Future Services Consultation 2024 - Street Lighting Proposal

Background

From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council asked for people’s views on the future of some local services in a public consultation on options to help the Authority meet a £132 million budget shortfall by April 2025.

One of the options proposed was to extend the time streetlights are switched off at night and to reduce their brightness at certain times. Specifically:

1. On residential streets where streetlights are already switched off between 1am and 4am, it was proposed that this period is extended by two hours per night so that lights are switched off from midnight until 5am.
Increase the level of dimming of streetlights:
• a. from 65% to 80% between 11.30pm to 12 midnight and 5am to 5.30am in residential areas
• b. from 30% to 45% between dusk and 11.30pm, and from 25% to 40% from 5.30am to dawn, on the classified road network

Who responded to the proposal?

Overall, 5,026 responses to this proposal were received via the consultation Response Form. Of those:

• 4,917 responded as an individual, 46 responded in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation, group or business, and 35 responded in their capacity as a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency in Hampshire. 28 responses did not specify the capacity in which they were responding.

Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 691 respondents left a comment relating to an impact of the proposal, 513 made a suggestion, and 1,023 left a general comment. A further 111 respondents also commented on the street lighting proposal in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation.

In addition, 32 unstructured responses relating specifically to the street lighting proposal were received (via email and/or letter). 16 were from individuals, 13 were from organisations, two were from multiple Councillors who had sent collective responses and one was from a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency in Hampshire.

In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.

Please note as this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.

Who responded: Demographics of individual responses

Of the 4,917 individual responses to the Response Form:

• 54 (1%) respondents were aged under 25, 885 (19%) were aged 25 to 44, 2,158 (47%) were aged 45 to 64 and 1,496 (33%) were aged 65 or over
• 2,592 (58%) of the respondents were female, compared to 1,859 (42%) who were male, and 24 (1%) were of non-binary gender
• 3,740 (91%) responses were from non-ethnic minority groups (i.e. White British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish), with 359 (9%) responses from an ethnic minority group
• 2,904 (65%) respondents reported no health or disability issues, 918 (21%) reported a health or disability issue that impacted their day-to-day activities either a little or a lot
• Responses were received from residents of all districts in Hampshire, ranging from 154 (3%) responses from residents in the borough of Gosport, to 724 (23%) responses from those in the district of East Hampshire. 2,053 (72%) respondents resided in an urban area compared to 785 (28%) respondents living in a rural setting

No demographics were captured about the individuals who provided unstructured responses to this proposal.

Who responded: Service users

Street lighting is a universal service, so service users are broadly anyone living, working, studying, visiting or travelling through Hampshire. However, it was particularly important to capture the views of those who travel around Hampshire at the times when the level of street lighting was being proposed to change – i.e. between midnight and 5am.

• 78 (2%) individuals indicated that they were out and about in residential areas of Hampshire between midnight and 5am on every day, 151 (3%) were out during those hours most days, 2,285 (52%) were out occasionally and 1,859 (43%) were never out during those hours

Mode of transport can also vary which was captured in this consultation to understand any differences in views based on the type of transport being used to travel around Hampshire:

• 2,987 walkers, 114 wheelchair/ mobility scooter users, 1,048 cyclists and 4,387 drivers responded. Please note that respondents were able to select all of the different modes of transport they used so these categories were not exclusive

Who responded: Types of organisations responding

• Among the 46 organisations, groups or businesses that responded via the Response Form, 19 were from charity, voluntary or local community groups, 16 were from local authorities (City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), five from local businesses or business representatives, two from a nursery, school, college or place of education, one from a public sector organisation and three from other types of organisations
• Among the 13 unstructured responses from organisations, 11 were from other local authorities (City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), one from an internal working group within Hampshire County Council and one from a political party of a local constituency

Levels of agreement with the proposals

In general, all three proposals relating to street lighting received a larger proportion in favour of the proposal, compared to those who disagreed with it.

The proposal to dim street lights further on residential streets had a marginally higher level of agreement overall (67%) compared to the other two (both 63%).

