May I say at the outset that this inquiry is good news and is, in my humble opinion, long overdue. It seems to me that the time for educating the public and in some cases, local authorities, about badly designed and badly sited lighting is over and what is now needed is enforceable legislation.

  I am 61 years old and started astronomy in 1951 when, on my tenth birthday, Dad gave me his Army binoculars; through the years I have owned a variety of telescopes and now have a 16 inch reflector; through the years I have watched with dismay as the glory of the night sky has gradually been diminished by ever-increasing and ever-encroaching light pollution which I personally find both disheartening and demoralising.

  I moved to my present home in 1976 and back then I could walk out into my garden, look up and easily see the spiral arm of the Milky Way; now I consider myself lucky if I glimpse it half a dozen times a year on an exceptionally clear night.

  This is due to one thing: light pollution from the aforementioned badly designed and badly sited street lighting and to a lesser extent house security lighting commonly known among both amateur and professional astronomers as Rottweilers or the even more apt name, photon torpedoes.

  I submit that the average householder with an average size garden like my own of 50 feet by 25 feet (just to take one example), does not need a 500 watt security light mounted under his guttering in the almost horizontal position spilling its glaring white light into half a dozen or more other gardens and into the windows of other houses and up into the night sky.

  I have three such lights opposite my house and garden and, as sometimes happens, all three are on at the same time; the light from these dreadful lights would do justice to a football stadium at a night game.

  What is needed here are enforceable laws defining the maximum height, angle and wattage; I understand that such laws exist in the United States and are enforced.

  I have two bulkhead lights on my house mounted 10 feet up; they are shielded and contain 60 watt energy saver bulbs (you may be aware that a 60 watt energy saver bulb uses only 10 watts of electricity). Both lights are mounted over a vulnerable garage door and an equally vulnerable rear window overlooking the garden and, being shielded the light goes only in one direction: down.

  I have understanding neighbours and they have adjusted the timers on their lights to the minimum "on" time and two of them have angled their lights down so that none of the light spills up into the night sky. The third neighbour is not so accommodating and his light shines everywhere being, as it is, about 25 feet high.

  I come now to street lighting and it has to be said that there are many good street lights in my area along the main traffic routes and these are nearly all of the Full Cut-Off type (FCOs); there is though, still room for improvement and some side-street lighting leaves much to be desired.

  My own road boasts a poor design whereby the bulb in the light is not shielded and a lot of light goes out to the side and upwards. I count myself extremely lucky that not one of these lights actually spills its awful orange glow into my garden and, by extension, down my telescope tube and into my eyes. Nevertheless, the light is still there adding to the general orange sky-glow, which spoils our view of the night sky.

  My local railway station has superb FCO lighting along the two platforms but here we have a case of overkill: there are far too many of them and if every other light was to be removed there would still be plenty of light for security purposes; however, the effect of these marvellous lights has been entirely negated by the dreaded globe lights in the adjacent station car parks.

  There are a dozen of these lights and at night the light from these horrible designs being thrown up into the night sky has to be seen to be believed.

  My local pedestrian Shopping Mall also has these globe lights, dozens of them throwing their awful orange glow up.

  Near that lot, a local school has opened half a dozen seven-a-side Football pitches and these really are very badly lit by badly sited lighting.

  These, too, have totally negated the globe lights at a nearby Supermarket car park where such lights have been fitted with a black dome inside of which is a silver reflector (rather like a car headlamp); the bulb is at the top part of the globe so naturally all its light goes down.

  If you want to see an example of truly awful and wasteful lighting in London, just pop long to Victoria Street and look at the Army and Navy store. Here is just one example of a building—and a very ugly one to boot—that could so easily be illuminated from above as could countless others in towns and cities nation-wide.

  This brings me very neatly to a point that nearly every astronomer I've met, both amateur and professional seems to know about, but certain people who should know, don't: if you have a totally shielded light throwing all its light down, it would be possible to fit such a light with a much lower wattage bulb thereby reducing bills literally overnight and saving on Earth's precious, finite resources at the same time.

  I understand that you are particularly interested in the following questions:

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

  In my opinion it has become severe enough to warrant action by enforceable legislation.

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

  It seems not. Enough of guidelines; surely guidelines are just that—guides—they let anyone, anywhere erect any kind of light.

  3.  Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  In some areas they appear to be but in other areas lighting seems to be erected willy-nilly.

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

  I'm no scientist but I tend to think that given what could once be seen in the night sky, with or without optical aid, but cannot now be seen, regulatory controls are not only feasible but desirable.

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

  Yes. Just one example I cite again the dreaded house security light: these should be designed so that they cannot be angled above the horizontal and cannot be left switched on permanently. Globe lights should be outlawed forthwith and existing types replaced or retro-fitted with a domed cap. All street lighting should be of the Full Cut-Off type. If older types cannot be replaced they too should be retro-fitted with some type of metal or Upvc side shielding.

  To me and no doubt thousands nation-wide (perhaps millions world-wide) the night sky is as much a part of our natural surroundings and as precious as wildlife and the countryside and you won't need the likes of me to remind you of the enforceable legislation in place to protect those.

  Many, including myself, have written to our local authorities and what was then Railtrack about wasteful and badly sited and designed lighting. Some, precious few, received favourable replies and action was taken resulting in improved shielded lighting and an improvement in the visibility of the night sky. Most, myself included, received no reply at all; still others received pages of waffle about the holistic value of certain designs with no mention at all of light spillage and wastage; little wonder then, that so many of us feel we are banging our collective heads against a brick wall and we look to you to do something—take action, get laws passed before the glory of the night sky disappears in a sea of sickly orange sodium light: enough is enough.

  I'm as security conscious as the next person and don't want to be in total darkness at night and indeed, our aim is not to switch off night lighting but to control it even more effectively than it is now.

  I sometimes listen to weather reports for aviators and I am filled with dismay when I hear that the cloud base is 2,000 feet because I feel that if the glow of street and other lighting is visible up to that height then there is something seriously wrong with such lighting and this needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

  The very fact that there is a meeting convened to address this issue and that I and many others will be writing to you about it indicates that something needs to be and must be done.

  I understand that Mr Bob Mizon of the Campaign for Dark Skies will be presenting evidence: listen to this man—what he doesn't know about bad and wasteful lighting isn't worth knowing anyway.

8 April 2003