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

  The impact of light pollution, in its many forms (including sky glow and light trespass) upon amateur astronomy in this country has been adverse in the extreme. Apart from remote and sparsely populated areas of Britain (which are, incidentally, not generally blessed with clear skies), it is now impossible to see the Milky Way or zodiacal light, nor any but the brightest stars in the constellations. In urban areas only first magnitude stars and the brighter planets are visible.

  It is not just the serious amateur astronomer that is affected. Light pollution deprives the whole community of the beauty of a starry night. Unless urgent action is taken, the sense of wonder that a clear starry night can instil will be lost. The despoiling of our night skies by light pollution is akin to permitting unsightly industrial development to obscure our view of Britain's beauty spots. This is an aesthetic consideration as well as a scientific one.

  One serious result of light pollution is that our young people, deprived of a proper night sky, are not gaining an early interest in astronomy. Such an interest often leads to a career in a scientific subject. It is an undisputed fact that this country is lagging in the training of scientists. This will have serious implications for the future well-being of the United Kingdom. The lack of stimulus in the young is reflected in the decreasing numbers of young people joining local astronomical societies, our own included.

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

  The current guidelines are not strong enough and stronger legal backing is necessary. But more than anything, clear guidance, and a consistent policy from central government is required. Light pollution, in effect, comes from wasted light, light going where it is not required. Wasted light means, of course, wasted energy, just at the time that the public is being encouraged to save energy and to do what it can to prevent the build up of "greenhouse gases". That the Government saw fit to mark the millennium with grants for the floodlighting of village churches is to be much regretted. It has led not only to increased light pollution (one cannot light up a spire without much spare light going into the sky) but to the saddling of local parishes with the additional cost of (wasted) energy to keep the floodlights operating, just at the time when the Church of England claims it cannot afford to pay its clergy or keep its mediaeval church buildings open.

  The law regarding the use of advertising "sky beams" should be clarified, and if possible there should be an outright ban on them, as exists in Belgium and other members of the European Community. Sky beams serve no useful purpose at all.

  Not all local planning authorities have included guidelines against light pollution in their local plans. Central government could and should make such clauses compulsory. In the case of one planning authority in this county, the light pollution clause drawn up by the planning officers was thrown out by the elected members.

  There are no controls at all on the installation of private "security" lights, which are frequently poorly designed and poorly sited with scant regard for light trespass into neighbouring gardens, nor for dazzling passing traffic. Light trespass is becoming as bad a problem as sky glow, and there is no remedy available to persons affected short of expensive and possibly unsuccessful legal action. It is impossible to observe the night sky when a badly designed 500 watt light from a garden up the road is shining into one's eyes. The evidence that "security" lighting deters crime is unclear, recent studies in the USA indicating just the opposite. Badly designed "security" lights create dark shadows in which miscreants can lurk, whilst the householder remains dazzled. Furthermore it has been shown that the graffiti problem disappears if, because there is no lighting, the `artists' cannot see to carry on their defacements during the hours of darkness.

  There is no control either of the growing practice of the illumination of gardens and trees. This is a total waste of energy in that it interferes with nature and has proven deleterious effects on bird, insect, and plant life, not to mention the night sky.

3.  Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  In our opinion they are not. They are difficult and costly to enforce, and planning authorities do not necessarily have sufficient staff, money, or time to follow up every breach of guidelines. The right of appeal can also mean that, at the end of the day, enforcement is impossible. This could be remedied if local planning authorities were given much more muscle. This would require additional legislation by central government to give planning authorities firmer powers.

  In some cases, local representatives of the British Astronomical Association's Campaign for Dark Skies have been successful in reducing sources of light pollution by persuading developers and/or co-operation with the local planning authority, but there are obvious limitations to this course of action by wholly voluntary "watchdogs".

  As stated above, there are currently, as far as I am aware, no powers available to combat light trespass. There was an opportunity a few years ago for the Government to include light pollution and trespass in the definition of "statutory nuisance", but this was foregone. It is not too late to do something about this.

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

  The intensity of light is measurable, like noise and other nuisances. The guidelines produced by the Institution of Lighting Engineers actually quotes suggested levels of light intensity for given situations. However, in our opinion these levels are far too high, and their adoption as they stand would not prevent the continuing spread of light pollution and trespass, even in sensitive areas where the more stringent controls are suggested by the ILE. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of lighting proposals must be considered, and not individual cases (which can eventually add up to something totally unacceptable).

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

  Further controls are required in the cases of "security" lighting, advertisements, floodlighting (buildings and establishments such as golf driving ranges and sports facilities), and the lighting of private car parks. Any controls must cover not only design, but also siting, and timing. Many lights remain on throughout the night when they are not required, and are just wasting energy as well as causing light pollution.

  In the case of public street lighting, the lighting authorities appear to understand and accept that any light thrown above the horizontal is a waste of energy, and much new lighting is of the full cut-off type. But it still remains on throughout the night when there is little or no traffic about. Also, it is going to take many years indeed to change over all our street lighting to full cut-off design.

  But there is still a proliferation of examples of poor lighting design on private sites, like supermarket car parks lit by hundreds of globe lights. Although these may appear attractive during the day, these are a most inefficient type of unit, throwing over half of their light output upwards, contributing to sky glow, a total waste of energy.

GENERAL CONCLUDING COMMENTS

  We hope the committee will give due consideration to the above comments, and that this Government will follow the enlightened lead provided by the Czech Republic, Italy, and several States in the USA in enacting stringent legislation aimed at eliminating light pollution in all its manifestations.

  We have largely restricted our comments to the adverse effects of light pollution on amateur astronomy, mentioning energy waste in passing, but are sure that the committee will be aware of the energy implications. Nor have we referred in any detail to the growing evidence of the adverse effects of light pollution and light trespass on wild life, especially birds and insects, and even vegetation, or to the self-evident aesthetic considerations.