What were the reasons driving agreement with the proposals: Overall themes

Those who agreed with the three proposals were more likely to comment on the following impacts:

• Positive impact on the environment was the most likely impact to be mentioned by those who agreed with the proposals (53%, 46%, 48% compared to 22% overall). Comments referenced a reduction in light pollution and the benefits of darker skies for people and for wildlife.
• Positive financial impacts were also more likely to be mentioned by those who agreed compared to the overall sample (18%, 16%, 16% compared to 7% overall). These comments were generally around it being a sensible idea as a way to save money for the County Council.
• "Switching off lighting between these hours would be far less wasteful of electricity costs."
• Linked to both of the above were positive impacts of reduced energy usage (10%, 9%, 9% of those who agreed mentioning this compared to 4% overall) which was felt to have the dual benefit of saving money and being better for the environment.
"Not only will this help save money, but will also reduce energy consumption and the council’s carbon footprint."
• The proposals having no or minimal impact was also more likely to be mentioned by those agreeing (15%, 12%, 12% compared to 7% overall)
"Not many lights around here and we enjoy the darkness."
• Those who agreed with the proposals were also more likely to make the following suggestions:
• The proposals could go further e.g. switching more lights off (24%, 21%, 22% compared to 17% overall), extending switch off for longer length (11%, 10%, 10% compared to 7% overall). Some of the reasons given for reducing the service further included comments that some of the current streetlights do not really provide much benefit so might as well be switched off.

”You could switch them off altogether in many places. I go out early mornings in the dark for a walk around my local streets and there are so many pointless security lights that the street lights are superfluous.”

"I have always wondered why street lights were not turned off for longer periods of time, it is an easy way to reduce costs, so please turn them off as soon as is possible. Also, turning on at 6am would work, as people who get up then would be accustomed to the darkness. Maybe lights could go off at 11.30pm Sunday to Wednesday, then 12pm Thursday to Saturday."

• Adjusting lighting according to type of route / area was also more likely to be mentioned by those who agreed (26%, 25%, 24% compared to 20%). This included comments that areas that are safer or already lit by other means (e.g. car headlights, houses or local businesses) did not need streetlights, but they may still need be needed in areas where there are safety concerns.

Agreement with the proposals was also reflected in comments that were submitted via the ‘general comments’ question within the overall consultation.

• Of the 111 comments relating to the Street lighting proposal, 46% were supportive of a reduction of this service.

Who is driving agreement with the proposals: Overall themes

Certain groups of people were more likely to agree with all three of the proposals relating to street lighting, specifically:

• Older people - agreement with the proposals generally increased with age but was notably higher for those aged 65 and over (69%, 69%, 65% agreement for over 65’s versus 43%, 50%, 49% for under 25’s).
• Older people were more likely to comment that the proposal would have no / minimal impact for them and were more likely to suggest turning streetlights off more than proposed
• Those living in rural areas (77%, 80%, 76%), and those living in East Hampshire (67%, 71%, 68%), New Forest (68%, 70%, 66%), Test Valley (71%, 76%, 71%) and Winchester (72%, 75%, 70%).
• Those living in rural areas were more likely to comment on the positive impact on the environment and the positive financial impacts
• Those living in the New Forest and Test Valley were more likely to comment on the positive impact on the environment, whereas East Hampshire was more likely to comment that there was no / minimal impact, as well as the positive financial impact and reduced energy use
• All these areas were less likely to comment that there would be an increase in crime, and all apart from Winchester were less likely to report safety concerns
• Those with no health issues (66%, 70%, 66%) or health issues that do not impact their day-to-day activities
• Those with no health or disability issues were more likely to report that the proposals had no/ minimal impact, compared to those that did
• Those on annual household incomes of £40,001 or more (for example, 70%, 75%, 70% agreement for those with annual household income £40,001 to £50,000)
• While this group show similar levels of mentions for impacts compared to the overall sample, they are less likely to make a comment about dissatisfaction with the current service, such as lack of visibility
• Those who reported they are never out between the hours of midnight and 5am (77%, 79%, 75% agreement)
• This group were more likely to report no/ minimal impact or the positive impact on the environment
• They were also less likely to report concerns about crime or safety
• Those who travel by bicycle (70%, 73%, 69% agreement)
• This groups were slightly more likely to cite the positive impact on the environment and the positive financial impact of the proposal
• They were also more likely to suggest switching to motion sensor, solar powered or LED lighting
• In general, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum who focussed on the street lighting proposals expressed agreement with them due to the view that they would not have a significant impact on the public, as well as being cost effective

