All of Bournemouth’s 16,500 street lights to be replaced in £7million upgrade

Bournemouth Echo: LED: Lamposts being erected at Lake Road, Verwood LED: Lamposts being erected at Lake Road, Verwood

WORK has begun to replace all of Bournemouth’s 16,500 street lights to make them more energy efficient.

The £7million upgrade, which is being carried out over the next few months, will see 15,000 lanterns, 1,100 columns and lanterns and 500 illuminated bollards fitted with low energy modern light emitting diode (LED) fittings.

Bournemouth Borough Council, which currently spends £1.1m a year on street lighting energy, said the new lights would better conserve energy, reduce the town’s carbon footprint and deliver efficiency savings of £32.2million over the next 20 years.

Cllr Michael Filer, portfolio holder for transport, said: “This is a huge programme of improvement works which will benefit the whole town.

“Our lighting network is ageing and in need of modernising and I am delighted that work is now beginning on this upgrade.

He added: “The work will take some months to complete but once installed the new lights will lead to a 73 per cent energy saving in current street lighting consumption which equates to large environmental and financial savings.”

The council said the LED fittings will emit a crisper and white light and will make street lighting brighter compared to the existing lights.

The works, which are being carried out by SSE Contracting, will see the 500 illuminated bollards around the town replaced first.

The lantern programme is expected to start later in the spring.

The project is being funded through £4.26million from Salix, a government energy projects funding provider, with the remaining £3.5million coming from the council.

The council is warning that in a small number of cases roads may be closed off for a short period to enable contractors to get the work done.

In such cases the council will use the temporary closure to carry out other maintenance tasks such as repairing potholes, line painting and gully clearing.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

Sounds like the Council is doing something sensible for a change!
Sounds like the Council is doing something sensible for a change! fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 5

1:28pm Tue 8 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much.

Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense.
So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much. Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Tue 8 Apr 14

JenniferMT14 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much.

Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense.
Are you not rather jumping to conclusions? I know we don't all have the best view of the council but it's a perfectly feasible amount when you include maintenance costs.

The article refers to "efficiency savings", not just energy savings. I would imagine much of this comes from the far lower maintenance requirements (and associated road closures, street works, etc.) associated with LED lighting.

Currently, every traditional lamp post is likely to need re-lamping every couple of years. (They are forever having to come out and fix broken conventional lighting on Poole High Street, for example, but sections of it are still regularly left in darkness as the fittings fail again and again!)

If new lights are LED-based, the majority of them shouldn't require any work at all for the next twenty years other than an occasional safety check.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much. Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense.[/p][/quote]Are you not rather jumping to conclusions? I know we don't all have the best view of the council but it's a perfectly feasible amount when you include maintenance costs. The article refers to "efficiency savings", not just energy savings. I would imagine much of this comes from the far lower maintenance requirements (and associated road closures, street works, etc.) associated with LED lighting. Currently, every traditional lamp post is likely to need re-lamping every couple of years. (They are forever having to come out and fix broken conventional lighting on Poole High Street, for example, but sections of it are still regularly left in darkness as the fittings fail again and again!) If new lights are LED-based, the majority of them shouldn't require any work at all for the next twenty years other than an occasional safety check. JenniferMT14
  • Score: 6

2:10pm Tue 8 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up.
Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

2:45pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Afterhours says...

Christchurch council change a large amount of street lights 3 yrs ago......then last year they made a decision to turn the lights off for a large % of the night......it is a shame in the first upgrade they did not fit individual switches so that say one in three could remain in operation .....meaning we are not plunged into darkness as we are now !!
Christchurch council change a large amount of street lights 3 yrs ago......then last year they made a decision to turn the lights off for a large % of the night......it is a shame in the first upgrade they did not fit individual switches so that say one in three could remain in operation .....meaning we are not plunged into darkness as we are now !! Afterhours
  • Score: 1

2:45pm Tue 8 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?).

It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline!
Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?). It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline! muscliffman
  • Score: -3

2:56pm Tue 8 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

muscliffman wrote:
Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?).

It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline!
Yes, same mentality as windfarms, etc.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?). It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline![/p][/quote]Yes, same mentality as windfarms, etc. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

3:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...

Thought they were going to incorporate Wi-Fi into the new street lights?
Thought they were going to incorporate Wi-Fi into the new street lights? The-Bleeding-Obvious
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Tue 8 Apr 14

rozmister says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up.
With 16,500 street lights in the borough it's not the 'odd' lightb job . It's at least a thousand a year plus the manpower involved in that, the cost of closing roads/switching off electricity, etc to do that. Then there's all the street lights bearing the end of their life cycle, the ones damaged in storms/road traffic accidents/etc. The sheer scale of the job makes it clear it would be expensive!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up.[/p][/quote]With 16,500 street lights in the borough it's not the 'odd' lightb job . It's at least a thousand a year plus the manpower involved in that, the cost of closing roads/switching off electricity, etc to do that. Then there's all the street lights bearing the end of their life cycle, the ones damaged in storms/road traffic accidents/etc. The sheer scale of the job makes it clear it would be expensive! rozmister
  • Score: -2

10:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

MikeGB says...

