Is it any more dangerous than a PME lamp-post in the street, or a light at a PME supplied bus shelter.?  If there is contact to the poles that  means that large areas of easily touched fence are also at neutral potential rather than earth its not great, but if it is only the columns themselves, and they are in well drained ground,  perhaps it is more of a note of not good practice. To actually be dangerous needs an undetected PEN fault, and some one to touch it while in good contact with the terra firma so long as one of those is missing you are OK. Without RCD cover it is a lot better not being TT, though an RCD plus TT would be my preferred if starting from scratch.

M.

There is nothing in Section 714 that requires any consideration of loss of neutral. In fact 114.1 is explicit in that we need give no regard to such a circumstance if the supply has been given in accordance with ESQCR. 
I accept that BS7671 is not a panacea for all risks but it is the key point of reference for most electrical installation designs. The confidence in Regulation 114.1 seems to have been treated as more of a tenet than a surety in the outworkings of 722 and, of course, it has been a long established principle in caravan parks and marinas that PME should not be used. 
It would seem reasonable to consider that 714 would have had a similar clause had there been concern about loss of neutral as those that compile the regulations are clearly aware of the issue. Since there isn’t, I have the backing of BS7671 and, by inference, the HSE, in providing an earth facility to a steel lighting column on a tennis court. 

Ridiculous conclusion! Please explain how you think a significant potential could occur between the close surface and the clearly large area of metal very close by? What about the 200 million or so street lamps installed in the Country? No deaths!

no need to be rude about conclusion mate, not the vibe of the forum. We haven't concluded anything, that's why we posted. We don't work on streetlights but when we've installed metal outdoor lighting pillars we tend not to export the PME and put it on an RCD and TT. Was just putting it out there for feed back. Thanks for getting back and have a great day

But you are "trying" to do an EICR! If you don't know the regulations very well or industry practice, you should be nowhere near an EICR of a public building. That is what is ridiculous. Ok, Which regulation bans feeding outdoor lighting with any supply type? Simple question, not a simple answer? Which regulation in BS7671 says anything about exporting PME to street furniture? I imagine you find the OSG sufficiently specific?

I am not trying to be rude, I am simply protecting your customer and the Public in general. As you see Lyle makes exactly the same points as I have, but I question your ability because that is a risk to everyone. According to the HSE, the safety of PME is not in question, but you see a risk? I take it that you would happily charge to make this circuit TT, as you admit to having done before for lighting outdoors? Was this fair in view of what you now know?

Section 714

Outdoor lighting installations

714.411.3.4 Additional protection 

Lighting that is accessible to the public shall have additional protection by an RCD having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1.

My understanding is the impetus behind the introduction of this regulation, in amongst others, was the incident in a pub garden resulting in the death of a child.

www.bbc.co.uk/.../uk-england-london-56758749

There is nothing to suggest that were going to give it a code or that we go around trying to find problems where there aren't any. God know we're busy enough as it is and don't need to go around finding problems where there aren't any.  I was wondering if I should make a comment on the EICR.  I'm aware that there's no regulation with exporting PME in this  situation but as we both know there are plenty of special locations where folk could be simultanously touching earthed metal work with a lost neutral and be in contact with true earth and that PME is not permitted. Because of this, on a new installations we would not usually export the PME outside the equipotential zone say to metal shed or a summer house with extraneous conducting parts and would put the system on a TT and very little extra cost ie an earth rod and a terminated unconnected PME earth. This is normal and have had numerous discussions with my NICEIC inspector about this over the years. 

In this case we were doing a standard EICR on a commercial building and they asked us to include the floodlights. And I'm simply asking for people's thoughts on this because although we'rev aware of the regulations we were interested in the opinions of those professionals who install floodlights. We do this because we're aware that we don't know it all and take an interest in growing and developing professionlly by engaing. 

Been on and off this forum for years even back in my rookie days when I'm sure I asked some dumb questions and was always answered professionally, supportively and courteously by all users. Are you  a regular Twitter poster? 

Lighting that is accessible to the public shall have additional protection by an RCD having the characteristics specified in Regulation 415.1.1.

Presumably intended to be interpreted as the light fitting itself is accessible, as distinct from the column that's supporting it. So perhaps doesn't apply in this particular case (unless the column is unusually short). The would keep it consistent with the listed exclusions - which includes street lighting.

I am not trying to be rude

I'm sure you don't, but please be aware that it can come across that way.  None of us, however well privileged in training and experience, know everything and life will always push us beyond our comfort zones if we're to improve. Being willing to ask is perhaps the most valuable attribute, and we should take care not to discourage that in any way, however unintentionally.

   - Andy.

 AJJewsbury  said “Presumably intended to be interpreted as the light fitting itself is accessible, as distinct from the column that's supporting it. So perhaps doesn't apply in this particular case (unless the column is unusually short). The would keep it consistent with the listed exclusions - which includes street lighting.”.

714.411.2.201 is a height specific requirement, light sources less than 2.800 metres have to be enclosed.

714.1 Scope specifically states that sporting areas and flood lights are within scope.

There is nothing to say that the RCD requirement depends on the height of the light source and the tennis court flood lights are within scope, so as an absolute minimum the lack of 30 mA RCD protection is a C3 and definitely cannot be ignored.

There is nothing to say that the RCD requirement depends on the height of the light source

But it is dependent on the light being "accessible to the public" - my point is that if it's umpteen metres up in the air, it's not accessible to the public.

   - Andy.