on a junction and we therefore felt it was safer for them to stay on all night so that there was a scattering of lights on in the village, throughout the night.
We also hoped to review the situation in due course so that we could all see how it felt with lights being off for part of the night, so it was in the context of caution and future review that we came to this decision, trying to reflect the needs of the village as a whole.”
I am writing this not as a blog team member but as an imminent resident of Creamery Lane. I strongly support the lights in Creamery Lane being part night, in line with the majority of respondents to the polls here, including other Creamery Lane residents.
The poll results raised a clear division between the Main Street/Shaw Lane access route and the rest of the village. Having lights on all night in Creamery Lane contradicts that split and introduces inconsistencies. The arguments the Parish Council use could equally be applied to Smithy Lane, Kiln Lane, Rathbourne Croft and Monsdale Lane. They support part night lighting at other junctions and at the edge of the village, and the section of Creamery Lane with lights is not the steep section, indeed by West View it is flat.
I would argue that the best way to evaluate the impact of part night lighting here would be to try it here, and then to monitor the effects, rather than postponing the decision for this one part of the village.
I don’t think the traffic on creamery lane (particularly at night) is heavy enough to warrant all night lighting! I personally don’t like it as it shines on and into our house. This may be a dumb question, but is it possible to make street lights reactive to movement? (Like security lights on houses.)
I didn’t vote in the poll, but my personal preference is for part night lighting on Creamery Lane.
I would be in support of not having the lights on all night. Firstly it is more consistent, as Peter says. Secondly, it might make the small amount of traffic that sometimes flies up here at night slow down instead of taking a run at the hill. Which, one dead cat later, is an issue higher up Creamery Lane.
The blog team sent this further representation this morning to the County Council
Blog Team received the following email from the County Council this morning and it is copied here by the Blog Team (we will post the County Council’s attached final street light map as a separate post):
Thank you for your emails regarding the Part Night Street Lighting on Creamery Lane in Parwich. We originally proposed that these lights remain on, a decision that is supported by the Parish Council.
As there appears to be a difference of opinion surrounding these three lights (65355, 65356, 92988), we have made the decision to side with the elected body and continue with our original proposals. I have attached the revised plans which will now be sent to the contractor which reflect the final decisions based on the views of the Parish Council and the findings of the survey by Parwich.org.
The implementation of part night lighting for Parwich is planned to take place in May 2013 and we will review accident and crime statistics in approximately twelve months time.
I would like to thank you all for your time and efforts during this process and if we can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Ray Holmes
Senior Lighting Technician
Derbyshire County Council
I concur with all the comments made by Creamery Lane residents who live in close proximity to the light in question. I rarely hear traffic on Creamery Lane at night. The light dramatically diminishes good views of the night sky, which I happen to enjoy.
More importantly, I am very disappointed that DDC chose to ignore the wishes of those residents who are most affected by this light and who have clearly expressed their views.
I would ask DDC to explain their reasoning for this.
As another ‘Creamery Lane green’ resident, I also support part-night lighting and voted accordingly for this particular light. I agree with all the comments made in earlier blog contributions on this issue.
I found it interesting that the Council chose to ignore the majority wishes of both the village and resident’s closest to the lights wishes. Yet another example of “government consultation”.
In the instance of the Creamery Lane lights, the County Council was presented with two opposing recommendations, one from the Blog, which though well supported has no official status, and one from the Parish Council. I think that they had little choice but “to side with the elected body“.
The Parish Council acted “in the context of caution and future review” and we do not know what other information influenced their recommendations. However the comments here indicate strong support for part night street lighting in Creamery Lane, so hopefully the Parish Council will reconsider its recommendations going forward.
Of course no one actually elected the Parish Council. Those willing to stand became Parish Councillors by default as there was no competition. Other members have since been co-opted.
Fiona, to be fair, as you say, the reason there have not been elections recently is that not enough people have stood for the Parish Council, and they did actively seek more candidates before the recent members were co-opted.
In relation to the street light issue, although the blog polls seemed clear cut, the Parish Council has to try also to reflect the community members who do not read the blog. Given Cllr Spencer’s assurances, at the last Parish Council meeting and more recently, that our views will continue to influence changes, the Parish Council were right to exercise some caution. It is just that it is frustrating for those of us who happen to be directly effected.
I feel democracy and society is about taking part in a positive way and agree, it seems odd for the Parish Council to be at odds with the people directly affected in the Creamery Lane Lighting debate, but maybe they have some other responsibilities which are not immediately apparent? And if we don’t agree with the Parish Council view, then why not stand for election (or just volunteer), and try to get it changed? We all (anarchists excepted) rely on local bodies with some kind of generally accepted mandate to make difficult decisions which not everyone might agree with (Parish Council, School Governance, Memorial Hall Management etc. etc. etc.). Perhaps its good sometimes to be reminded most of these people are volunteers, and they’ll never get it right for everyone. Although the weblog is brilliant, a great asset to the village and also run by volunteers. (a big thanks to all of them……….) I’m sure the blog team would agree, it isn’t official or really accountable.
I take that on board GrahamJ – I guess I was thinking that the Council said they were taking on board the blog poll in their decision making, which is why I made a point of responding. So although it isn’t reallly an accountable poll, they (the council) said they were taking it into account; hence my earlier comment. (That is as clear as mud, isn’t it!)
At least the recommendations for 9 out of the 16 polls, that disagreed with the initial County Council proposals, were taken on board by both the Parish Council and the County Council. So we will have to be ready to raise the remaining 7 again when the next opportunity arises.
And to support your comment Debbie – if the decision is not the one the people most affected would choose, then is there a good reason not? As KevinS says – it would be good to know?
Even though the outcome for this particular CLG (Creamery Lane Green) light isn’t quite what most of its ‘neighbours’ were hoping for, I am pleased with the steps taken by the council to reduce our collective carbon footprint and to make some savings in the process. Parwich PC was put in an impossible position where they had to make decisions after a short consultation period, and trying to take a range of different factors and criteria into account.
It is good to see that the majority of the village residents wish to see even more part-night lighting than was originally proposed. Let’s hope we can fine-tune our preferences in next year’s review after the trial period. Keep fingers crossed that it will be a ‘win-win’ initiative all round.
Some good comments here, and I think parwich.org will have to instigate a “like” button!