Bats rule out street lighting

Risk to pedestrians: Esther McGilvray in the newly-extended road with no street lighting.

Risk to pedestrians: Esther McGilvray in the newly-extended road with no street lighting. Buy this photo

First published in Local
Last updated
Kidderminster Shuttle: Photograph of the Author by

BATS have been blamed for residents being left in the dark in a new road in Stourport.

Street lighting has not been installed in an extension of Discovery Road to avoid disrupting flight paths and access points for the protected creatures.

But residents say the darkness in the road – known locally as Discovery Way and which connects Worcester Road to Severn Road– is a danger.

Worcestershire County Council says lighting was not installed as the road is in a conservation area and is a habitat for bats and other wildlife.

Worcester Road resident Esther McGilvray, 49, who uses the road, said: “It’s a risk. As a woman, I wouldn’t want to walk down there by myself and I wouldn’t want children to. It’s completely pitch-black at night, I have to carry a torch in my handbag.”

The new road link connects the main Worcester Road with Severn Road, which is the site of a proposed housing development and the new Tesco store.

Mrs McGilvray contacted Stourport town councillor Ken Henderson to find out why street lighting was not part of the original plan.

Mr Henderson said: “We asked for a street light but county council told us thatthey would have to put in a series of lighting as a legal obligation and they haven’t got the funds.”

But Derek Powell, the county council’s lighting project engineer, said that full street lighting was ruled out for ecological reasons rather than financial ones.

He said: “The area, which is near the river, is in an area of conservation and is a habitat for bats and other wildlife.

“Species of bat are protected by law and this includes the effect of artificial lighting on bat roosts, their access points and the flight paths away from the roost.

“But we were able to install street lighting at the junctions of each end of the road.

“On all new roads, we have to carefully consider the impact of lighting, in particular assessing the delicate balancing act between energy conservation and the safety of residents.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:32pm Fri 29 Mar 13

ross@bewdley says...

So does this also mean that the unlit road is de-restricted for 30 mph speed limits and signed accordingly?

From Wikipedia:
"Street lighting" is further defined as follows:

As set out in paragraph 45, it is generally recognised that a ‘system’ of street lighting could be three or more lamps spaced not more than 183 metres apart. However, street lighting (for the purposes of determining whether or not a road is a restricted) is not necessarily limited to street lamps, but may extend to lighting provided by authorities or parish councils.

To avoid confusion that could arise if some 30 mph zones were 'street-lit' and some were not, DfT guidance goes onto say:

Direction 11 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) defines the requirements for the placing of speed-limit repeater signs. This states that speed-limit repeater signs cannot be placed along a road on which there is carriageway lighting not more than 183 metres apart and which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The Department will not make exceptions to this rule."

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Built-up_ar
ea_(Highway_Code)

Ross
So does this also mean that the unlit road is de-restricted for 30 mph speed limits and signed accordingly? From Wikipedia: "Street lighting" is further defined as follows: As set out in paragraph 45, it is generally recognised that a ‘system’ of street lighting could be three or more lamps spaced not more than 183 metres apart. However, street lighting (for the purposes of determining whether or not a road is a restricted) is not necessarily limited to street lamps, but may extend to lighting provided by authorities or parish councils. To avoid confusion that could arise if some 30 mph zones were 'street-lit' and some were not, DfT guidance goes onto say: Direction 11 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD 2002) defines the requirements for the placing of speed-limit repeater signs. This states that speed-limit repeater signs cannot be placed along a road on which there is carriageway lighting not more than 183 metres apart and which is subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The Department will not make exceptions to this rule." http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Built-up_ar ea_(Highway_Code) Ross ross@bewdley
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Fri 29 Mar 13

ross@bewdley says...

