MONDAY 14 JULY 2003

RT HON KEITH HILL, MR DAVID MILIBAND, DR MARTIN WILLIAMS AND PROFESSOR IAN HALLIDAY

  Q160  Dr Iddon: So the money is not connected to a requirement to take light pollution seriously.

  Mr Hill: It is connected, because there is guidance. In a succession of documents we have emphasised the need for local authorities to take into account the issue of light pollution and an earlier guidance, published in about 1997, Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice, deals with the issue of light pollution. It may in its title be restricted to the countryside, but it applies equally to cities. More recently we have published a further consultation document Living Places: Powers, Rights and Responsibilities, in which we again raise issues and seek advice on the issue of lighting.

  Q161  Dr Iddon: But it is guidance and we have just taken evidence from a witness who told us that some local authorities are not following the guidance.

  Mr Hill: It is guidance and it is certainly not regulation, it is certainly not legislation. I ought to add that one of the specific issues that we consulted on the Living Places consultation is the issue of nuisance lighting. We are certainly giving very serious consideration as to whether nuisance lighting should be the subject of statutory enforcement. You are right: in general terms this is guidance and not regulation.

  Q162  Chairman: You really think, in the sense that it is getting better, as you point out, though there are other people saying it is getting worse, that education, education, education is enough in this area to raise public awareness about it and to get the sensitive councils to take action. You think that is all that is needed.

  Mr Hill: On the whole, that would be our approach. I have to say that our general philosophy in the planning domain is that we are rather keen to simplify and expedite planning processes and we would be very reluctant to add a further element of regulation to which local authorities would have to pay heed in terms of granting planning permissions.

  Q163  Chairman: It is not as serious as Leylandii, which are now needing legislation to make sure people cut them down. The government has moved to take that one forward by legislation. So light pollution is nowhere on the Richter scale compared with that.

  Mr Hill: Candidly the answer is no. Would you like me to offer some reasons? I think the point about Leylandii is that I am very keen about that legislation but it is about a very definable and a very specific nuisance which has highly specific anti-social effects. With the best will in the world, I do not think that the same arguments could be deployed about light pollution.

  Chairman: I think you have stirred Tony McWalter here.

  Q164  Mr McWalter: I was not due to come in at this point, but I am astonished, Minister. I have a house in my constituency with three 500 watt halogen lights pointing along a huge arc of the roadway. When vehicles come along, they are so blinded by these lights that it is a major vehicle hazard. All of the neighbours are deeply upset by what is going on and the local authority say, because there are no real regulations about any of this, nothing can be done. I hope the Minister will reconsider his rather smug response.

  Mr Hill: It was not a smug response. We are talking about different issues when it comes to light as a nuisance from the issue of light pollution in general. My understanding is that CPRE's primary issue is about the general diffusion of light into the cosmos. There is a quite separate issue, which is about nuisance lighting, which, exactly as you say, very often results from these wretched security lights which blind on as you walk by. I am permanently blasted out of my chair in my conservatory by the totally inexplicable but extremely effective security light which a neighbour has across our back garden fence. Let me re-emphasise, that as part and parcel of the Living Places consultation, we are looking specifically at that issue of nuisance lighting and we are specifically considering whether to include that in statutory enforcement powers. That actually deals with the specific anxiety you were identifying. It is a separate point from the broader issue of light pollution as, for example, it affects amateur astronomers.

  Q165  Mr Key: This is really quite alarming. The Minister has said that the Leylandii legislation is much more important than light pollution, but the government has given no time to that legislation at all, it was number four or five last Friday. The government has made no attempt to give that legislation any assistance at all, so what hope can there possibly be if the Minister himself says that Leylandii are more important than light pollution, whether for astronomers or for any other citizens?

  Mr Hill: I do not want to get excessively partisan about this, but in response to the government's posture on the High Hedges Bill, I ought to point out to the honourable gentleman that my powerful recollection is that it was a Conservative member, the honourable member for Christchurch, who has consistently sought to talk that particular Bill out of the House of Commons. Indeed had it not been for that particular intervention, the High Hedges Bill would undoubtedly have gone through, and quite right too. There is a totally different issue between the global issue of light pollution and the issue of Leylandii, which, as I said, represents a specific nuisance which has specific anti-social effects. I have tried to clarify our position with regard to nuisance light and lighting often resulting from so-called security lights, to which I emphasise for the third time we are giving very serious consideration in terms of statutory enforcement powers.

  Q166  Geraldine Smith: You have really answered my question on the difference between a nuisance light and the overall effect on astronomers.

  Mr Hill: I am most grateful to you and I hope you do not have much of a problem in Morecambe and Lunesdale.

