INTRODUCTION

  Various events have served to bring the issue of light pollution back to the general environmental legal agenda, these include the publication of the Energy White Paper on 24 February 2003i and the slightly earlier document from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), Living Places—Cleaner, Safer, Greener.ii

  The ODPM paper stated at pp55-56 that one option for reform was "creating new powers for local authorities to deal with the detrimental impact of light pollution". The Energy White Paper further admitted that as a nation we waste energy, inter alia, because of poor regulation of lighting and went on to state that the "cheapest, cleanest and safest way of addressing our energy policy objectives is to use less energy"iii. Though most of these energy savings will have to come from the private, commercial and industrial sectors, the government acknowledged that it has an obligation to take action to improve energy efficiency in the public sector, even though that sector only accounts for 5% of UK Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. Even so the White Paper stated that "since 2002-03 local authorities have been required to benchmark their energy use in operational property and street lighting and will set local improvement targets from 2003-04".iv

  In October 2002 the Department of the Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) produced a wide ranging consultative document "Powers, Rights and Responsibilities: Options for Reforming the Legislative Framework"v. This referred to the review of the legislative framework for providing and maintaining clean and safe public spaces: an exercise led by DEFRA to accompany the Living Places reportvi. In particular the document was part of an initiative to clarify and improve the statutory powers, rights and responsibilities of various bodies with regard to achieving cleaner and safe public spaces and local environments. The paper detailed deficiencies in the existing legal framework with regard to a number of issues, with particular regard to the obtaining of redress by citizens.

  Many of the issues dealt with are well established matters of environmental concern and have been the topic of previous legislative activity, for example litter, fly tipping, dogs, noisy burglar alarms and private land adversely affecting the quality of public open spaces. Some of the issues have not, however, been the subject of recent legal attention, and it is one of these matters with which this paper is, in part, concerned, namely "nuisance lighting", though that term is used here with a wide meaningvii. This particular matter arose under that part of the document devoted to considering whether local authorities need an amended regulatory framework so that they have a greater degree of flexibility in achieving local environmental improvements. This restriction, so far as proposed action is concerned, must be borne in mind throughout the subsequent discussion. Light pollution, we shall argue, is a national and indeed an international problem, yet the DEFRA document is concerned with what local authorities can do. This could, however, become a problem if any flexibility of approach adopted by authorities in the wake of legislative change resulted in wide variations in practice.

  Section F4 of the document stated the problem, though in a somewhat limited form, pointing out that external lighting, other than street lighting, is a commonly complained of nuisance—in a non technical sense—which causes detriment to local amenity and local environments. This problem, as identified by the document, is acute in rural locations. The document then somewhat lamely accepted that such lighting can be a general contributor to light pollution problems overall. Unfortunately, it seems like little will be done with respect to light pollution.

  Answers to the specific Committee questions will now follow.

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

  Light pollution is not currently legally defined, but one definition is "every form of artificial light which is dispersed outside the areas it is dedicated to, particularly if directed above the horizontal"viii. It is astronomers who have been particularly active in promoting the notion that light may be a form of pollution, especially as it is the object of their studies (ie the night sky) which may be most immediately affected by lightix. However it must be noted that astronomers are not the only body to suffer and it will be shown that the effects of light pollution are far more wide ranging. The problem of light pollution has been growing for some years. In 1990 a private study of amateur astronomers found 90% were affected by light pollution to some degreex. Such affectation can easily be observed by anyone who goes out into dark rural areas away from towns and cities. It has since been claimed that two thirds of the world's people no longer see truly dark starry skies because of the light pollution phenomenon. In western Europe and in the continental USA the figure rises to 99%. Forty per cent of people in the USA live in areas where it is never dark enough at night for their eyes to become adapted to night vision—this also applies to one sixth of the population of the EC and one tenth of the world's population generallyxi.

  ODPM issued in July 1997 Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practicexii. This defined various terms:

—  Light Pollution—a general expression relating to the effect of overlighting resulting from both poorly designed lighting schemes and excessive light levels.

—  Skyglow is a component of the above and is the glow caused by artificial light being scattered by dust and water droplets in the atmosphere. This is the orange glow seen for miles around urban areas and is related to the notion of "upward light waste ratio" (ULWR).

—  Glare is the product of an uncomfortably bright light source against a dark background. This can result, for example, from floodlights.

—  Light trespass occurs when light spills beyond the boundary of the property on which it is located.