More from DfT Circular 01/2006

http://web.archive.o
rg/web/2007020619463
0/http://www.dft.gov
.uk/pgr/roadsafety/s
peedmanagement/dftci
rcular106/dftcircula
r106newguidanceons47
99

50. Whilst the Department believes that it is legally permissible to use Section 82 to create
a 30 mph speed limit on an unlit stretch of road, it believes that the best practice is to
use Section 84, since this is more in line with the commonsense implication that the
term ‘Restricted road’ implies the presence of street lights. That said, current speed
limits of 30 mph on unlit roads that have been made using Section 82 are not in the
Department’s view illegal and there is no requirement to make retrospective speed-limit
orders. However, the Department recommends that traffic authorities use Section 84 for
future orders.
More from DfT Circular 01/2006 http://web.archive.o rg/web/2007020619463 0/http://www.dft.gov .uk/pgr/roadsafety/s peedmanagement/dftci rcular106/dftcircula r106newguidanceons47 99 50. Whilst the Department believes that it is legally permissible to use Section 82 to create a 30 mph speed limit on an unlit stretch of road, it believes that the best practice is to use Section 84, since this is more in line with the commonsense implication that the term ‘Restricted road’ implies the presence of street lights. That said, current speed limits of 30 mph on unlit roads that have been made using Section 82 are not in the Department’s view illegal and there is no requirement to make retrospective speed-limit orders. However, the Department recommends that traffic authorities use Section 84 for future orders. ross@bewdley
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Fri 29 Mar 13

Bewdlay says...

What a load of rubbish. I've just got back from sri lanka & there were millions of bats there - even nesting in the switched on lamp shades! We we're commenting then about i'm sure a few years ago the council we're going to light Bewdley bridge but couldn't afford it after spending a fortune on a bat survey.
What a load of rubbish. I've just got back from sri lanka & there were millions of bats there - even nesting in the switched on lamp shades! We we're commenting then about i'm sure a few years ago the council we're going to light Bewdley bridge but couldn't afford it after spending a fortune on a bat survey. Bewdlay
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Fri 29 Mar 13

Stephen Brown says...

So I wonder, is the extra movement of cars through this road and if it is de-restricted, which is another danger on an unlight road, especially of a night, with cars lights on and the noise and disturbance it creates, once Tesco's opens etc, not going to disturb the bats then? Or am I missing something here? Confused.
That's assuming there are any bats left after all the works going on.
It would be good to get an opinion from a bat conservationist.
So I wonder, is the extra movement of cars through this road and if it is de-restricted, which is another danger on an unlight road, especially of a night, with cars lights on and the noise and disturbance it creates, once Tesco's opens etc, not going to disturb the bats then? Or am I missing something here? Confused. That's assuming there are any bats left after all the works going on. It would be good to get an opinion from a bat conservationist. Stephen Brown
  • Score: 0

9:07am Sat 30 Mar 13

stour67 says...

What you missing is they do not want to spend the money and this the excuse they are using.
What you missing is they do not want to spend the money and this the excuse they are using. stour67
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Sat 30 Mar 13

John Herbert Smith says...

HOW CAN IT BE A CONSERVATION AREA IF THEY PLOUGHED A NEW ROAD THROUGH?

I repeat what I've said before, please don't let Tesco's open - currently the new road is an excellent relief to the traffic queues at the roundabout. Once the superstore opens, the whole road system will enter gridlock.

And please, get the rest of the bypass built. Starting with a new bridge across the Severn.
HOW CAN IT BE A CONSERVATION AREA IF THEY PLOUGHED A NEW ROAD THROUGH? I repeat what I've said before, please don't let Tesco's open - currently the new road is an excellent relief to the traffic queues at the roundabout. Once the superstore opens, the whole road system will enter gridlock. And please, get the rest of the bypass built. Starting with a new bridge across the Severn. John Herbert Smith
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Mon 1 Apr 13

harryurz says...

All that local environmental passion defending a seal in the river seems to have dissipated when it comes to the welfare of bats.........?
All that local environmental passion defending a seal in the river seems to have dissipated when it comes to the welfare of bats.........? harryurz
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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