Artificial outdoor lighting has been allowed to proliferate in the built environment with little regard for the environmental consequences. Astronomers have been complaining about the adverse effects of excessive and obtrusive lighting on their research for decades but few concessions have been gained. Observed exponential increases in artificial skyglow indicate that the growth of outdoor lighting is unsustainable. Copious artificial light has transformed civilisation, but increasing knowledge of the adverse environmental, biological and cultural effects now justifies large overall reductions in outdoor ambient light at night. It is not just astronomers who are being increasingly affected, judging by the number of non-astronomers who are now demanding action to control bad lighting and light pollution.

  In the expectation that others will cover the scope of the first four specific questions to be considered by the Committee, this submission concentrates on the fifth question, viz "Are further controls on the design of lighting necessary?" In doing so, reliance is placed on the findings of research conducted by the writer and presented in the accompanying documents (not printed):

"Outdoor lighting and crime, Part 1: little or no benefit", and

"Outdoor lighting and crime, Part 2: coupled growth".

  Both of these documents were written specifically for dissemination on the World Wide Web. The first was posted on several websites in November 2002. No errors of fact or method have since been drawn to my attention. The second document reached the author's proof stage on the date of this submission, subsequent to informal peer review of about 30 draft copies in recent months. Public release of Part 2 is imminent. The Committee is welcome to a copy of that version in due course.

  While the research was motivated initially by the astronomical problems of light pollution, it has moved well beyond the stage where its findings are of interest and concern only for astronomers. In a nutshell, there is strong scientific evidence that outdoor lighting has had a previously almost unsuspected malign influence on society in fostering the growth of crime; not just crime at night, but by day as well. Given the well known effect of darkness in increasing fear of crime, the finding about increased lighting increasing actual crime seems counterintuitive.

  As an outcome, there is a case for rigid control of outdoor lighting to limit the further growth of crime by the processes thought to be involved. The light-technical constraints required are probably more stringent than those presently being sought as realistic by astronomers and environmentalists.

  I am sorry to bring such unpalatable findings to notice as it seems hardly likely to make the Committee's job easier. But there is no scientific law that guarantees all discoveries will be nice.

  At this stage I rely on the accompanying documents to present the evidence both in summary and in full detail.

  I expect that the presence of substantial references to research and conditions in the UK will add interest to examination of the work. Possibly it may also facilitate early action in the UK to deal with the overall substantial growth of crime that has increasingly affected the quality of life of not just astronomers but everyone over the last century. Not the least important aspect that has emerged is the part played by the Home Office in the propagation of what now appears to be rather counterproductive advice about lighting and crime.

April 2003