  Geraldine Smith: We do not; the illuminations have now finished in Morecambe, so we are doing our bit.

  Q167  Dr Turner: The government memorandum suggests that statutory enforcement is problematical due to the difficulty in measuring light for planning control purposes. That is a rather sweeping statement. This appears to be the government's get-out reason for avoiding going down the path of statutory regulations. Can you expand on that? Can you justify that statement?

  Mr Hill: To be honest, I am not sure that I can. As well as in the government's evidence I did read in the CPRE's evidence some terrifically impressive analysis of light measurement. On those issues, I have to defer to our scientific experts and advisers and in that context I would invite you to ask Professor Halliday or Dr Williams for a more precise observation.

  Q168  Dr Turner: I want to press you for a moment. They do not have the power of the government behind them.

  Mr Hill: You would be surprised how much power officials have; or perhaps you would not be.

  Q169  Dr Turner: Oh, no. Light measurement is not the only way of approaching planning regulation. You have the alternative approach of only permitting the use of approved lighting devices which will not cause light pollution. Has the Government considered taking that approach?

  Mr Hill: Yes, we have. You will forgive me if, for one moment, I reach for my notes. I am on a very steep learning curve as Minister for a week's duration. I have to say that light pollution is not one of my newer areas of expertise. Having said that, I do want to assure you that we are aware of the issue of very powerful lights. The number 500—500 what, I do not know, possibly watts—is in my mind. Let me give you this assurance: we are looking very specifically at the question of the power of certain forms of lighting used on the exterior of households and we are giving very serious consideration to taking action to prevent. I hope that is reassuring.

  Q170  Dr Turner: You would not consider making it a planning requirement that external lighting should be full cut-off or virtually that in order to stop pollution?

  Mr Hill: It depends what sort of exterior lighting you have in mind. We would not want to do that for all exterior lighting.

  Q171  Dr Turner: Whether it is lighting a car park, security light or whatever. Whichever light it is, it must not cause light pollution. There must not be upward light. This could be designed out.

  Mr Hill: Exactly. Planning guidance is already entirely clear at the moment in terms of our encouragement of down lighting. Full cut-off and full cut-off in certain circumstances, good shaded lighting in other circumstances. Guidance is absolutely clear-cut about that. As far as the most powerful forms of lighting are concerned, we are certainly looking at that as well.

  Q172  Mr Key: May I just ask to which planning guidance the Minister is referring? I cannot recall any planning guidance which says that. Which planning guidance is the Minister referring to, please?

  Mr Hill: We have actually published guidance and it is available on our website on this matter. I understand this has also been circulated to local authorities. I will let you know exactly. I shall certainly write to the Committee on that matter. You are absolutely right, I shall write to the Committee to give you absolute details of the sort of guidance we have circulated to local authorities[2].

  Q173  Geraldine Smith: What can a local authority do about light pollution which is outside its own jurisdiction?

  Mr Hill: I have to give you a bit of a patsy of an answer on this. There are no specific powers. To be honest, it is very difficult to see how you could give powers in any circumstances on the part of one authority to deal with pollution from another authority. It is really a matter of co-operation in the light of the guidance which is available from central government.

  Q174  Geraldine Smith: Is that not perhaps a reason for legislation?

  Mr Hill: We are very reluctant, as I have indicated, to go down the legislative route on this. It is a matter of defining exactly what the problem is. Other than that kind of general concern, which I do understand, about the effects of light pollution, nuisance is absolutely clear, we are absolutely clear about nuisance, totally sympathetic with the Committee in that regard. On the broader issue of light pollution, it is really very difficult to know what you are measuring and what the nuisance is in terms of the suffering of individuals as it were, it is very difficult in a context where we do not want to add unnecessarily to the burden of regulation and go down the path of legislation in this regard.

  Q175  Dr Turner: There is one other consideration which you have not mentioned. Government wants to see an increasing energy efficiency and currently about one gigawatt at any given time is going straight up in the sky. Stopping that would make a serious contribution towards energy conservation. What would your reaction be to trying to achieve some government standard for sky glow which could be expected from a city? It does not necessarily have to be direct light measurement. You might for instance base it on whether you can stand in a garden and see the Milky Way or whatever. You might call it the government Milky Way standard. Have the government any thoughts?