What the reasons driving disagreement with the proposals: Overall themes

Those who disagreed with the three proposals were more likely to comment on the following impacts:

• Safety concerns (59%, 59%, 57% of those who disagreed compared to 43% overall), specifically that the proposals compromise the safety of residents, pedestrians, cyclists and other roads users. Safety included both references to impacts of anti-social behaviour or crime on safety, as well as the risk of lack of visibility causing trips, falls and other accidents
“It is already dangerous with how dark our roads are at night. There have been breakins down my road as youths/perpetrators are not as visible and there has been accidents with the population not being able to see when walking their dogs or returning home in the winter.”
• Often linked to the point above, an increase in crime was also more likely to be mentioned (38%, 37%, 36% compared to 25% overall) as a potential impact, specifically burglaries, assaults and vandalism. It was felt that the cover of darkness was more likely to provide opportunities for crime to take place
"I am worried about personal safety if lights are not maintained and also the risk of burglaries, vandalism etc if roads are not illuminated."
• Negative impact on women (21%, 20%, 20% compared to 14% overall), specifically risks to women’s safety such as risk of attacks on women, or women generally feeling more unsafe on unlit streets. This could mean women feel less confident, or would avoid, leaving the house after dark
"It will make women feel even less safe or avoid going out after dark"

Negative impact on shift workers (14%, 14%, 14% compared to 11% overall) as they would be more likely to be about during the hours of reduced light and may not have access to a car so would be forced to walk on dark streets

“It should be remembered that some people work at unsociable times of day and night and should not be expected to travel - either by car or on foot - in darkness.”

Those who disagreed with the proposals were also more likely to make suggestions that either maintained or increased the amount of current street lighting, such as changing to LED lighting to reduce costs that way, or to find other ways to fund it (rather than reduce the service).

• Change to LED lighting (14%, 13%, 16% compared to 8% overall)
• Maintain current lighting (8%, 7%, 8% compared to 3% overall)
• Light more than currently (8%, 7%, 8% compared to 3% overall)
• Find alternative funding (7%, 6%, 5% compared to 2% overall)

Other general comments that were more likely to be mentioned by those who disagreed with the proposals were:

• Dissatisfaction with the current street lighting service, specifically lack of visibility such as lights already being too dim, and it is already hard to see at night (30%, 39%, 36% compared to 22%)
“As a pedestrian I find the street lights inadequate for safe walking even in the town where I live. I have to use a torch as they are too spaced out and too dull now.”
• Street lighting is important for safety (15%, 12%, 14% compared to 9%), specifically that it deters criminals and anti-social behaviour and is important for visibility.
“All roads should have street lighting as a Health and Safety matter. No lights increases the probability of accidents and assaults on the individual”
• Women feel unsafe already (11%, 10%, 10% compared to 6%) which included comments about women of all ages feeling unsafe walking when out and about, particularly walking alone.

“As an older female I felt unsafe both from either falling or a potential victim of crime."

"I am young and (…) as a female, I also fear going out in the dark and street lighting does make me feel safer."

Who is driving disagreement with the proposals: Overall themes

While the majority of respondents agreed with the proposals overall, certain groups of people had higher levels of disagreement with the three proposals compared to the total sample, often on the basis of safety concerns.

