The man who's making Britain's councils look twice at their LED streetlighting specs

Simon Nicholas insists he’s not ‘anti-LED’.

It’s a point worth making, as he has become famous in lighting circles for his one-man campaign against bad LED streetlighting.

‘I believe LED is the future of lighting,’ he says. ‘But it’s a sophisticated technology being used crudely because of a lack of expertise. There’s a lack of understanding of the wider issues and a lack of skills within many local authorities.’

‘In many cases it’s cheap and cheerful. It’s not even cheerful, it’s cheap and nasty. In fact it’s not even cheap, it’s expensive and nasty. And if residents complain, all they get back from their local authorities are cut-and-paste platitudes.’

Nicholas thinks taxpayers deserve better, so he has made it his business to get councils to look more carefully at how they procure and specify LED streetlighting - and he's getting results.

Looking for answers
In a world of confusion and misinformation about LEDs, many lighting professionals dream of customers who are as well informed about lighting as Nicholas. It’s not often you hear members of the general public throwing around terms like spectral composition and luminaire lumens per circuit watt. But be careful what you wish for: Nicholas has been giving manufacturers and local authorities a pretty hard time about their products and practices.

Nicholas is not a lighting man by background. He’s a mechanical engineer who runs a couple of transport and property businesses, and until recently had no more than a passing interest in LED lighting.

But when his local council in Trafford, Greater Manchester tried to replace the streetlights in the conservation area where he lives with brighter lights on higher masts, he complained, and succeeded in getting changes made.

Then he got wind of Trafford’s plans to roll out LEDs, and began to examine their plans.

Since then, his campaign against what he sees as bad LED lighting – either because it’s poorly designed, bad value for money, foisted on people without consultation or potentially damaging to health – has become, in his words, ‘a hobby’.

He hit the headlines in 2013 when the Manchester Evening News quoted (or rather paraphrased) him as saying that LED lights might ‘damage brains’, and last year he appeared on the BBC’s Daily Politics to speak out against bad lighting.

In his spare time Nicholas devours academic papers and policy documents, attends technical seminars on lighting, fires off regular Freedom of Information requests to councils and gets into lengthy arguments on the Lighting Talk discussion group on LinkedIn.

He even came to LuxLive last year, and debated LED streetlighting alongside representatives of Westminster City Council, Balfour Beatty and manufacturer CU Phosco. Whatever you think about his views, he’s determined, engaged with the issues and very well informed.

It's not all about energy
So what’s at the heart of Nicholas’ problem with LED streetlighting? Surely the benefits of this new technology – energy efficiency, light control, colour quality – are compelling?

‘The only criteria anyone cares about is energy efficiency,' Nicholas told Lux. 'When you’re introducing LED lighting, the whole process needs to be managed in a very measured and controlled way, and aspects other than energy efficiency need to be considered.'

One of his biggest concerns is the health risks of glare and blue-rich light from LEDs. It’s certainly true that blue light – in certain intensities and under certain circumstances – can damage the eye or disrupt sleep. Many experts insist that fear about the blue in LED streetlights is misplaced, but Nicholas is not satisfied that the risks have been properly researched or addressed.

Not only is there a ‘technical guidance void’ on how best to use LED technology for streetlighting, he says, there’s also a ‘policy void’. ‘Someone needs to put out some guidance. In my view it’s the responsibility of central government, but they don’t seem to have any appetite for it.’

‘Clients are just believing what people are telling them and taking a leap of faith. They’re being promised fit-and-forget for 20 years. In 11 years when the arrays have deteriorated, the driver has blown and the technology has moved on, what are you going to do then?’

He also objects to what he sees as an undemocratic approach to the introduction of LEDs. ‘This new technology is being imposed on people,’ he says. ‘Any negative feedback is being ignored.’

It's not just Trafford Council that Nicholas has been complaining to -  he has also targeted other local authorities, particularly those who have ‘made a big PR deal of what they’re doing’, such as Wigan.

‘They said they had done a trial and were going to extend their trial across the borough,’ Nicholas said. ‘So I ask them a number of questions and they’re struggling to answer them. So I send them some information and ask them to consider it, and as a result they’ve decreased the colour temperature by 40 per cent. I don’t know on what basis they’re thinking 4000K is OK and 5700K is not, but it’s a step in the right direction.’

Nicholas believes local authorities should explore the option of dimming existing streetlighting, which still has years of life left in it, rather than spending millions on brand new LEDs. ‘Manchester and Cardiff have both invested heavily in high-intensity discharge lighting over the last 15 years,’ he says. ‘Cardiff are spending £1.7 million to dim 22,365 lights and saving £312,000 a year. In Manchester they could save £570,000 [if they did the same]. Instead they’re planning to save £750,000 a year on an LED rollout that’s going to cost £33 million, and all the kit they’ve installed in the last 10 years goes in the skip. The lighting level will be less, the glare will be greater and generations of taxpayers will be paying for the debt.’

