1.  What has been the impact of light pollution on UK astronomy?

—  Generally extremely detrimental. With the exception of a few niche areas, it is no longer possible to carry out front-line optical astronomy from the UK, even if the weather were amenable.

—  During the 1950s, the Royal Greenwich Observatory moved out of London to the clearer skies of the Sussex coast; but only 30 years later the telescopes had to move again to a site 6,000 feet above sea level on the Canary Island of La Palma.

—  The relocation of UK astronomy to world-class observing sites abroad is obviously beneficial for the pursuit of front-line observing programmes, but carries a danger that hands-on student training and the development of new instruments may suffer in the long term, owing to the cost and logistical difficulties of travelling to distant observing sites abroad, where access to telescopes is severely rationed and telescope time at a premium.

  2.  Are current planning guidelines strong enough to protect against light pollution?

—  No. Guidelines on light pollution either do not exist or are not properly enforced; the problem of light pollution is growing.

—  Planners seem generally to be unaware of the problem, although most are supportive when the issue has been properly explained.

—  There is a need for well written, strengthened guidelines.

  3.  Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

—  Probably not; development plans frequently highlight examples of poor lighting as positive features of the plan (eg floodlights shining up into trees, moving beams of light projected onto high buildings or into the sky), aspects which are only noticed occasionally and objected to on an ad hoc basis.

—  Most planners and planning authorities are unaware of the issue of light pollution.

  4.  Is light measurable in such a way as to make legally enforceable controls feasible?

—  Yes, but a successful programme to eliminate light pollution should be based on an appropriate mix of regulatory, exhortatory and incentive measures, designed to protect remaining areas of dark skies and extend them where possible.

—  Instruments to measure light should, so far as possible, be based on off-the-shelf equipment, and be professionally maintained and regularly calibrated.

—  There is a need for ear-marked funds to support a programme to monitor light pollution from a variety of sites over an extended (say, 20-year) time-scale, possibly along the lines of the pilot programme "Starwatch UK" of the 1990s and similar initiatives elsewhere. The annual recurrent cost need not be large (eg a salary and on-costs equivalent to one full-time post), but the programme would need to be properly designed, with the full capital costs, maintenance and calibration of any photometric instruments built into it, and with an administrative support structure that would allow the programme to continue in the long term.

—  Monitoring light pollution is essential if efforts to reduce poor lighting are to be rewarded and if progress against light-pollution targets is to be measured. This will require the employment of at least one specialist to collect and collate data from possibly a wide range of collaborating institutions (which might include amateur astronomy societies, schools and university groups throughout the country) over an extended period of time. The specialist would be in a position to analyse the results systematically, and draw reliable, scientifically accurate conclusions.

  5.  Are further controls on the design of lighting necessary?

—  Yes. There is a need both for stronger planning guidelines, and to encourage manufacturers and retailers to consider the issue of light pollution in the design and power of light fittings, and for environmental impact assessments to include lighting as a separate issue. The emphasis should be on developing a suitable regulatory framework that will encourage sustainable development, environmental protection and energy conservation.