  The brightly lit areas of England are more extensive than any others in Europe, save the Netherlands. Whilst light is commonly associated with all sorts of activities and, controversially, with security, the increase in light levels, particularly over the past 50 years, has tended to obliterate the natural night sky and intrudes the town into the countryside. Light also has deleterious effects on wildlife and upon human beings. As long ago as 1993 a survey by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health found that some 80% of local authorities had received complaints about light pollution in one form or another. Most complaints were then concentrated in non-metropolitan counties. A further survey in 1996 indicated that complaint levels had risen by 44%. These matters are detailed at length in the ODPM Good Practice Guide alluded to above. The authors of this paper are concerned that the overall issues as defined in 1997 should not be lost sight of whilst governmental and legislative attention is directed to intrusive security lighting. It is our contention that the wider issue of light pollution gives rise to a number of discrete problems.

  1.  Energy wasted by the use of inefficient/poorly angled light fittings which emit light above the horizontal. This can arise in connection with street lighting and results in "skyglow". This is the glow that is seen over towns and cities which is due entirely to wasted light and energy, and to which we have already alluded.

  2.  Nuisance/danger caused by "security" lighting (both commercial and domestic) which is angled outwards rather than fully downwards and which results in the glare of the filament causing either nuisance by shining into windows, or danger by distracting or dazzling motorists. These lights are usually far more powerful than what is warranted by the situations into which they are introduced.

  3.  Skybeams used as advertising which direct light upwards and cause a danger to air traffic. They may distract motorists and add to the skyglow problem. They have no security value and merely create pollution.

  4.  The energy needed to power all the above forms of light pollution results in the wasteful generation of electricity and the emission of CO2 and other resulting atmospheric pollutants.

The Emissions Issue

  The Campaign for Dark Skies has graphically illustrated the effect of light escaping from the earth into space on its websitexiii, and it should be remembered that the energy implications of such a wasteful activity have been the subject of no UK governmental activity comparable to various attempts to wean the public away from private cars and onto public transport, or to campaigns to persuade us to be more efficient in our use of energy at home by installing insulation and double glazing, by using energy efficient light bulbs and by turning down central heating levels. This may be because the energy implications of lighting, and its consequent polluting effects with regard to CO2 production, are little known and appreciated. However, it is known that generating 1 KW/hr of electricity produces 2lb of CO2 emissions. A standard domestic floodlight is rated at 500W. One such light on during the hours of darkness throughout the year uses 2,200 KWhr of electricity (One 500W light on for 4,400 hours per year). We have pointed out that each of those KWhrs of electricity produces 2lb of CO2—if produced from fossil sources, of course. On that assumption, our 500W security floodlight would, in effect, "produce" 4,400lb of CO2 per annum. This is the equivalent in one year of the amount of CO2 emissions coming from a diesel engined car travelling for 13,000 km (150g CO2 per km).

  The pollution effects are even worse when one considers the wastage from old street lighting. It must be emphasised that the issue is not whether there should be street lighting, but with the installation of inefficient lighting. Older types of light fitting emit light above the horizontal, producing skyglow in addition to wasting energy. It was estimated in 1993 that the central and local government waste £53 million per annum due to the use of old lightsxiv. The Canadian city of Calgary, by way of contrast, has recently begun to change all of its street lighting to full cut-off light fittings which do not emit light above the horizontal. The energy saving per year is $2 million and the fittings will pay for themselves in six to seven years. The wattage of the bulbs has been reduced without a reduction in ground illumination as the new fittings are more efficient. Beginning in March 2002, by November 2002 11,000 streetlight fixtures in north west Calgary were retrofitted, and the programme will extend to most of the city's residential roads over a period of four years. In addition to energy costs saved it is calculated the "Enviro Smart Streetlights" project will reduce CO2 emissions by 16,000 tonnes per annum; glare will also be reduced. Calgary's previous record with regard to light pollution was not good, with some of the highest street lighting levels in North America along with Edmonton, and comparing very badly with other cities such as Portland, Seattle, Vancouver and Victoriaxv.

The Plant and Wildlife Issue

  Deciduous trees may retain their leaves in winter if subjected to high powered artificial light. Evidence of a threat to zoological species is also to be found at both the national and international levels. Many animals are affected by stray light intruding into their world at night, confusing their natural patterns, migrating habits and breeding cycles. Lights attract and disorientate animals, increasing the mortality rates of wild birds. The length of daylight hours affects the behaviour of birds and insects and can also affect some fish species by stimulating them into early breeding which may result in higher mortality rates among progeny and weakened adult populationsxvi.

  In the USA and Canada there is growing concern over the increasing number of migrant birds dying as a result of hitting illuminated buildings at night. Most song birds have evolved so that they migrate at night, when predators retire and winds subside. Chicago's Hancock Centre has doused its ornamental night-time lighting to save the nearly 1,500 birds that—nightly—meet abrupt deaths when they crash into the tower during migration season, mistaking its illumination for stars or the moon.

