Walk into almost any communal staircase, exterior walkway, or lobby, and you’ll see them: round bulkhead fittings clinging to the wall, yellowed with age, and sometimes cracked.
Bulkheads have become visual shorthand for utilitarian lighting; they’re familiar, inexpensive, efficient and robust. They help to illuminate the exterior, and often interior, of everyday buildings (schools, community centres, gyms, warehouses and more) and tick the boxes of standard illumination and emergency coverage. For decades, lighting professionals have chosen these as the default option as an all-rounder solution. As conversation has moved from expecting practical solutions to desiring aesthetic qualities in our everyday spaces, it is no surprise that the role of the bulkhead has come under consideration. Not whether they can meet requirements, but whether we should rely on them for our solutions. Should a lighting fitting go unnoticed, or should it stand as its own unique character in the built environment?
The goal of this blog post is to understand the idea, presented by the ILP (Institute of Lighting Professionals), to “ban the bulkhead”, and debate the use of bulkheads in public spaces.
The goal is not to dismiss the reliance on bulkheads as a bolt-on within the planning process; they have a solid purpose in achieving appropriate light levels in outdoor environments. The concern lies within the reflexive implementation of low-cost bulkheads into intentionally made places. While we must be aware and compliant with safety standards when it comes to exterior and emergency lighting, we must also be aware of the experience this lighting evokes in everyday after-dark activities.
The primary concern for exterior and interior lighting for public buildings is safety. They are to inform safe movement and evacuation as well as deter crime and eliminate the perception of danger.
In many schemes, emergency provisions rely on general bulkhead schemes rather than bespoke lighting that integrates into the design language. Fittings may meet the letter of standards (such as BS 5266 for escape route lighting), but their spacing, mounting height, materials, and optical distribution are rarely optimised for aesthetic or utilitarian purposes. The result is patchy illuminance, poor uniformity and pools of over- or under-lit floor areas. IK ratings and toughened enclosures are important in high-risk locations for vandalism, but they’re sometimes used as a justification for fittings that compromise heavily on light quality. Robust does not have to mean crude. And high-risk does not have to mean interventions have to disrespect the existing build and social environment.
Current best practice in lighting for public spaces increasingly favours:
We can design for safety and resilience without condemning locals to harsh, low-quality, disruptive lighting without regard for the local built environment.
Ask residents how their corridors, stairways, and exterior pathways feel at night, and you’ll often hear:
Standard bulkheads contribute to this in several ways:
Contemporary, resident-focused schemes choose to emphasise:
Full control of glare through optics, diffusers and mounting position
Good horizontal and vertical uniformity, so faces are visible and signage is legible
Appropriate colour temperature (often in the 3000-3500K range in residential circulation) to balance comfort and alertness
Decent colour rendering (e.g.,, CRI 80+ or better) so residents can recognise people and spaces confidently
These can affect several residents on a level that planners have not yet considered, particularly neurodiverse and disabled people; the difference between lit environments can appear disconcerting. Moreover, introducing uniform, low-glare, well-lighting that integrates with its environment not only makes spaces more inclusive but also makes passers-by feel welcomed and valued.
Walls lined with inexpensive bulkheads convey a message: this is a passing place, not to be inhabited, not a place to experience, a liminal space between the beginning and end of your journey.
Many legacy and low‑spec bulkhead schemes:
By contrast, high‑performance LED luminaires designed for communal areas can deliver:
Over typical lifecycles of 10–15 years, these savings dwarf the initial difference in luminaire price.
A large appeal of the bulkhead lies in its cost. Social landlords and managing agents are under relentless financial pressure. It’s understandable that catalogues and frameworks full of low‑cost bulkheads are attractive, but the initial cost is only a small part of the appeal. As LED technology progresses, there is no reason why we cannot draw the function of the bulkhead to more aesthetically appealing and appropriate cases.
Contemporary LED luminaires designed for public spaces can:
These aren’t luxuries; they relieve perceived danger, reduce trips and falls, and support a respect for the built environment.
Communal lighting is not just about safety and kilowatt‑hours; it’s also about placemaking. The way we light entrances, stair cores, courtyards and access decks shapes how residents, visitors and staff experience the building – and how they behave within it.
Thoughtful lighting can:
Bulkheads placed to cover basic light level requirements are rarely able to achieve these aims. Layered schemes – combining ambient lighting with targeted emphasis on doors, signs and hazards – make navigation more intuitive and reduce stress, especially in larger or more complex buildings. Many exterior passageways that are afflicted with the compulsory bulkhead are lit as though they are car parks or industrial yards: high glare, cold colour temperature, and little consideration for neighbouring windows or external amenity space.
If we accept that default, low‑spec bulkhead schemes are often the wrong answer, what should replace them? The good news is that the alternatives are not exotic or unproven – they are readily available, and many housing providers are already moving in this direction.
Look for fittings that:
Bulkheads will not disappear overnight, nor should they in every context. There are environments where a well‑designed, high‑quality bulkhead remains a perfectly sensible choice. But in UK housing and communal residential settings, the era of the “lowest‑cost bulkhead as default answer” should now be over. We have better tools, better technology and a deeper understanding of resident needs than ever before.
If you are a lighting designer, specifier, housing provider or local authority, this is a pivotal moment to:
Communal lighting is too important to be left to habit. By moving beyond the bulkhead‑as‑default mindset and embracing resident‑centred, performance‑driven solutions, we can deliver safer, more dignified and more sustainable homes – and, in the long run, better value for the organisations that provide and manage them.