Memorandum from the Pollution & Public
Health Project Group, Ealing, submitted by Mr Andrew Lyon
The House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee will consider the following specific questions:
— What has been the impact of light
pollution on UK astronomy?
You have doubtless received a great deal of
specific information in answer to this question. However, purely
from the Ealing perspective, the Council's Environmental Health
Department has received complaints from at least one amateur astronomer
living in Ealing, who has been aggrieved by light spilling from
security lights (in each of two of his neighbour's premises) which
spoil his viewing conditions.
— Are current planning guidelines
strong enough to protect against light pollution?
Yes, potentially, for major developments—suitable
"light-controlling" planning conditions can be, and
usually are, imposed.
No, for small developments where a lighting
scheme may not have been considered.
Obviously also no, for those developments not requiring
planning permission. If all the small developments were added
up they would probably be shown to affect more people than the
total large developments.
Ealing Council is receiving a gradually increasing
number of complaints about what is considered to be "light
pollution." The number of complaints in 2000 were 133% higher
than in 1993. (More recent figures are being collated.)
A change in the legislation is needed, to include
"light pollution" in the list of statutory nuisances
that are contained in section 79 of the Environmental Protection
Act, 1990. At present anyone can shine a floodlight directly up
into the sky and cannot be stopped, householders install 500 watt
and even 1000 watt security/courtesy lights outside their homes
when an 11 watt compact fluorescent light would usually be sufficient.
— Are planning guidelines being
applied and enforced effectively?
In Ealing, yes, as far as possible.
The standard planning conditions relating to
light are as follows:
Obtrusive Light From Exterior Floodlights—Institution
of Lighting Engineers Guidance etc.
10.2 Details shall be submitted for approval
of the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced,
to demonstrate that the recommendations made at the Institute
of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes For Golf Driving Ranges are
met, and in particular that an illuminance range, not exceeding
50-100 lux (vertical), is met.
10.3 Details shall be submitted for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development
is commenced, to demonstrate that the recommendations of the Institution
of Lighting Engineers in Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution will be met particularly with regard to the following:
— correctly aiming the luminaires;
— using luminaires with double asymmetric
beams designed so that the front glazing is kept at or near parallel
to the surface being lit; and
— ensuring that the main beam angle
of all lights, directed towards a potential observer is kept below
70 degrees.
(ii) controlling vertical illuminance with
the lights operating to a maximum of 10 lux at ground level and
five lux at first floor level at any affected facade.
(iii) demonstrating that the period of operation
of the floodlights will be prohibited during the period 22.00
to dawn, preferably by installation of an automatic time control
switch.
10.4 Details shall be submitted for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development
is commenced, to demonstrate that the recommendations with regard
to car park illumination, made by the Institute of Lighting Engineers
Technical Report, Guidance Notes on the Reduction of Light Pollution
and also the provisions at BS 5489, Part 9, will be met.
10.5 Details shall be submitted for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development
is commenced, to demonstrate that the proposed lighting scheme
will conform to the advice given at BS 5489 Part 3 Code of Practice
for Lighting for Subsidiary Roads and Associated Pedestrian Areas.
General Floodlighting
10.6 Details shall be submitted for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development
is commenced to demonstrate that the potential for nuisance from
glare and illuminance will be reduced by correctly aiming and
shielding the luminaires to control vertical illuminance with
the lights operating to a maximum of 10 lux at ground level and
five lux at first floor level at any affected facade.
— Is light measurable in such a
way as to make legally enforceable regulatory controls feasible?
Light in a generally downwards direction is
easily measurable with a small portable illuminance meter. (It
states as much in "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good
Practice" DETR.) Measuring light on a cloud is more difficult
but the two professional institutions for lighting engineers will
provide details.
"Smell" is included in the list of
statutory nuisances (contained in section 79 of the Environmental
Protection Act, 1990, see below) without any practical measurement
of odour being possible.
— Are further controls on the design
of lighting necessary?
What is needed are properly designed and maintained
installations.
Equipment:
Suitably designed luminaires for all normal
purposes are available nowadays, though not all domestic security
lights on sale in shops are designed to prevent light pollution.
Many street lights still contribute to sky-glow although types
designed to prevent any upward light spill have been available
for a number of years. Because of the financial position of local
authorities it is impossible to replace street lights until they
have reached the very end of their life. It is necessary to have
well lit streets and public footpaths, not only to prevent pedestrians
from having accidents on uneven ground but because of the high
incidence of assaults on people. Both Police and Government acknowledge
that better lit streets reduce crime. This can be achieved without
creating light pollution.
Installation design:
What is certainly required is education of the
public in general, and installers of domestic outdoor lights in
particular, to try to ensure that the most suitable type of luminaire
and light fitting (and, if applicable, the most suitable sensor,
timer switch etc) is used in every installation. Light should
not be allowed to spill upwards, both to reduce "sky-glow"
and to reduce the wastage of energy.