  Where birds are killed or wounded as a consequence of light disorientation or direct collision they may well be scavenged by animals such as cats, racoons, crows, rats and seagulls whose populations may thrive as song bird populations diminish. In 2002 volunteers in Toronto gathered over 3,000 dead or wounded birds from 138 speciesxvii.

The Road and Air Safety Issue

  It is submitted that excessive light may pose a threat to domestic aircraft. In Australia, two planes collided as they approached the runway at Moorabbin airport. A commercial pilot with 200 hours' flying time died after her plane hit the runway in a ball of flame. Poor visibility because of the impact of surrounding lights was a factor in the crash. An optics consultant argued that bright surrounding lights at the airport wash out the small amount of light emitted from small aircraft's navigation lights: "You have this enormous collection of lights shining uselessly into the sky and it is becoming increasingly difficult to see the airport and surrounding planes". A member of the Aviation Medical Society was more blunt. "It's bloody hard to see over Moorabin now. There are many lights surrounding the airport that are blinding to look at. If a pilot fixates on those lights, you can lose a lot of depths perception and the ability to judge distance. . .close to the airport runway lights and navigation lights, which are vital to safe flying, can be very difficult to find"xviii. Bad lighting also affects shipping. As shown in the Thames Barge Sailing Club bulletin: "The Medway at night is not easy to navigate; the buoy lights disappear into the bright orange streetlights and powerful jetty lights that are everywhere . . . [We now use a] compass to guide us to the next buoy, which often was invisible until we got very close to it".xix

  The authors submit that there is ample evidence that what is generically known as "light pollution" is not a phenomenon limited to local difficulties arising from intrusive security lighting, neither is it an issue which affects rural areas only. If action is needed, and it is our contention that it is, then it needs to address a far wider range of issues. Some nations and regions have responded to this issue already.

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

The Current Legal Position in England and Wales

  At the moment there is hardly any legal regulation with regard to the issue of light pollution and so the answer to this question must be a negative. Planning conditions may be imposed under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where an act of development otherwise takes place, but this, as the DEFRA document admits, gives rise to no duty on the part of local authorities to investigate, much less resolve, light pollution problems. In addition the installation of small scale "security" lighting is hardly likely to be considered as a material affectation (thus constituting an act of "development" of any building or fence to which it is attached) and hence is unlikely to require planning permission in itself. Similarly excessive or misdirected security light does not currently fall within the definition of a "statutory nuisance" under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities thus lack a clear regulatory framework within which to act.

  It is currently possible to attempt to control the excesses of lighting by a number of legal methods. The ODPM Good Practice Guide pointed out that planning controls may be used to "influence lighting proposals"xx. The document further stated that both development plans and supplementary planning guidance have a role in addressing lighting problems as part of the development control process. Such local documents, of course, function against the background of national policy which has historically tended to consider lighting as an issue in security and the control of crimexxi. Furthermore, national policy is not a statutory framework and serves primarily as guidance and exhortation. It must be remembered, however, that under the current legislative proposals before parliament—The Planning & Compulsory Purchase Bill 2002—achieving "sustainable development" will become a statutory objective of the planning systemxxii. Might that impose on local planning authorities an obligation to ensure that lighting proposals take account of the amount of CO2 produced in the electricity generation process?

  With specific reference to the impact of lighting on the countryside, the ODPM Good Practice Guide pointed out that development plan policies should preserve the character of the countryside and should minimise the use of lighting and its impacts. The Countryside Commission, English Nature and English Heritage have produced guidance on distinctive features of the countryside needing protectionxxiii, and this may be supplemented by local assessments so that necessary changes can be accommodated without sacrificing local character. Where areas of "dark sky" still exist, and they tend to correspond, though not exclusively so, with areas such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, these need to be recognised. In addition the intrusive character of lighting installations has to be considered as part of the development control process. Planning control needs to focus attention also on lighting schemes which are not essential to the operation of proposed developments or which are otherwise excessive or inappropriate to the development. In addition the impact of lighting proposals on roads and areas adjoining developments needs to be considered. The ODPM Good Practice Guide accepted, however, that currently "Planning policies on lighting are relatively new, and so far a small proportion of planning, authorities have specific policies in place"xxiv. It is possible, however, to have both structure and local plan policies which indicate either that development will not be permitted if it causes unacceptable visual damage or pollution by way of light, or where lighting schemes will have an adverse effect on the locality or on amenity. Such policies may be augmented by Supplementary Planning Guidance which can give detailed information regarding the control of upward waste lighting and light levels generally, particularly with regard to glare and spillage of light.

