I am a keen amateur "astronomer" and a member of various astronomy organisations, including the Guildford Astronomy Society.

  I want to give my brief comments on the specific questions the committee has asked, namely:

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

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

  3.  Are current planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

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

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

  Firstly, the impact of light pollution in the UK is extremely significant. There are now very few sites in the UK which are not significantly affected by light pollution. In the South East it is not possible to see the Milky Way at any time due to light pollution from the vast majority of places. We are all robbed of the opportunity of experiencing the wonders of a dark night sky. From my back garden I cannot see the Milky Way (to use this as a "yard stick") due to the general glow of poorly designed and positioned lights. These come from the Woking Town Centre lights, old street lights, huge powerful lights in large open areas such as car parks and sports facilities, and the general "glow" from surrounding towns and cities many miles away.

  Many of these lights are of the old-fashioned variety which spill light into the sky or out horizontally to produce glare. Woking Town Centre car park still uses globe type lights which must emit 70 per cent of their light straight up into the sky thus making a major contribution to the general background glare and light pollution. My local councils have not installed any modern road and pavement lighting that I have noticed—they still use the intrusive and light polluting type which does not have any regard to achieving the most appropriate lighting in each circumstance. And unfortunately, in the old days better lighting meant more lighting. Unfortunately, my local councils (Woking BC and Surrey CC) are probably no worse than most councils.

  Light from galaxies has taken tens, hundreds, and thousands of millions of years to reach us on Earth, only for the signals to be lost in the last fraction of a second of its journey due to being swamped by light pollution.

  The Guildford AS members use a semi rural site for observing on heath land south of Guildford, it being about the best available site which is reasonably convenient. But it is not even always possible to see the Milky Way from this site. Although the views are much better than from my back garden, the sky cannot be called "dark" by any real standard. I would strongly recommend that to understand fully the real meaning of the term "light pollution", the committee should visit a truly dark site to experience the view for themselves. This will show in dramatic fashion the true impact of light pollution in the UK.

  Truly dark sites are few and far between in the UK, particularly in England. Once or twice a year my friends and I go camping in North Norfolk for its dark skies, and to experience the majesty of observational amateur astronomy. This is journey of 180 miles for me but the site is probably the nearest good site I have in the UK. The next best site is probably in rural West Wales.

  The skies are very much better in France than in the UK. This I believe is for a number of reasons. Firstly, the French do not have a tendency to want to illuminate everything (roads, paths, houses, churches etc). The French seem happy with the natural environment whereas the British seem to want to make the darkness "go away" with lights. This is probably brought about by fear of crime and the constant bombardment from the media about crimes against the person and property. The French switch off their lights, and they generally do not feel the need to illuminate all roads.

  The second and third questions are about planning guidelines. I believe they are not strong enough because if they were it would have been possible to reduce, if not eliminate, light pollution already. The only real attempt to reduce light pollution has been from keen enthusiasts who are trying to improve matters. Despite this, success has been limited so far. A much stronger regulatory and legal framework is clearly needed.

  The biggest problem is probably the general background glow that comes from a huge number and range of poor lighting, and the absence of any means of tackling the problem. I have tried to raise the issue locally, and my local council wrote to me to tell me (20 March 2003) that "There is no planning control on the existence or type of street lighting which they (the highway authority) erect. You may also not be aware that planning cannot retrospectively control light pollution, nor is there any legal basis for Local Authorities to do so using any other powers."

  Furthermore, my local planning authority say "Light pollution cannot be regarded as a statutory nuisance, unlike noise, thus the Council's Environmental Health Service has no control over it. Once a light source has been legitimately erected we cannot change this. In addition, the illumination of a building via ground based spotlights is not development, thus it does not require planning permission and regrettably much of the "halo" light pollution caused is as a result of this source." Woking Borough Council then say " I know that the government have considered this vexed matter in the past, though as yet light pollution remains beyond control." And there is the problem.

  It is my belief that much stronger regulation must be implemented and enforced. However, I also believe that the general public have a large part to play in improving matters. Education is required. The public seem to believe that having more lighting will make them safer against personal crimes, although the majority of robberies, muggings, and burglaries occurs during daylight hours. Surely providing light can only be helpful to night time burglars as they go about their crimes?

  The sale of over powerful domestic lighting (500w!) is a recent huge problem, as is their subsequent intrusive positioning which intrudes into neighbours space and "air space". There seems to be little that can be done about a neighbour who persists in using powerful outdoors lighting, even if the light intrudes on to your property.

  I would also like to return to the situation where the majority of amenity lighting is switched off after say midnight, as we in the UK used to do, and other countries still do. For example, why is it necessary that Woking Town Centre car park (which is closed overnight) is fully illuminated—and with globe lights—all night? There should be some powers available to prevent this intrusion.

  I do not believe that the situation will improve much until government introduces compulsory regulation (not weaker guidelines). Legislation needs to deal with new "development" (buildings, roads, sports areas etc) but must also tackle the existing poor lighting that abounds in our environment because this is where the majority of light pollution originates. Until powers are in place to deal with current problem areas, the situation will not improve for very many years to come.

  The situation will improve only if the government and various public authorities co-operate. This includes and will require the government to make sufficient funds available to local authorities, highways authorities etc with which they can replace and update old, poor, inadequate lighting in all its guises, and in a fairly short time-scale. Success will be ensured only providing sufficient funds are given to regulatory authorities to implement and enforce any new legislation and regulation introduced. Obviously, substantial new government funds will need to be "real" and not a product of government "spin", "smoke and mirrors", or "lost" in the government's annual local government settlement if any real improvement is to happen.

  I do hope that the work of the select committee will lead to large improvements in the condition of our skies, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of the government response.

24 April 2003