These were notably:

• Younger age demographics, notably those aged under 25 were more likely to mention safety concerns and impacts on women, vulnerable people or shift workers:
• Open text comments about the proposals suggest young people are more likely to be employed as shift workers, or travelling at night during these hours and therefore would be more at risk of becoming a victim of crime or feeling unsafe
• This is exemplified in a comment from The University of Winchester and the University of Winchester Students’ Union suggesting the proposals would lead to increased fear of harm as well as increased risk of injury amongst students
• However, young people were more likely to suggest adjusting lighting according to time of year or day of the week as an alternative
• Those living in Fareham (33%, 31%, 35%), Gosport (45%, 34%, 38%), Hart (33%, 34%, 38%) and Rushmoor (50%, 44%, 45%)
• Those in Fareham, Gosport and Hart were more likely to raise concerns about safety issues increasing as a result of the proposal
• Those in Gosport and Rushmoor were more likely to comment that the proposals would increase crime, and less likely to comment that the proposals would have a positive impact on the environment
• Those in Hart were also more likely to comment on the negative impact of the proposals on women
• Those limited by a health problem/ disability (33%, 28%, 32%)
• Open text comments suggest that those who are limited in how they move around, particularly those who are vulnerable or have a visual impairment, would feel less safe as a result of this proposal
• This group was also more likely to comment that they feel unsafe already compared to those without health or disability issues
“For those with sight issues, dimming streetlights during evening and early morning is dangerous.”
• Ethnic minority groups (40%, 31%, 33%)
• This groups were more likely to comment on the negative impact on women and also that accident and crime levels need to be considered
• Those from lower income households, notably those on incomes up to £10,000 (42%, 36%, 40%)
• It was suggested in open text comments that those on lower incomes are more likely to be doing shiftwork and therefore could be adversely impacted by the proposals due to safety concerns arising from less lighting
“I think this will impact poor people most as they are more likely to be walking and to be doing shift work, once again putting the most vulnerable at risk.”
• Individuals who are out and about in residential areas between midnight and 5am on most days (58%, 43%, 47%)
• Disagreement increased with the regularity in which respondents reported being out and about during that time frame
• Individuals out and about in residential areas between midnight and 5am on most days were also more likely to mention feeling unsafe already (25% versus 19% overall) in open text comments
• Bus (32%, 29%, 33%) taxi, (33%, 30%, 34%) and taxi share (50%, 47%, 53%) users
• Comments from the open text data suggest people are often walking to and from bus stops in the dark / low level lights and therefore adequate lighting is necessary for them to feel safe
“I have to walk to the bus stop at 5:30 and sometimes the street lights aren’t even on then. So not having them turned on until later seems mad!”
• Some other groups also showed slightly higher levels of disagreement across the proposals included those of gay or lesbian sexual orientation (36%, 38%, 37%) those who have never been married (35% 30%, 33%), and those who are neurodiverse (33%, 30%, 33%)
• Open text comments suggest that those who are already vulnerable or a minority group may feel more at risk or impacted by these proposals

“Safety should always be a priority and none of this should be taken lightly, particularly for women, gay people or others who may be vulnerable in the darkness.”

"As a single woman I'd feel unsafe if streetlights are turned off more or dimmed."

"As a female, I also fear going out in the dark and street lighting does make me feel safer. I believe there is research suggesting that many women and other vulnerable people feel the same way"

Breakdown of the proposals:

This section will look at each of the three proposals individually to show if there were any specific comments related to switching off versus dimming and any additional groups (other than those already mentioned) that were also more likely to agree or disagree with specific individual proposals.

Proposal 1: Where we already switch off street lights on residential streets for 3 hours per night, to extend this to 5 hours per night

Additional groups more likely to agree with this proposal:

The following additional groups had higher levels of agreement with this proposal specifically compared to the overall agreement (63%).

• Those living in Havant (68%)
• Residents from this district were less likely to mention a negative impacts on safety (24% compared to 43% overall) and more likely to suggest the proposals would have no/ minimal impact (17% compared to 7% overall)
• Although only accounting for a small proportion of respondents (35), Democratically Elected Representatives expressed a higher level of agreement with this proposal (69%)

Additional groups more likely to disagree with this proposal:

The following additional groups had higher levels of disagreement with this proposal compared to the overall disagreement (29%).

