Park lights ?
- Thread starter simon
- Start date
-
- Tags
- oswaldtwistle
The 100W "Light" was granted temporary planning permission in January for a period of 12 months, to see if it worked? Not withstanding the expense of installing the light, what good is an 100W lantern on the top of an 8 metre column, won't even light the whole play area.simon said:
Some of these "Lights" have very high lux values for low wattage....but don't know what has been planned for park ?
If britcliffe has anything to do with it, it will be a hugely expensive tower with a bog standard 100w bulb on top, that will blow as soon as it rains (Oh didn't thing about that?) But lets hope not. But it does seem a lot of expense to invest to see if it works ??
Who's betting that there is no intention's of even considering failure?? Sounds like britcliffe talk to keep a few residents quiet..
If britcliffe has anything to do with it, it will be a hugely expensive tower with a bog standard 100w bulb on top, that will blow as soon as it rains (Oh didn't thing about that?) But lets hope not. But it does seem a lot of expense to invest to see if it works ??
Who's betting that there is no intention's of even considering failure?? Sounds like britcliffe talk to keep a few residents quiet..
Have seen the lux plot done by HBC and confirmed it for myself with specialist software. The 100W lantern is a SONT100(which is used for side street lighting) the average lux value from the plot is 3.89, minimum value is 0.05 lux. The guy I spoke to at HBC indicated that was all they were asked to provide a street light.simon said:Some of these "Lights" have very high lux values for low wattage....but don't know what has been planned for the park
The idea of the neighbourhood watch, was for the light to help with the CCTV cameras, but with that sort of lighting level and given the distance from the play area the cameras are sited the light won't be much good, you need IR to give the lighting level required plus better camera equipment.
You are correct there with the lighting colour, but at the lux levels indicated it will not help the CCTV cameras at all, the distance involved is approx 100+metres, the police could not identify someone at 6 metres. As for the signs there is one on the first lamp on park lane/rhyddings street corner and one at fielding lane end.Regarding using CCTV to monitor the "public", there was a note in the police newsletter "IN touch issue 3 March 05" reminding people with CCTV cameras that these should be focused on their own property, and if the cameras were aimed at anything other than the owners property, then several provisions under the Data Protection Act apply. Another point worth noting, all the CCTV cameras in use are colour, these are no good at night unless the lighting levels are very good, its normal for night time cameras to be mono-chrome and use IR lighting. The RPNHW are funding the purchase of the column and lantern, but who is paying for the installation of cables etc. The contractors have been on site now for 2/3 days and have not yet finished laying the duct, the cable is still to be installed, could some of the money be coming from the Area Councils budget I wonder, I would think the final cost will be somewhere in the region of £3000/£4000. What a waste of tax payers money.When the light was only granted temporary planning permission for a period of 12 months. The attitude of one of our local Cllr's "If it does'nt work we can always switch it off"Neil said:
Last edited:
That is a question I asked of Cllr's Britcliffe & Walmsley, if there was a light being installed in the play area, could HBC not install other security lighting in the parkNeil said:
Oh just remembered the street lighting on park lane used to be in the park, along the bottom path.
