Seq. No.	Lamp Number	Location	Lamp Type	Watt	Isolation Point
1	100662	1ST FROM DIAMOND D	SXPL2	35
2	100663	OS 5 THE MILLDALE	SXPL2	35
3	100664	OPP PRIMROSE CLO	SXPL2	35
4	100665	ADJ 11	SXPL2	35
5	100666	OPP HEMLOCK CL	SXPL2	35
6	100667	OS NO 12	SXPL2	35
7	100668	OS NO 14	SXPL2	35
8	100669	OS NO 19	SXPL2	35

The following photographs were taken on Sunday, 10th October 2010. All of the outgoing lanterns installed along here consisted of Thorn Beta 5 lanterns dating from the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Both the outgoing and new lanterns appeared to be being troubled by a well-established oak tree from the adjacent wood. At this point, I should point out that I don't know from where the name of this suburb originates...

The shadowy silhouettes of the opposite two columns in the turning circle are pictured below:

The next new column was installed on one side of a driveway; the equivalent outgoing column was sited on the other side.

The new lantern emerges from a gap in the tree branches:

The kick-back on the swan neck brackets attached to the old columns was considerable:

This Beta 5 was fitted with a Royce Thompson SC1000 photocell - the type of cell that was fitted to all new lanterns installed under the PFI, prior to September 2010.

The new columns are six metres in height; the outgoing columns are just less than five metres in height from the lantern to ground level.

It is interesting to note that, despite the new lanterns not being bracket-mounted, the lamps are positioned further out from the back of the footway than those in the outgoing lanterns are - the combination of the kick-backs on the brackets and longer lengths of the Iridium lanterns being the reason.

A brief glimpse into Harebell Close; the outgoing column is on the left, and is partially obscured by another tree. This is perhaps why the replacement column is installed on the opposite side of the carriageway.

Back on Foxglove Drive, this outgoing column is set back a considerable distance from the carriageway edge, due to the wider footway at this location.

This Beta 5 appeared to be having one or two 'ingress' issues, judging by the pool of green water in the rear portion of the bowl!

The new column was positioned a small wall that acted as a boundary between two properties.

The label detailing the photocell's switching levels is clearly visible in this photograph - the full-size version of this photograph reveals some of the wording on this label - despite the photocell resembling a Royce Thompson Oasis 1000, it is actually still identified as an SC1000/SAV - the difference in appearance being a deliberate measure so as to allow the 70 Lux (blue) cells to be differentiated from these 35 Lux cells.