Please accept my comments pertaining to the government's Science and Technology Committee inquiry into light pollution and astronomy. In particular, the specific questions, as put forward by the committee, will each be addressed.

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

  For the last eight years I have been involved in teaching astronomy to the general public, having given over 50 night-time public shows using telescopes at the University of Leicester (for school groups, boy scouts, girl guides, etc). During those eight years, I have noticed that the quality of the night sky has dramatically reduced. Astronomical objects that used to be an impressive sight to visitors are now difficult to see, solely due to the increase in light pollution at the observing site in the south of Leicester. It is disheartening to see the more recent reaction of visitors straining to observe faint targets, which only a few years ago drew gasps of breath.

  Astronomy is a unique science, where enthusiastic amateurs regularly make significant discoveries. It is often said that while the professional astronomers carry out detailed studies of individual objects, the amateurs monitor the entire sky. Such important work covers a wide variety of objects—UK amateur astronomers are actively involved (and successful) in searching for new asteroids, comets and supernovae, and monitoring variable stars (to name but a few examples).

  There are thousands of stars that are known to vary in brightness unpredictably over time (hence the name, variable stars). My PhD thesis (completed in January, 2003) is based on the X-ray emission from variable stars, and contains literally tens of thousands of optical observations made by amateur astronomers world-wide (this enables me to directly compare the X-ray behaviour of these stars with the optical, which is vitally important in order to understanding the physics of these stars). It is not unusual for an amateur astronomer to detect such a star to suddenly brighten, inform a UK professional astronomer, who can then co-ordinate telescopes world-wide (both ground based and space-borne) to observe that star in detail. Such observations by amateurs have even caused the NASA Hubble Space Telescope to interrupt an observation, and to rapidly observe a brightening star, in order to detail unusual or rare behaviour.

  However, directly due to light pollution, it is becoming increasingly difficult for amateur astronomers in the UK to observe such (usually quite faint) objects. I have personal experience of this. I was recently fortunate to be awarded observing time on NASA's Earth-orbiting X-ray Transient Explorer (XTE) observatory to observe a star twice a day for three months. Whilst XTE monitored the emission of X-rays from the star, I required amateur observers to monitor the visible behaviour of the star. However, several UK amateurs informed me that it was impossible for them to observe the target due to the levels of light pollution around their observing sites; it is simply impossible to observe fainter stars in the presence of light pollution.

  Light pollution is not just affecting people's hobby; it is affecting the UK's ability to be at the forefront of astronomical research. If light pollution continues to increase at the rate at which it is doing today, astronomical discoveries made from this country will be a thing of the past.

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

  No—new regulations are urgently required to curb the nuisance caused by lighting. Such regulations need to take into consideration the areas lit up by the light at night, and not just lamp size itself. Voluntary agreements and guidelines just do not work; from my own experience I have contacted various light polluters who are apathetic to make any changes.

  For example, over a year ago I approached the University of Leicester (one of the main light polluters in Leicester), demonstrating that through the use of efficient, non light polluting fixtures they would save at least £3,500 per year, and I also detailed the resulting security improvements that replacing the lighting would bring. The vice chancellor of the university replied to me claiming that the cost to change the fittings would take six years to recoup, and so no action would be taken. It seems like businesses are unwilling to spend money short term to make longer-term savings, and environmental and security benefits are irrelevant, underlining the need for regulation.

  Unfortunately, for the neighbours of the University of Leicester, and the users of the adjoining public park, the university continues to deny the general public the right to view the night sky in all its splendour, and crime continues to be a problem on the park (criminals use the shadows and glaring lights as a cloak), partly due to the short sightedness of the university. What disappoints me is the fact that I am powerless to do anything about it.

Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  In the very few areas where planning guidelines exist that are relevant to the control of light pollution, there is little evidence to suggest that the guidelines are being enforced. I know of at least one example where a local council with an anti-light pollution clause in their local plan, has allowed a large supermarket to be built with floodlights attached that are directed above the horizon.