  Mr Hill: I am not unsympathetic of course to the argument about light pollution and the effect of light pollution in preventing one's viewing of the night sky, but in a sense in referring to the Milky Way standard you do rather indicate the difficulties we might have in terms of coming to any totally concrete or reliable standard of measurement on the issue of glow. We are open to suggestions and we would certainly consider these matters. Let me turn, if I may, to the issue of street lighting and energy. You will be pleased to know that this is precisely the question which sprang to my own mind as I began to do my homework in preparation for the Committee. It is perfectly true that it is claimed that modern street lighting, high pressure sodium or other whiter light sources, will lead to energy savings, but I am advised that this is not necessarily the case. Low pressure sodium, which produces a characteristic yellow light is an efficient light source in terms of light output for electrical energy input. Because the light source is physically large, it leads to less efficient optical performance in lanterns, or luminaires, as they are known in the trade. By contrast high pressure sodium sources are typically less efficient in electrical terms but lead to more efficient optical designs. The increased optical efficiency of high pressure sodium, does not necessarily compensate for this. It would be necessary—and I am glad you are appreciating the particular expertise with which I am addressing this and my expertise is wholly endorsed by the Professor here, who knows about these things and probably did write it . . . Let me summarise by saying this. It would be necessary to compare the energy requirements for complete lighting schemes delivering comparable lighting performance to assess true energy efficiency gains or losses. I gather this is likely to be different between different road types, for example motorways and residential roads. We have thought about this. It is by no means clear that more modern lighting is necessarily more energy efficient. I have to leave the matter with that observation.

  Chairman: Thank you very much for that spirited opening. We have certainly shone some light on the issue. Could we turn to Dr Williams?

  Q176  Mr Key: May I turn to the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)? In the EPA of 1990, in section 79, seven nuisances were listed, everything from smoke fumes, gas, dust, steam, smells, deposits, animals, noise. Why not light?

  Dr Williams: Good question and one which we asked in the consultation document Living Places, to which the Minister has already referred. I can tell you that a large proportion of the respondents to that consultation felt that light pollution should be classified as a statutory nuisance in the context in which we asked the question and that was the rather more limited context of nuisance lighting rather than the generality of what you might call sky glow or background light pollution which we have been talking about more broadly. Yes, there seems to be a fair degree of support for that. It is something we need to consider very carefully.

  Q177  Mr Key: When a local authority receives a complaint about smell, how, in practice, under the statute, is that smell assessed for nuisance value?

  Dr Williams: At the present time it is assessed largely on the judgment of environmental health officers. There is a read-across to the measurement issue which was raised earlier here and there is a whole spectrum of options for assessing the nuisance of light. In the event that it does become classified as a statutory nuisance, some method will have to be agreed. I would imagine the reason that this issue is a difficulty—and I am not an expert in the methods, I defer to Professor Halliday—is that the measurement method itself would not necessarily be a showstopper. The relevant point is that one has to go through the whole process of agreeing the methods for assessing light as a nuisance. That may not necessarily mean some very sophisticated and lengthy and involved scientific method. The point is that there has to be some sort of agreement and some sort of well-established and characterised way of doing it, simply to guard against appeals and ensure fairness around the place. You are right to imply that there are existing nuisances classified as statutory nuisances which do not necessarily have a particularly scientific method of measurement when they are judged and assessed by environmental health officers. In that regard, you can mount a very credible argument that light could be handled in that way. The point I am making really in summary is that we have to go through that process of consulting and discussing with stakeholders and practitioners and seeing what is the best way forward.

  Q178  Mr Key: Government have said that they do not believe you can measure light pollution satisfactorily. So we have something of a dilemma here. It really adds weight, does it not, to the cases put to you in response to the consultation that it is perfectly reasonable to allow some sort of value judgment by a responsible environmental health officer or indeed ultimately to the democratic decision of councillors to decide whether something is a nuisance or not? Would that not be a reasonable solution?

  Dr Williams: It is a possible one and it would be even more likely and probable if there were no hard and fast scientific method for its measurement. Odour is a case in point. It is very difficult to measure the subjective response in any kind of scientifically objective way. You can measure the strength of an odour, but you cannot measure its annoyance factor, if you like. There are many scientific methods of measuring light, so it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand without some sort of thorough investigation. If there is the possibility of some practical objective method which would guard against appeals, which would ensure fairness, then it would be prudent to explore that option. I would not want to rule that out totally. If it turns out that it is a more practical, more operationally acceptable method which gains general support, then fine, one could go down the route of a rather more subjective assessment on behalf of environmental health officers, but we would want to explore all options first.

  Q179  Mr Key: There is, of course, the option of taking someone to court and going through the judicial process. Indeed there was a famous case of Bonwick vs Brighton and Hove Council in which the judge visited the site subject to the complaint of light pollution and made a judgment that light was intrusive and prejudicial to the claimant's health. Perhaps we should say that if a judge can do this, why can an environmental health officer not do it, if he had the power so to do or indeed the local council? Would this be something you might consider as a result of the consultation?

  Dr Williams: Yes, we would certainly consider that.