Follow the money
The way LED rollouts are funded doesn't always help, Nicholas says. Initiatives like the Green Investment Bank’s loans for lighting upgrades worry him, because he feels they have not paid sufficient attention to quality, including health and environmental issues.

‘They seem happy to subsidise bad as well as good lights,’ he said. ‘The risk is that a local authority who got Green Investment Bank funding go and squander it on poor quality equipment and it won’t work and the company goes bust and the taxpayer is left holding the baby.’

He’s equally unimpressed by private finance initiatives. ‘PFI and LED are not happy bedfellows,’ Nicholas says. ‘The objectives of the PFI supplier and the client are, in my view, mutually exclusive. The contractor wants to do as much as possible and the client just wants to save money. And the contractor doesn’t necessarily give the client the best solution. Manchester is a clear example of this.’

Does he have much faith that the lighting industry will address his quality concerns? ‘No. I’m not sure self-regulation will work. We’ve got a perfect storm of new technology, huge financial pressures on local authorities and a lack of guidance from central government. That’s where the buck has to stop.’

But he has seen positive changes in attitudes from councils with whom he has raised his concerns. ‘I’ve been locked in a battle with Trafford for over 18 months and now we are starting to see some positive results, with a change of emphasis from purely energy savings to consideration of those wider environmental and health impacts which can result from the specification of the wrong spectral composition of outdoor lighting.’

Meanwhile, Cardiff Council has invited him to discuss LED specifications with its highways team, and he’s helping the ILP (the Institution of Lighting Professionals) update its guidance on LEDs.

A couple of years on from getting involved with LED lighting, Nicholas still hasn’t lost momentum. And if central and local government want to come up with effective lighting policies, and win the public round to them, they would do well to pay attention to determined, knowledgeable critics like this.

After all, Nicholas says: ‘If there were any serious counter-argument I’d have heard it by now. And I probably would have gone away.’

  • Internet of Things-based lighting control, data capture and security will be a key theme of LuxLive 2017, which takes place on Wednesday 15 November and Thursday 16 November at ExCeL London. For more information, and to register for free, click here.

Comments 17

I can only speak for Devon here, but the replacement of Sodium with LED here has so far been an improvement. I don't know enough about the units they are using to know if they will be good value for money in the long term, but in terms of quality of light, visibility, and reduction of light pollution, they have been a big improvement. There is one street where the lack of 'spill' and reduction in beam angle has resulted in a pavement losing all its light, that is the only negative I can see so far. I do agree that the fittings are not well designed though, as far as I can see they have no masking whatsoever to reduce any 'scatter' and no means to fit any - but that was the same with the old sodiums. They also have no 'focus' on them, so no means of moving either the light engine up and down to reduce/increase the beam angle or to fit a moveable mask externally to achieve the same effect. Better design here would really help.

Now that it seems there's no way back to the good old days (nights) with the street lights so bright in colourful orange, with the councils funds are apparently being cut (and redirected abroad to help things like £9m waste on a girl group, etc.) and with the impact of the global warming due to street lights hasn't been proven yet, why don't councils, get us out of this enforced evening curfew in our streets and start to "Sponsor a Lamp Post" scheme by accepting advertisements from any interested firms and services, and display a small poster on the sponsored lamp posts, or can ask the residents living around each darkened street light, if they wish, they can pay a certain amount extra for the light outside their property to be turned brighter, and this extra amount of money shouldn't be more than £10-£15 per year. This way residents living around a "brightened-up Lamp post" can feel safer, as well as to think they are actually living in the 21st century! Edison is turning in his grave!

Our local authority have had 3 LED lights put in place on a corner of a main highway on the edge of a Conservation Area which "someone" complained was "dark"; "someone" was not one of the local residents. Local authority however listened to "someone" and did not consult local residents before changing lights. Albeit one LED has been shaded following my complaints that I did not appreciate the front of my house being lit up or our being blinded by the light when sitting in our lounge, outside when we are driving it still creates a hazard. When we drive around corner and have to pull over to park on our side of the road we cannot anticipate on coming traffic at night because LED street lights mask oncoming car lights; accident waiting to happen; what guidance is there as to level of lighting required on highways?

