OPPOSITION councillors have welcomed Surrey County Council’s ‘partial U-turn’ on cost-cutting plans to switch off streetlights overnight.

Surrey’s unpopular street lighting policy, which was introduced in 2016 and early 2017, saw thousands of street lights turned off across the county between midnight and 5am without any consultation with the residents affected.

The U-turn which comes as a result of Surrey exceeding its savings target, means lights will now stay on until 1am. It follows widespread condemnation by councillors, residents and night-shift workers, amid fears the blackout increases crime risks and endangers safety.

Night-time crime increased by 40 per cent in some areas after lights were switched off, and 4,000 people signed a petition calling for ‘ill-conceived plans’ to be reconsidered.

Announcing the policy change, cabinet member for highways Colin Kemp said: “In recognition of concerns raised by residents, particularly shift workers and those who work in the hospitality industry, we have decided to keep the street lights on for an hour longer.

“Having listened to people’s feedback,street lights in residential areas will stay on until 1am to make it easier for them to get home. We are able to do this because the savings from turning off the lights in the early hours of the morning are likely to be higher than anticipated. We have decided to reinvest this back into our communities.”

One angry resident told The Herald: “No notices were ever given to residents in the areas to be blacked out prior to the blackouts.

“The agreed policy was to turn some of lights off for some of the time. We got all of the lights all of the time without any discussion with the people that live here.”

Stephen Cooksey, Lib Dem spokesman on highways and environment. said: “The Conservative policy on street lighting has been badly thought through, poorly implemented and is inconsistent.

“While I welcome this small change in policy, this whole mess could have been avoided if they had consulted with residents before the changes were made and in an open and transparent fashion, so amendments to the proposals suggested by residents could have been taken on board.”