Goodbye what is left of the night skies, hello to blinding headaches caused by the brightness of LED. LED make sense economically but to be effective without the negative consequences they need to be installed in specially designed fit-for-purpose fittings. Of course BBC will simply replace existing lamps and to hell with the consequences. Another PR stunt which will have lasting negative consequences long after the incumbents have moved on because they didn't do it properly. Five minutes on Google will show what I mean.
Goodbye what is left of the night skies, hello to blinding headaches caused by the brightness of LED. LED make sense economically but to be effective without the negative consequences they need to be installed in specially designed fit-for-purpose fittings. Of course BBC will simply replace existing lamps and to hell with the consequences. Another PR stunt which will have lasting negative consequences long after the incumbents have moved on because they didn't do it properly. Five minutes on Google will show what I mean. MikeGB
  • Score: 3

11:26pm Tue 8 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

rozmister wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up.
With 16,500 street lights in the borough it's not the 'odd' lightb job . It's at least a thousand a year plus the manpower involved in that, the cost of closing roads/switching off electricity, etc to do that. Then there's all the street lights bearing the end of their life cycle, the ones damaged in storms/road traffic accidents/etc. The sheer scale of the job makes it clear it would be expensive!
Don't worry, dorsetspleen never listens to reason where someone opposes his views. You may be perfectly correct, but he will never admit he is wrong.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Fair enough but it only costs £7m to do the upgrade, changing the odd bulb should be far less than that. It still doesn't stack up.[/p][/quote]With 16,500 street lights in the borough it's not the 'odd' lightb job . It's at least a thousand a year plus the manpower involved in that, the cost of closing roads/switching off electricity, etc to do that. Then there's all the street lights bearing the end of their life cycle, the ones damaged in storms/road traffic accidents/etc. The sheer scale of the job makes it clear it would be expensive![/p][/quote]Don't worry, dorsetspleen never listens to reason where someone opposes his views. You may be perfectly correct, but he will never admit he is wrong. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

11:27pm Tue 8 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

muscliffman wrote:
Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?).

It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline!
Still waiting for a positive comment from mustwhingeman, looks like I'll have some way to go yet.....
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Classis UK Council logic, issue a shed load of PR spin about 'new low energy lights' completely overlooking the point that the £7million of public money being invested in all this will in reality probably NEVER be recouped by the energy cost savings achieved. (Perhaps the Council could provide truthful and detailed cost verses savings figures to disprove this?). It all sounds great - as of course intended, but are they really spending our money again just for the sake of it and another good looking headline![/p][/quote]Still waiting for a positive comment from mustwhingeman, looks like I'll have some way to go yet..... tbpoole
  • Score: 2

12:50pm Wed 9 Apr 14

simon34 says...

What they don't want you to know is that they can make significant energy savings without having to go down the expensive (and evironmentally-damag
ing) LED route.

Savings through lower wattage bulbs and night time dimming can be achieved at fraction of replacing coventional lights with LEDs - as many other, more prudent, councils are doing.

The cost benefit equation realting to savings unique to the costly LED lights is proportionately huge - and doesn't stack up in spite of all the PR-spin from the council.

Also the cost of changing a sodium bulb is a fraction of the cost of replacing the LED drivers (£100) and arrays (£100+) neither of which will last 20 years.

Oh and don't forget all the health issues - as revealed in yesterday's Daily Mail ............
What they don't want you to know is that they can make significant energy savings without having to go down the expensive (and evironmentally-damag ing) LED route. Savings through lower wattage bulbs and night time dimming can be achieved at fraction of replacing coventional lights with LEDs - as many other, more prudent, councils are doing. The cost benefit equation realting to savings unique to the costly LED lights is proportionately huge - and doesn't stack up in spite of all the PR-spin from the council. Also the cost of changing a sodium bulb is a fraction of the cost of replacing the LED drivers (£100) and arrays (£100+) neither of which will last 20 years. Oh and don't forget all the health issues - as revealed in yesterday's Daily Mail ............ simon34
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Wed 9 Apr 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much.

Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense.
Probably based the savings on the future cost of electricity generated by Wind Farms (3 times the existing wholesale price!)
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So the current energy cost is £1.1m = which is £22m over 20 years. How on earth can a reduction in this cost make a £32m saving? I know electricity will go up a bit in 20 years but not that much. Would not surprise me if it has not occurred to Bournemouth Council to do some basic maths a 6 year old could do to check the numbers make sense.[/p][/quote]Probably based the savings on the future cost of electricity generated by Wind Farms (3 times the existing wholesale price!) fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree