I am a qualified statistician. I work in the Centre for Research and Graduate Studies at Leeds Metropolitan University. I am also interested in astronomy.

  Light pollution seems to be regarded as something of a necessary evil as it is believed that exterior lighting is needed to combat crime. This crime prevention effect of lighting is made much of. It would appear from Home Office Research Study 251 "Effects of improved street lighting on crime: a systematic review" that there is good evidence that lighting does prevent crime. However, I have examined this research in some detail in a paper that I have recently submitted to the Royal Statistical Society for publication. I believe, you would find my examination relevant to your investigations. My conclusion is that Home Office Research Study 251 is deeply flawed and also contains numerous shortcomings. The true situation seems to be that in spite of years of investment in exterior lighting there is no good evidence that lighting prevents crime. (Indeed, some might argue that lighting increases crime: as post-World War II crime has risen along with the burgeoning of exterior lighting.)

  As guidance tends to be given that lighting is necessary to guard against crime I ask you to examine this issue. The evidence showing no proven crime prevention benefits for lighting, in spite of claims to the contrary, weakens the justification for introducing exterior lighting.

  I have included a short piece in my submission, which hopefully demonstrates without requiring much statistical knowledge some of the errors of Research Study 251, and problems with the research in lighting and crime.

  There may be good reasons to have appropriately restrained lighting at night but as a weapon against crime is not one of them, in spite of research and some unsubstantiated claims.