I a retired now but last night I experienced with shock the fact that Carlisle has converted to LED lighting. Awful! Pedestrians you are now at risk of early death below vehicles which you encounter when crossing the road in the areas of darkness between the lighting poles. You wear dark clothing and disappear in the gloom. Never mind, the driver will be blamed so all will be OK. The curse of modern sharp cutoff vehicle lights coming from the other direction only adds to the problem. As for cyclists, some are still stupid enough to ride without lights on their bikes, you will be butchers' meat. Of course the driver will be blamed so that will be OK. The depressing fact is that we live in a democracy, freedom and democracy so there should be some way of influencing policy but don't put any money on it. They will not listen and the same wretched governments will be elected at every general election. Guaranteed. Has any independent research ever been done before allowing this dangerous lighting? Have there ever been any trials with the experience of road users invited? Who should be blamed? The EC or the County Councils or the Department of Transport? At least we could be told this but in a corrupt country, my expectations are low.

My local council has just marked up my road for installation of these bright LED lights with one situated at the front of my house. This will beam through my bedroom window. Highways department are condescending and completely unsympathetic to my fears of this disturbing my sleep as well as the evidence based health implications , replying that the road is not my property and owned by the council, therefore they can do what they like. What can we do to be heard and stop this complete waste of tax payers money? They have recently introduced a hefty charge for our garden waste collection and use this money to blind me with an unnatural light- in my own bed- the world has gone mad!

Dear Simon, I have autism and I am now on curfew from dusk to dawn for a crime I never committed because of these stupid, irresponsible, eye damaging lights xenon, hid and led. They cause me eye pain and migraine and my eyes itch after just a few seconds of exposure to them. I also know there are thousands of eye disabled and light sensitive people like myself who are suffering the same fate. It is against our human rights to be kept prisoner when it goes dark and these lights are put on. They could have at least put an orange filter on them (if they were telling the truth about energy saving then filters would have been standard) like the wonderful street lights that they are ripping out faster than I can blink. Not only that... but drivers are being blinded by oncoming cars that wield these ridiculous lights (a lighthouse is for the sea not the road) so road deaths will increase. And I will tell you, 10 years in advance of psychologists, these types of lights also cause a sharp rise in aggression when exposed to them, on top of damaged eyesight. All these people care about is money and filling their own fat pockets, well I want to live to see the day when we are suing councils for the damage caused by their ignorant and indiscriminate lighting decisions.

I live in the London Borough of Hounslow. The small residential road i live in, had orange Sodium lighting units replaced by LEDs in March 2014. There is a lamp post my side of the road near the front wall of my front garden. i.e. 6 metres from my front room and front bedroom windows. Paradoxically i found less light coming in from the street lights in to my home. The only light which is a bit of a nuisance to me is a security light, which someone who lives the other side of my road, installed fifteen years ago which shines light straight through my front room window. My road does look more brightly lit. How bright? I took a photograph. The exposure was 1/6 second f/6.3 ISO 12800 white balance set to daylight (5000 kelvin) . The picture and colours looked normal. The colour temperature for sodium light is 2500 Kelvin. One thing i have noticed since a lot of the street lighting in the general area was replaced by LEDs is that there are more people about when it is dark.

Just had new street lights put in my avenue. They are far too bright, it's like a bright security flood light being left on all night which would be deemed a nuisance. But I'm sure that since it's the council doing it they won't see it that way. Surely street lighting doesn't need to be this bright?!?

Reading John Woodhouse's comments has reminded me about the white lighting on the A6 in Stockport (where I used to live). The council installed metal halide lighting to replace the low pressure sodium. They did so "with more efficient lighting" (they believed) and they actively cheated their way round complaints about the amount of light they were shining into peoples' bedroom windows. About 5 years after the new white lighting was put in place, the council complained that their electricity bill had risen by 60%. It was clear to those that can understand numbers that the reason was simple - the metal halide lights (250 watt) are much less efficient, those lights consume at least 60% more energy than the low pressure sodium (135 watt) they replaced (it could be 80% if the old lights used low loss gear). I would be careful, incidentally, about believing that the ILP (Institution of Lighting Professionals) is an independent body - their roots lie in their formation by councils many years ago and, in the guise of the Institution of Lighting Engineers (their previous name), they helped Stockport Council ignore their own guidance on light pollution. The ILP represents the lighting industry, not the people whose lives they affect. One person the council claimed was independent (turned out to be a man working for another council in Greater Manchester) reduced the light readings he measured into bedroom windows by the tolerance of his meter in an attempt to show that the light intrusion was not as bad as claimed – it was still excessive (it significantly exceeded the levels "recommended" by the ILE) but this did not matter to the council. The council’s company who dealt with the lighting cover-up is the same one that lost around £5 million which no-one has apparently found.