• Organisations (40% disagreement)
• The small number (16) of organisations who left a comment about potential impacts were more likely to mention negative impacts of the proposal on various different groups of people; including women, young people/children, disabled and other vulnerable people, shift workers and the public in general
• Organisations were also more likely to make a general comment that the roads were in a poor state of repair currently and that accident and crime levels need to be considered
• Those with children or young people up to the age of 18 living in their household (33%)
• This group were also more likely to mention that woman feel unsafe already, as well as on negative impact of the proposals on woman
• Ferry (32%) and wheelchair/mobility scooter users (35%). A small number of minibus users (32) also had a higher level of disagreement (39%). compared to overall

Feedback on how the switch off would be implemented

Respondents were also asked their views on the timings for the proposed extended switch off, and whether they thought the proposed timings were about right, or whether they felt should be earlier or later. Overall, more respondents felt the proposed switch on time of 5am was about right (68%), compared to the proportion of respondents who thought the proposed switch off time of midnight was about right (57%).

This was because around a quarter of respondents felt the switch off time should be later than midnight.

Certain groups of people were more likely to select that the proposed switch off time of midnight was about right, in particular:

• The small number (35) of Elected Representatives who responded (66%)
• Older age groups, specifically those aged 75 to 84 and 85+ (65% and 75% respectively).
• Residents of East Hampshire, Eastleigh, Havant and Test Valley (62%, 60%, 65%, and 64% respectively).
• Motorcycle/ moped users, ferry users and cyclists (65%, 61% and 60% respectively).

  Those who mentioned agreeing with switching the streetlights off at midnight in an open text comment felt that the current streetlighting levels were unnecessary and switching off at this time would be better for the environment.

  Despite the majority of respondents agreeing to the proposed switch off time, there were a minority of respondents (14%) who felt streetlighting should be switched off earlier than midnight. Specifically, this included:

• Rural residents (21%) as well as residents from Basingstoke and Deane (20%) and the New Forest (20%). Furthermore, a quarter of respondents (25%) felt that streetlighting should be switched off later than midnight. In particular:
• Those aged under 25 (51%)
• Ethnic minorities (30%)
• Residents from Rushmoor (38%), Gosport (34%), Fareham (30%), and Hart (30%)
• People travelling around in residential areas between midnight and 5am every (40%) or most (46%) days
• Those who travelled by taxi (29%).
• The small number (17) of charities who submitted a response (35%).

  Those who mentioned disagreeing with switching the streetlights off at midnight in an open text comment felt this would be unsafe as people are often still travelling at this time (such as people frequenting pubs/ restaurants and train users).

  b)Feedback on switching street lights on at 5am (instead of 4am)

  Certain groups of people were more likely to select that the proposed switch on time was about right, in particular:

  • Those aged 75 to 84 (72%) and 85 and over (76%)
  • Residents from Havant (75%)
  • Households in higher income brackets, specifically those with household incomes of £70,001 or more (73%)

  Despite the majority of respondents agreeing to the proposed switch on time, there were a minority of respondents (12%) who felt streetlighting should be switched on earlier than 5am. Specifically, this included:

  • Ethnic minorities (19%)
  • Those aged under 25 (21%)
  • Those who were impacted a lot day-to-day by a health problem or disability (16%)
  • Residents from Rushmoor (22%), Gosport (19%), Fareham (16%) and Eastleigh (15%)
  • People travelling around in residential areas between midnight and 5am on every (42%) or most (32%) days
  • The small number (17) of charities who submitted a response (18%)
  • The small number (17) of local authorities who submitted a response (25%)

  Furthermore, a small number of respondents (16%) felt that streetlighting should be switched on later than 5am. In particular, those:

  • Travelling around in residential areas between midnight and 5am most days (24%)
  • Those aged under 25 (19%)
  • Residents from New Forest (20%) and rural areas (20%)

  Proposal 2a: To dim street lights further on residential streets where it is considered safe to do so

  Additional groups more likely to agree with this proposal:

  The following additional groups had higher levels of agreement with this proposal compared to the overall agreement (67%).

