‘Let there be light’ pleas for both a Peebles park and a popular green space in the town remain in the dark for now after cost concerns were raised.
Requests for additional lighting provision have been made by the management committee for Victoria Park and by the town’s community council regarding Tweed Green.
A group has been set up looking to establish prestigious Green Flag status for Victoria Park and one of the reasons given for hampering that bid is the “really appalling” lighting there.
However, the parks and street lighting departments at Scottish Borders Council oppose the requests, arguing there is an alternative route around Tweed Green and an existing lit-route across Victoria Park.
Additionally, there are concerns around the climate emergency declared by the local authority and whether the council should be installing more lighting.
Estimates have been drawn up over the cost of low level lighting bollards and lantern-style street lighting, members of Peebles Common Good Fund Sub-Committee were informed when they met via video-link to consider the lighting requests this week.
Installation costs for bollards in Victoria Park would be in the region of £51,500 and £26,500 for lanterns.
The cost of installing bollards in Tweed Green are estimated at £31,000 and £20,500 for lanterns.
Committee chair councillor Robin Tatler: “I would like to look to see if there are lower impact solutions available which involve less cost and lower voltage. I’m just not convinced we are being imaginative enough here.”
Councillor Stuart Bell pledged to do his own research to come to a final conclusion on the matter.
He said: “I will use the time between now and when it’s next considered to walk around there in the dark and make my own assessment on a dark night – there’s plenty of them this time of year.”
Councillor Shona Haslam added: “I think we also need to consult with the residents who live on the bit of the park facing Kingsmeadows Road. If there is going to be bright LED lights there behind them they might have a view.”
The matter is to be considered again at the sub-committee’s next meeting.