  In Oxfordshire, a man was hit by a car and killed after a security light temporarily blinded the driver. A bright security light, shinning from a pub, had obscured his vision. The police carried out a reconstruction of the accident; a policeman noted "When I was driving towards the scene, the officer standing where Mr Smithson [the deceased] would have been was barely visible because of the security light." [Source: Oxfordshire Mail, Friday 31 of May, 2002] The Police have the powers to prosecute and remove dangerous lighting, as part of the Road Traffic Act, but in this case nothing was done until after a fatality, and even then no-one was prosecuted.

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

  It is easy to demonstrate that a particular light fitting is detrimental to the surrounding environment and to neighbours, by either of the following conditions:

—  a light fitting should be considered to be a nuisance if it shines light above the horizontal;

—  a light fitting should be considered to be a nuisance if the light source is visible from (and hence casts light upon) a neighbouring property, without the prior permission of the owners of that property;

  Such clear cut "yes or no" tests of whether a light fitting is indeed a nuisance would simplify claims dramatically, minimise costs, and photographic evidence can be taken to easily prove an offence beyond any reasonable doubt.

  Although such a law may at first appear harsh, in that any visible light, no matter how near or far, and bright or dim, would be deemed illegal, the fix is so straight-forward as to permit this, since there is no reason why any light fitting can not be rapidly and cheaply fixed to comply with such a law;

—  a light fitting that is already vaguely directed downwards can simply by shielded with a sheet of steel and a few screws (at a cost financially of a few pounds and in a time of minutes!);

—  a light fitting that is currently directed upwards can simply be fitted to a large pole and directed downwards.

  This is why campaigners for dark skies find the light pollution issue so frustrating, since the solutions are so inherently trivial. This is also why the Czech Republic recently successfully passed a "Clean Atmosphere" law that prohibits light pollution.

  Once an offender is identified, they can be informed that if the offending lights are not corrected within a certain time limit (say, two months) then legal action, or a fine, will be issued (which is the approach taken in the Czech Republic). Threatening offenders with legal action, and giving them ample time to comply, would be most constructive; the majority of offenders will comply without the need for any costly legal action to take place. The costs of enforcing legislation will simply amount to the collection of evidence, and in the writing of a letter informing that legal action will take place if the offending lights are not corrected within a certain time limit. Hence, the majority of cases can be dealt with cost efficiently.

Are further controls on the design of lighting necessary?

  Why not also include street lights that cause nuisance or are a detriment to the local environment in any future policies? Inefficient street-lighting is the main source of light pollution, and often intrudes into neighbouring homes. To replace such lighting would also be to the local councils benefit, saving substantial sums of money whilst making our streets brighter (100% of the light produced should hit the street, not the current average of less than 70%). This is confirmed by the recent initiative of the City of Calgary, Canada, who are replacing all their street lighting with environmentally friendly and efficient lighting; source: http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/roads/streetlight/index.html?print=true

  If lighting is to be considered as a statutory nuisance, it would need to be demonstrated that the problem is a nuisance to the average person. It is well known that poor lighting can create a security risk; outward pointing security lights glare onlookers such that criminals can use lighting to cloak their activities and glare their victims and onlookers. Indeed, break-ins have occurred directly beneath such poorly installed "security" flood-lights. Hence, lighting can be a security risk to an entire neighbourhood, providing escape routes to criminals that are made invisible due to glare. It is also well known that light intruding into peoples homes can disturb their sleep, in much the same was as noise pollution. A quick search on the BBC News internet site brings up the following stories;

  February, 15, 2003

  Artificial light linked to breast cancer

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in—depth/sci—tech/2003/denver—2003/2766161.stm

  August 14, 2001

  Atlas shows night sky pollution

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1490649.stm

  October 6, 2000

  Cancer "linked to" excess light

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/957758.stm

  May 12, 1999

  Night light "damages children's eyes"

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/342256.stm

April 2003