The sudden spate of flags being hung from lampposts and in other public places during the summer prompted the ILP to issue a warning about the health and safety risk this can pose to the public.
Anyone driving around since the summer will undoubtedly have noticed the sudden appearance of flags and banners, often the George Cross or the Union Flag, tied to lampposts, hung from motorway bridges, along streets, and even painted on mini-roundabouts or crossings.
They first appeared – and were later removed – in the West Midlands and Tower Hamlets in east London in early August and from there rapidly spread across the country.
Their spread was encouraged and supported by a range of local groups, often via social media under the banner of ‘Operation Raise the Flags’.
While many argued they were simply a symbol of local pride and patriotism, others expressed concern that they were being used to fuel tensions over immigration and to promote far-right groups.
WIND LOADS AND VIBRATION
Irrespective of that debate, the health and safety ramifications of unofficially attaching flags – any flags or similar – to public lighting infrastructure prompted the ILP, in conjunction with its Technical Committee and the Lighting Column Technical Forum (LCTF), to warn the public about the risks this can entail.
ILP Technical Manager Guy Harding coordinated the responses from the Technical Committee and LCTF, along with David Lodge and the ILP’s local authority lead Rob Baines.
While a flag ‘may seem like an insignificant item on a column’, the ILP highlighted, ‘during periods of high winds, the flag will apply wind loads and vibrations from its flapping onto the lighting column that are much more significant than the flag weight.
‘The addition of a flag or banner – irrespective of its style, logo or design – puts an additional loading on the column for which it was not designed,’ the ILP warned.
‘Lighting columns have a limited life span, and the additional loading of unexpected attachment loads (for example, flags) puts additional stresses on the lighting columns and their foundations, which could lead to early failure in some cases.
‘To avoid this additional stress, all non-authorised attachments should be removed by competent personnel using a Mobile Elevating Work Platform (MEWP), which is used when lighting columns are maintained and inspected – lighting columns are not designed to be strong enough for direct climbing or to support ladders,’ the statement added.
BENDING OR BUCKLING OF COLUMN
In addition, the attachment of flags by members of the public, either by climbing the column or by resting a ladder against the column, ‘will put significant loads onto the lighting column that can cause bending or buckling of the column shaft and/or loosening of the foundations,’ the ILP said.
‘It can also cause cracks to form at welds which, while unnoticed at the time, could lead to early failure of the lighting column and a potential injury due to the unexpected collapse.
‘There is clearly a significant risk to members of the public putting up flags on lighting columns due to the column failing while climbing it, due to falling from the column or ladder or from being hit by a moving vehicle, all of which have a real chance of resulting in serious injury or death.
‘Local councils have a process to enable any organisations wanting to install flags or other attachments to lighting columns to apply for permission, and it is recommended that the council be approached before proceeding. Any unauthorised attachments can and should be removed from lighting columns,’ the ILP added.
However, ILP President James Duffin, who is also as senior lighting designer at Enerveo, highlighted that simply removing these additions may not always be straightforward.
Citing feedback from directors within his company regarding the safety of site personnel, he said: ‘In recent days, we have attempted to remove flags at a number of sites, and that staff doing so have been subject to severe verbal abuse and threatening behaviour from members of the public. And have had to abort jobs due to the fear of physical violence on numerous sites.’
The Lighting Column Technical Forum, in a separate statement, echoed the ILP’s concerns. ‘The mounting of any unauthorised attachment on a street lighting column without a design check to confirm its suitability could cause structural failure,’ it warned.
‘Mounting of such attachments in any other way than a MEWP is extremely dangerous and could result in serious injury or a fatality. It could also overload the lighting column structure,’ it added.
LIABILITY GREY AREA
The question, too, of liability in the event of the worst happening and a column falling over or collapsing because of having had a flag, or similar, attached to it was something worrying lighting professionals.
Rob Baines emphasised that, if an asset were to collapse, it would be likely this would be something for insurers and the courts ‘to thrash out’.
He added: ‘However, any defence by the council would be much stronger if there were a robust policy and programme of structural inspections of the lighting asset with supporting inspection records. From experience whenever a claim is received one of the first items of evidence requested by insurance is the history of the asset.’
As well as attachments to columns, councils expressed concern over the use of spray paint on signs and roundabouts, pointing out that this could potentially distract or confuse a driver and so present a driving hazard.
According to a news report by the BBC, many councils as a result had been working to clarify their rules around both flying flags and the use of spray paint.
This is an abridged version of the article that appears in the October edition of Lighting Journal. To read the full article, simply click on the page-turner to your right.
