Something like the below

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
Examples include:
1. Gardens, spaces open to the public
2. Telephone kiosks
3. Bus shelters
4. Advertising panels and town plans
This list is not exhaustive.
The following are excluded:
5. Street lighting and traffic signage
6. Illumination of monuments
7. Platform lighting at rail/bus stations.

In view of the above quoted regulation, it could be argued that RCD protection is needed for certain types of car park lighting, especially bollards, which are easily damaged by cars and vandalism

IIRC it was 18th edition BS7671 amendment 2 after child got electrocuted in the pub beer garden 

Appropriate Regulation referenced above by Sergio Fernandez 

Some more background as to why you ought to provide the RCD, regardless of what BS 7671 says, is provided in the information and advice from the HSE here: press.hse.gov.uk/.../

Further to all of that, BS 7671 is a minimum standard - there are particular use-cases for spaces open to the public, major infrastructure, workplaces, etc., where additional measures may be required depending on risk assessment (including CDM risk assessment, as pretty much all electrical installation work, including maintenance, is classified as construction work in CDM).

mind you that pub had so much wrong with it that an accident was waiting to happen - the wiring to the outside lights was utterly negligent, but so were many other aspects it was quite a catalogue.

An RCD may well have saved the youngster, if he was well grounded, but I'd not like to suggest that an RCD magically makes that sort of installation standard OK in the UK.

The alternate view for  your lights question is how dangerous does it become if the RCD trips due to a none- fault event and is not reset fairly smartly afterwards ?

I'd consider a few bollards (as it sounds like) going off and staying off all night, not to be an issue, so long as there is other lighting, but if it also plunges into darkness, say the only illumination for a narrow set of uneven stone steps or something, there is also a counter safety case for keeping at least some of the lights on - as there is for streetlights on main roads. This may not apply here however but is a more general comment.

Mike

Thanks

Number 1 was not in BS7679 Amendment 1

I just checked and it is now in amendment 2

So this looks to be a recent thing. Am I right?

Basically as I understand the principle behind this....ANY metal furniture/electrical item outside that can come in contact with public should be under RCD.

For example I have a PTZ Camera on metal pole that needs power supply.

I am thinking it should be on RCD as well under the same principle.

At least that's how I see it after this list of items you have posted

A further thought to this scenario could be a 240v supply via RCD to the center of the carpark to a pillar/column/cabinet and then 36v or 48v to the lights.  This would allow for each light to be on its own radial circuit for testing/maintenance and isolation.  The cabinet/pillar could have some extra protection like perimeter barriers 50cm to 100cm beyond the cabinet as it a car park.  Cable length and volt drop would need to be calculated if 36v/48v is used as there are limits on the length. 

Would other metal electrical structures that can be accessed by public be in this RCD category too?

For example a metal motorised sliding gate or a camera pole with 230V to the camera etc

I mean, if we consider a lighting post or o bollard a danger to public why would it be different for other 230V metal structures?

Just wondering 

In terms of the chance of a shock risk, it probably isn't much different - a light or a camera or a motor screwed to an metal fence is very similar. There is a general question of different sorts of risk to be balanced - is it better if the power goes off or not? Public street lights are not RCD because the aggro of them not being reset if there is a (very unlikely) trip is considered more dangerous than the (also very unlikely ) double fault needed to reach a dangerous condition - namely a CPC failure and then an insulation fault. Thirdly, lamp posts are painted - which is not formal insulation per-se but is likely to limit shock current, and then they are not held onto intimately by folk with wet hands and feet.  A camera pole is similar, but a gate mechanism may be more likely to be touched (postman or a side-gate for pedestrians) and or there may be situations where the power going off is more dangerous than it staying on - if for example folk are then locked in.

The list is not meant to be the last word - more that 'here are the sort of things to think about' In that sense it makes it hard to be sure if the requirements of the regs have been met as intended or not, and there needs to be a clear policy from the security side with things like doors that lock and so on as to what happens in a power cut. It may be that cameras and locks running from 12 or 24 v are preferred in some situations - both eliminating the shock risk, and allowing a 'diode-or' with a back up battery.

That's not much help to you in terms of not being black and white - but as so often, it needs the whole system design 'in the round' as it were, and a clear design authority who can balance these decisions.

Mike.

In terms of the chance of a shock risk, it probably isn't much different - a light or a camera or a motor screwed to an metal fence is very similar. There is a general question of different sorts of risk to be balanced - is it better if the power goes off or not? Public street lights are not RCD because the aggro of them not being reset if there is a (very unlikely) trip is considered more dangerous than the (also very unlikely ) double fault needed to reach a dangerous condition - namely a CPC failure and then an insulation fault. Thirdly, lamp posts are painted - which is not formal insulation per-se but is likely to limit shock current, and then they are not held onto intimately by folk with wet hands and feet.  A camera pole is similar, but a gate mechanism may be more likely to be touched (postman or a side-gate for pedestrians) and or there may be situations where the power going off is more dangerous than it staying on - if for example folk are then locked in.

The list is not meant to be the last word - more that 'here are the sort of things to think about' In that sense it makes it hard to be sure if the requirements of the regs have been met as intended or not, and there needs to be a clear policy from the security side with things like doors that lock and so on as to what happens in a power cut. It may be that cameras and locks running from 12 or 24 v are preferred in some situations - both eliminating the shock risk, and allowing a 'diode-or' with a back up battery.

That's not much help to you in terms of not being black and white - but as so often, it needs the whole system design 'in the round' as it were, and a clear design authority who can balance these decisions.

Mike.