Below are some comments and pointers to further information, based on my extensive experience as a professional astronomer.

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

—  Professional astronomical observing.

  The great bulk of observation today at visible wavelengths is done from remote mountain top sites abroad. These are chosen to be above atmospheric problems and remote from light pollution which degrades the observability of faint objects or details. Thus, apart from a few specialised instruments, UK light pollution has little direct impact on professional observing. (This is not true in the radio bands where radio and telecoms noise is a major problem but presumably not within the remit of this enquiry). However—

—  Amateur Observing.

  Astronomy is the science with by far the largest number of amateurs doing active work, a considerable amount of which is valuable to the professional research community. A great deal of amateur work is carried out from home gardens and very seriously affected by the generally very bad lighting used in the UK. I myself am currently fighting a development which would ruin my back garden night sky, which I use for interest and as a public information service.

—  Postgraduate training.

  A significant amount of basic observational training of postgrads is still based at UK home facilities and so is affected by growing light pollution.

—  Undergraduate teaching and student recruitment.

  With rare exceptions, UK undergraduate teaching of observational astronomy is of necessity home-based, though there are plans for use of robotic telescopes at remote sites. The home based component is severely affected by relentless growth in severe light pollution around campus sites, and even around off-campus sites which are more expensive to maintain. Poor observing facilities are a deterrent to the recruitment of students taking astronomy who are a key element today in offsetting the decline of student numbers in physical science. Astronomy is also one of the key sources of very early inspiration of our future scientists

—  Increased public awareness of science in general and of our wider (near space/cosmic) environment in particular has been a central government strategy in recent decades. Besides the need for a scientifically educated public, the wider universe is part of mankind's heritage and culture and everyone is awe struck by their first direct view of planets, stars and nebulae in a dark sky. Bad lighting is progressively depriving our people of this experience.

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

  In my opinion, very far from it. For more specific factual evidence and expertise the Committee should consult the British Astronomical Association Campaign for Dark Skies and the International Dark Sky Association.

3.  Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  In my opinion experience, definitely not. In my own planning fight, cited above, I have found the Local Planning Department unaware of and indifferent to the issue. City lighting engineers are in some cases well informed on the problems and its solutions and the will is there to help but short-sighted short term economy generally over-rules them. Bright glaring lighting which wrecks astronomy is actually more costly in the long term and has been shown to increase rather than decrease crime. Refer to CfDS and IDSA for expert views and reports.

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

  Certainly—refer to CfDS and IDSA and city lighting engineers for expert views.

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

  Yes. For example B&Q do offer sky friendly outdoor lights but offer cheaper bad lighting options and could give far more publicity to the merits of good lighting.

26 March 2003