I agree that LED lighting is not the only way forward, EnLight, (www.enlight.co.uk) a company based in Loddon, near Norwich has produced an electronic ballast that is as efficient with HID lamps than that of LED and can retro fit into the existing lanterns saving waste and disposal costs. The system is also intelligent with a CMS system embedded into the electronics.

I agree that LED lighting is not the only way forward, EnLight, (www.enlight.co.uk) a company based in Loddon, near Norwich has produced an electronic ballast that is as efficient with HID lamps than that of LED and can retro fit into the existing lanterns saving waste and disposal costs. The system is also intelligent with a CMS system embedded into the electronics.

Surely these posts should retain paragraphs. ;-) But I suppose it was a pretty long entry

Birmingham is going LED and have already installed a lot in and around the Cotteridge area. Talking to the men who installed it I asked what they were going to install on the B4121. They said LED and it is going to be considerably brighter out here. They have installed taller lights which admittedly give out a slightly more even light than the low pressure sodium that was fitted before but why the extra power ? I'm inclined to feel that lighting engineers have forgotten that as a species we are perfectly capable of seeing well in moon light. Years ago people used to drive by it. Not that I would advocate that but it illustrates the point well. When gas lighting was around people drove on side lights. Ended by a drive on dipped headlights campaign when the majority of streets were lit with electricity - more I feel to make cars more apparent than allow drivers to see properly. At one point street lighting used to be switched off late at night then those on junctions were left on. It was surprising how much difference just these made when walking about. Reports suggested that this change reduced accidents so the lot were left on. Since then any change to street lighting seems to involve more and more light. I am concerned about both the cost of running these lights and the future costs when energy costs escalate to such a point that light levels have to be dropped. No doubt gas will be used up mainly for generating relatively clean electricity rather than retaining it for home heating - another aspect of electricity use. In countries I have been were homes are heated by electricity 3 phase goes in because the power levels needed exceed what can realistically be done on single phase. The B4121 is a purely residential road. In real terms traffic levels are very low when the street lighting is on. Other none classified local roads are lit by a different type of led lighting. Lower and dished so that they spread light over a larger area even across the entire road. It's safe to assume that these consume less electricity than the main road lighting. They don't provide the same light levels but people can still see clearly. I can't help wondering what all purely residential streets aren't fitted with them. However they appear to be high cri types. To do this they have to emit rather a lot of blue light that our eyes are not very sensitive too so very high levels of it are needed to obtain the cri. They are not terribly efficient. I can't help wondering if the colour temperature exceeds 3000K. Sweden seems to have jumped on this aspect at least for domestic lighting from conversations with some one who lives there. They are unhappy about the amount of blue that has to be emitted to obtain higher colour temperatures. There is cause for concern. Really it's time both local authorities and government had a very careful look at the whole area of street lighting. Both seem set on reproducing sunlight or as near as they can currently get to it. Who pays for changing it and also running it - us and there is plenty of evidence that both are perfectly capable of wasting rather a lot of it without any real justification. I also read something some time ago that reckoned that many were installing lighting which is less efficient than low pressure sodium lighting. I believe it was by the IEEE who were concerned that the changes were being made without much thought. If so installing lights which provide even higher light levels does not make any sense at all.

One issue I have with white lighting is glare and the inherent inability of councils to realise that lighting the foreground (i.e. white lighting being good for colour recognition) flies completely in the face of the road lighting codes of practice. Safe road lighting depends on lighting the background and hence silhouetting objects against it. An objective test is to drive down a white-lit road and see how soon you see pedestrians - compare this with a road lit by SOX (Low pressure sodium). The SOX lit roads enable you to see people and objects sooner. Glare and hot-spots from white lighting (high luminance light sources) make driving at night less safe.

Everyone is obsessed by LEDs but unfortunately the fact that LEDs use less energy in comparison to other light sources is the only factor being considered. Sadly this is true not just for street lighting but throughout our industry. Really important lighting decisions are being made by people who are simply not qualified or sufficiently well informed to do so. The current research that is being undertaken by industry professionals (some of those sharing their knowledge at PLDC - Professional Lighting Design Conference - in Rome last month) is critical to how we think about lighting and to ensure that new installations are not only energy conscious but provide the appropriate lit environment for the people they are designed for.

Great article - I wish I'd seen it sooner. http://www.solis.asn.au @SOLIS_Syd

A view to critisise the local Governmet see-saw; "lights off/lights on" and highlight the borrowing of £Millions in a dash for LED should be welcome news. All councils are seeking spending cuts, the GIB has money to lend and LED sales teams really know how to sell, is it's a one way street. Very refreshing for a member of the public to enter the debate. Sign him up for CMS too?

Leave your comment