  • Men were slightly more likely to agree with the proposal than woman (70% and 67% respectively)
  • Men were less likely to mention feeling unsafe already due to the current lighting level, or cite concerns about current visibility
  • They were also less likely to mention the impact of the proposals on women, and slightly lower mentions of safety impacts generally
  • Those with no children in the household (70%)
  • This group were less likely to report safety concerns compared to those with children (38% versus 50% respectively)
  • Although only accounting for a small proportion of respondents (35), Democratically Elected Representatives expressed a higher level of agreement with this proposal (74%)

  Additional groups more likely to disagree with this proposal:

  The following additional groups had higher levels of disagreement with this proposal compared to the overall disagreement (26%).

  • Residents of Basingstoke and Deane (30%) and Eastleigh (29%)
  • Residents of Basingstoke and Deane were more likely to comment about the increase in crime
  • Residents of Eastleigh were more likely to cite safety concerns and were less likely to mention benefits of the proposals on the environment
  • Those who travel by ferry (29%)
  • This group were also more likely to mention concerns about crime and safety

  Specific open-ended comments about this proposal:

  Open ended comments that specifically mentioned residential areas included both comments both for and against:

  “Street lighting is not required in residential areas; villages do not have lighting-most anyway. Everyone has a very good torch on their mobile phone; car lights and bike lights. Not good for environment especially bird life.”
  

  “Light levels in residential roads already fall below national recommended limits which makes it too dark already to walk safely.”

  Proposal 2b: To dim street lights further on the classified road network where it is considered safe to do so

  Additional groups more likely to agree with this proposal:

  The following additional groups had higher levels of agreement with this proposal compared to the overall agreement (63%).

  • Men were slightly more likely to agree with the proposal than woman (66% and 62% respectively)
  • As mentioned for proposal 2a, men were less likely to mention feeling unsafe already, or cite concerns about current visibility, and less likely to mention the impact of the proposals on women and safety impacts generally
  • Motorcycle/moped users (71%)
  • This group were more likely to mention that the proposals would have no or minimal impact, as well as general comment that there were no street lights near them currently anyway

  Additional groups more likely to disagree with this proposal:

  No other additional groups were more likely to disagree with this proposal specifically, other than those previously mentioned who were more likely to disagree with all three of the street lighting proposals in this consultation.

  Specific comments about this proposal:

  Open ended comments that specifically mentioned the classified road network, mentioned that these areas are busier and therefore dimming the streetlighting would cause safety issues.

  “On the classified road network, street lights are essential for safe car travel, so disagree with that one.”

  Main impacts of the proposed changes

  The overall comments provided about the street lighting proposals were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposal could have if it were to be implemented.

  691 out of 1,591 people who chose to provide comments on these proposals mentioned a potential impact in their feedback.

  • The most frequently mentioned impact was an increase in safety concerns (43%). This includes the general belief that people will be and feel less safe when travelling in the dark
  “I feel that reduced lighting at night is very dangerous to personal safety.”
  • Other frequently mentioned negative impacts include an increase in crime due to a reduced level of lighting (25%) (including burglaries, vandalism, assaults and mugging), as well as a negative impact on woman (14%) (such as feeling less confident and safe when travelling at night)

  “Crime rates will continue to rise if you are providing criminals with optimum opportunities such as no lights.”

  “These proposals are dangerous to lone women walking home at night.”

  Perceived impact on protected characteristics

  1,277 respondents indicated in the Response Form which characteristics or issues they felt would correspond with the impacts of the changes proposed for street lighting. Respondents were able to select any of the protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, as well as poverty, rurality, and environmental impacts.

  • They were most likely to indicate that the withdrawal of funding would impact people because of age (33%)
  • Specifically, it was suggested that older people would feel less safe and be more at risk if street lighting was reduced

  “Reducing street lighting causes stress and anxiety in the elderly who needs reassurance over their welfare and safety.”

  “Our aging population are being left vulnerable by turning down / off street lights.”

