I am a serving committee member of the Northants Amateur Astronomers, an active society in the Kettering area about to celebrate their 20th anniversary. I am also the Chiltern Societies representative on the council of the Federation of Astronomical Societies (the FAS), a national body representing the interests of the majority of UK societies. I therefore speak on behalf of the members of 10 societies in Bucks, Beds, Berks, Herts and Northants.

  On a personal level I have been looking at the sky for over 40 years and have been an active visual astronomer for the last seven of those. I have four "useful-sized" amateur telescopes and three binocular instruments of astronomical quality.

  In support of this submission, I may say that I have visited, within the last three years, well-known astronomical sites in the world, to whit: Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii; Mount Teide on the island of Tenerife; and the Lowell observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. At each site I have been able to view the night sky and evaluate its quality sufficiently for me to determine the relative degradation of the sky over the UK on my return. In each case there has been a very great difference in the relative visibility of the stars both there and here, not all of which was attributable to altitude, cloud cover and relative humidity. A great difference could also be attributed to the relative lack of light pollution at these remote sites.

Point 1, the impact of light pollution on UK astronomy

  There is, without a doubt, far too much light escaping into the night sky over the UK to enable the average non-astronomer to recognise that there still is a night sky, let alone identify anything in it. More and more UK astronomers are becoming disheartened, many are giving up the pursuit altogether. The combination of increasing cloud cover and worsening light pollution has rendered many places in the UK completely useless as regards visual astronomy.

  I would say that the impact of light pollution on UK astronomy has been very severe when measured in terms of that science itself. The aim of all visual observers is to obtain as clear and uninterrupted a view of the night sky as possible, but this aim has been subverted by the great reduction in contrast and invisibility of faint objects which light pollution has foisted upon them.

  Since I first looked at the night sky through binoculars in the late 1950's the view has worsened in many respects. No longer is it possible to find a dark site within easy reach of most households in mainland Britain, whereas my first experience of seeing the Orion Nebula was from my own back yard, barely 200 yards from the main railway station in High Wycombe, which is adjacent to the town centre.

  Even now, living in a relatively rural area as I do, my view of the stars is worsened by so-called security lights on two nearby industrial estates, one to the North, one to the South, and by the ever-expanding housing estates just over the hill in Wellingborough.

  On a recent visit I made to London the sky was unusually clear, but the only objects visible from Camden were a first quarter moon, Saturn and Jupiter; worryingly, no stars at all could be seen with the naked eye. How many Londoners are aware that there's a whole Universe out there, waiting to be explored?

Points 2 and 3, regarding planning guidelines

  I don't know much about planning guidelines, or even if they are being followed, so can't comment on that aspect. I would suspect that the guidelines are not strong enough in laying down how much light is necessary for a particular application, how long that light should be on for (do street lights really need to stay on all night?), how necessary or how effective the lighting is (does the average "security" light really make for greater security?) and how to ensure the light is directed only where it is needed, in other words, using shading to restrict lighting overspill. Do the floodlights on our local football ground really need to illuminate the village of Warkton three miles away?

Point 4, is light measurable in such a way as to make legally enforceable regulatory controls feasible?

  Yes, light is measurable. Lighting flux density can be measured in, for example, an office environment as required by law, so why not elsewhere? Also, it's easy to detect lighting overspill, simply by standing outside any area which is intended to be lit and observing if it is possible to see the light source. If it is, then shading should be applied to restrict the lighting only to the intended area.

Point 5, are further controls on the design of lighting necessary?

  As to further controls, yes they are necessary in the area of domestic so-called "security" lighting where the light output should be restricted in quantity and coverage (not just a 500 watt floodlight applied horizontally to an outside wall).

  Controls should, I feel, be applied to street lighting in non-critical areas. How many people are out and about after, say, one in the morning? Couldn't we turn off all street lighting after that time and give astronomers a chance to see the sky once in a while? How about giving astronomers control over their local environment—a number they can call with a password to request the turning off of lighting in their immediate vicinity perhaps?

  More important, though, is the raising of awareness that, although lighting can be valuable, unnecessary light is a pollution every bit as bad as noise or dirt in the atmosphere.