It is important to avoid using:
— excessive numbers of lights in commercial
floodlighting and domestic security lighting;
— excessive wattage of bulbs/tubes
in commercial floodlighting and domestic security lighting;
— badly angled lights, they should
be angled to put light where it is required ant not spill beyond
that, they should also avoid glare to pedestrians, motorists and
neighbours;
— wrongly angled sensor detection range
on domestic security lights causing them to flash on and off and
disturb neighbours at night (triggered by persons on the pavement,
passing traffic, animals and branches blown by the wind); and
— inappropriate timer settings or lights
left on during daylight hours.
Environmental Protection Act, 1990:
79.—(1) Subject to subsections
(2) to (6) below, the following matters constitute "statutory
nuisances" for the purposes of this Part, that is to say:
(a) any premises in such a state as to be
prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(b) smoke emitted from premises so as to
be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(c) fumes or gases emitted from premises
so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(d) any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia
arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial
to health or a nuisance;
(e) any accumulation or deposit which is
prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(f) any animal kept in such a place or manner
as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(g) noise emitted from premises so as to
be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
(h) any other matter declared by any enactment
to be a statutory nuisance;
Summary of LA21 Pollution Group's lobbying to
have light included in the list of potential statutory nuisances:
1997: (1) Letter from LA21 Group to
each of the three MP's whose constituencies include part of the
LB of Ealing—Steve Pound MP, Clive Soley MP and Piara Khabra
MP. Letter gave background to the problem (causes and effects)
and asked for each MP to lobby for light pollution to be added
to the list of statutory nuisances.
26 May 2000: (2) Letter from LA21 Group
to Steve Pound MP, Clive Soley MP and Piara Khabra MP, again lobbying
for "light pollution"" to be added to the list
of statutory nuisances.
5 June 2000 (3) Reply from Piara Khabra
MP, "I have written to The Rt Hon John Prescott MP . . .and
will let you know his response when I receive it."
8 June 2000 (4) Reply from Clive Soley
MP, "I have written to the DETR and will contact you again
once I have received a reply."
28 June 2000: (5) Letter from Nick Raynsford
MP (reply to letter forwarded by Piara Khabra)
28 June 2000: (6) Letter from Keith
Hill MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (reply to letter
forwarded by Clive Soley)
Mr Hill's letter states that, "There is
a clear requirement that statutory nuisances must be prejudicial
to health or a nuisance. This means that there must be a direct
risk of disease or illness." No definition of nuisance that
I have read includes the necessity for any risk of disease or
illness to exist. Such definitions actually suggest, among other
things, that for a nuisance to be caused there should be some
inconvenience interfering with the comfort of members of the public,
or interference with the beneficial use of a premises. In fact,
exactly the type of problems created by excessive or inappropriate
lighting. Noise has the potential to create statutory nuisance
without any direct risk of disease or illness being required.
In connection with dealing with light through statutory nuisance
legislation, the letter from Mr Hill also mentions, ". .
. the difficulties in making the subjective judgements involved."
Subjective judgements are required in, for instance, the assessment
of `smell' nuisances, whereas light, as illuminance, "is
easy to calculate and measure" (as previously quoted from
"Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice").
20 September 2000 (7) Letter from LA21
Group to Nick Raynsford MP (concerning his, and Mr Hill's letters)
included the following, "Your letters both mention that,
`We believe that bad lighting practice is best dealt with by raising
public awareness and by providing advice.' This has been the only
option for several years, but the number of justified complaints
about bad lighting continues to increase every year. Surely few
significant problems have been completely solved purely by raising
awareness and providing advice."
3 October 2000: (8) Letter from Alison
Seabeck (Advisor to Nick Raynsford) my letter has been "forwarded
to Mr Raynsford" (It had been addressed to him.)
29 November 2000: (9) Letter from Steve
Ratcliffe (Noise and Nuisance Policy, DETR).
6 December 2000: (10) Letter from LA21
Group to Rosie Winterton MP.
21 December 2000: (11) Reply from Rosie
Winterton MP.
18 January 2001: (12) Letter from Rosie
Winterton MP enclosing letter dated 5 January from Matthew Bryant
(Research Assistant) "What has been suggested is that the
local authority provides a service by which one of its employees
is sent to adjust the light." The only advice to local authorities
on how to deal with light pollution complaints is therefore that
"one of its employees is sent to adjust the light."
Obvious difficulties in implementing this measure are that; councils
are apparently expected to carry out further duties with no extra
resources and would be spending public money on private works,
trespass and criminal damage cases could be taken (successfully)
against any council following this advice, and the distinct possibility
exists of violence being directed toward any council employee
on private property adjusting lights.
September 2001: (13) Letter to the Rt
Hon Michael Meacher MP signed by the Leader of Ealing Council
and the Chief Executive.
| 