  • Around 3 in 10 (29%) selected that their impact related to the environment
  • 22% of the open text comments about impacts mentioned a positive impact on the environment (for example, a reduction in light pollution and improved welfare of wildlife)
  “Turning street lighting off should be a priority as not just save money is good for the environment saves electric and reduces light pollution.”
  • 27% mentioned that impacts could affect those with a disability, and this characteristic was more likely to be selected by those limited by a health problem or disability (44%)
  • Open ended comments specifically called out that the proposal could have negative impacts on those with sight or mobility issues and was often mentioned alongside impacts on elderly people
  • Some comments also mentioned that the proposal could have safety impacts on those who are already vulnerable, such as putting them at greater risk of assault, crime or accidents

  “For those with sight issues, dimming street lights during evening and early morning is dangerous.”

  “the more vulnerable or possibly isolated people would be in most danger of being attacked on dark streets”

  • 24% noted impacts on rurality
  • The majority of open ended comments on rurality mentioned that the proposals would have positive benefits (e.g. less light pollution, darker skies and benefits to wildlife) or no impact (already have less lighting anyway)
  • However, there were also some who mentioned potential negative impacts on rural areas such as increased vulnerability to crime (e.g. burglaries), increased isolation when walking home in the dark, visibility already being bad and more likely to be hazards in the roads (e.g. animals)
  • 17% mentioned sex, and this characteristic was more likely to be selected by women (21%) compared to the proportion of men selecting this characteristic (12%)
  • 14% of open ended comments on impacts mentioned that the proposals would have a negative impact on women, specifically that it could risk women’s safety, women would feel (more) unsafe and less confident walking in the dark which may mean their travel is restricted

  “It is never safe for women for street lights to be dimmed. It will increase the chance of unwanted advances from men, of sexual assault and general abuse. These proposals impact women far more than men and women are already disadvantaged when it comes to walking on our streets in the dark.

  “As a woman, this concerns me to dim and shorten the time of lights. We need to be safe and it is more likely that attacks will happen if it's dark. I want to be walking around my area not worried about my safety in the evenings.”

  • 13% made reference to poverty
  • Open ended comments mentioned that it is more likely to impact those without access to their own transport or not able to afford to use taxis
  • Some also mentioned that those with less money (including students, hospitality workers) were more likely to be doing shift work so would be disproportionately affected. Similarly, some people who are struggling with the cost of living already may have had to work additional/later hours to make ends meet

  “I think this will impact poor people most as they are more likely to be walking and to be doing shift work, once again putting the most vulnerable at risk”

  “Please bare in mind those working antisocial hours who don't have access to their own transport”

  Other characteristics were also mentioned but at much lower levels (5% or less). 32% suggested that they did not think that any of the characteristics listed would be disproportionately impacted by the proposals, and 7% did not know.

  Alternative solutions suggested

  513 out of 1,591 people who chose to provide comments on these proposals offered a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently.

  • The most commonly mentioned idea was adjusting street lighting according to the type of road or area (such as reducing in safer locations lit by other means such as residential estates and keeping lighting on main roads/ roads with lower levels of safety) (20%)
  • Respondents also suggested switching off streetlights more than the proposed amount (for example, reducing the number of lights that are close together) (17%)
  “It will depend heavily on the area. Those with problems with anti-social behaviour might need longer lighting periods. Some areas could have street lights switched off earlier. ideally this could be controlled at a more local level.”
  “The amount of street lights throughout the county should be reviewed, and where possible the numbers should be reduced. This would significantly reduce all associated costs and light pollution.”

  There was a wide range of additional and detailed suggestions which have been passed to the department for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.

  Other comments about these proposals to consider

  • Hampshire County Council’s Centre of Active Travel Excellence (CATE) raised a number of questions about the data used to inform the proposals relating to street lighting. They also offered to support with future work on the topic
  • New Forest District Council (NFDC) also asked for clarification on data used to evidence the proposed Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and New Years Eve exemptions
  • A few respondents wished to understand how areas would be assessed as safe to reduce street lighting
  “It would be interesting to know who has decided that streets are safe with less lighting. I have no objection to the changes per se but I would like to know the decision makers or contributors to the decision.”
  • A number of open text comments also mentioned a need to consider and monitor crime and accident levels to ensure that the public are kept safe
  “Good idea, but please do this with due consideration and review frequently in light of crime and accident statistics.”