  Artificial light, as such, is not within the definition of development for control purposes consequent on Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, though individual lighting installations and structures may require permission if they are substantial and affect a building's external appearance or are new erections in their own right. Thus in Westminster City Council v Verjeexxv a hotel company which installed festoon harness lighting which was visible from a conservation area was held to have undertaken an act of development as they had materially affected the external appearance of a building. Furthermore the illumination was considered to detract seriously from the character of the building and its surroundings. In Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council v CG Hotels and Another the attachment of ground floor flood lights to a hotel and the positioning of other floodlights on the first floor balcony did not, however, amount to "development" as it was argued the installations were effectively invisible during daylight hours. Moreover the effect of the lighting on the building was the consequence of electricity passing through the installation rather than the installation itself. In this case Donaldson LJ was of the opinion that further legislation would be needed to bring the application of light within the definition of developmentxxvi. New development may also give rise to light pollution issues and these may be addressed at the development control stage. Particular controls may apply when lights are fitted to a listed building, and, of course, further considerations apply in the case of advertisements, a matter to which we shall further return later. The ODPM Good Practice Guide particularly counsels consideration being given to the following issues at the development control stage:

—  whether a statement has been made about why particular lighting is required, its frequency of use and the hours of illumination;

—  whether there is a site plan showing the area to be lit relative to its surroundings;

—  whether there are details of the number, location and height of the proposed lights, and the type and specification of these lights; their beam angles and the upward light ratio for each light;

—  whether there is a diagram showing predicted illuminance levels at critical locations, eg where residential properties are affected;

—  whether there is a prediction of the vertical illuminance at key points;

—  whether alternatives to the lighting proposals have been considered;

—  the relationship of the proposed light levels to published lighting standards;

—  the effects of the lighting on areas or sites of special countryside character or interest;

—  the effects on local amenity;

—  whether there are opportunities to remove or redesign inappropriate or intrusive existing lighting.

  Conditions may be imposed as part of a grant of planning permission to restrict the obtrusive effects of lighting, particularly with regard to the intrusion of light into the windows of existing buildings. These may follow the guidelines laid down by the Institution of Lighting Engineersxxvii. However, as Jewkes argues: "care must be taken because conditions can fall on the grounds of uncertainty or unenforceability. . .conditions specifying illuminance levels (measured in lux) should specify from which part of the property that reading should be taken"xxviii.

  Where it is considered desirable to impose legal controls on lighting as part of the development control process this may, inter alia, be achieved by the imposition of planning conditions relating to the hours of illumination; light levels; lighting column heights; specification and colour treatment for lamps; the need for full horizontal cut off of lighting so that upward spillage does not take place; the eradication of highway distractions; the level of impact on nearby dwellings; use of demountable columns; retention of screening vegetation; use of planting and bunding to contain the effects of lighting. Interestingly enough ODPM Good Practice Guide also suggests that conditions may be imposed to require a review of lighting impact after installation.

  The authors argue that there is nothing in any of the foregoing that is solely applicable to rural areas: similar considerations apply within towns and cities

3.  Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  Although some councils have adopted anti-light pollution clauses, evidence suggests that these are not always applied unless local residents complain. Moreover, cities like Leicester, which are embarking upon a large-scale re-development are not considering light pollution adequately. Leicester CC has an anti-light pollution clause coming into effect in 2004, but it is expected that this will be too late. A private letter to the CEO of the Leicester Regeneration Company discovered that there were no plans to consider light pollution or concomitant energy saving. The reply did however, express an interest in addressing the matter at a later point. It is argued that more needs to be done to ensure that energy saving measures which also cut light pollution are enforced. In fact, many councils are major culprits of light pollution, with empty car parks over floodlit all night.

  The authors are not aware of any case where the police have acted against dangerous lighting on the highways despite at least one death due to a floodlight.

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

  An inexpensive standard photographic light meter will measure light accurately enough for photographic purposes and so the answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is argued that existing council teams handling late-night nuisance noise could easily handle lighting issues with such inexpensive equipment and very little training—should steps be taken to make light pollution a statutory nuisance.

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

  Affirmative. There are several other jurisdictions where steps have been taken along these lines.

Other National and Regional Responses

  The Czech Republic recently became the first country to enact national anti-light pollution legislation with provisions aimed at eliminating light pollution. Known as the "Protection of the Atmosphere Act", the Bill passed both houses of the Czech Parliament (Chamber of Deputies and Senate) and was signed into law by President Vaclav Havel on 27 February 2002. It took effect on 1 June 2002 and addresses light and other kinds of air pollution. The law defines "light pollution" as "every form of illumination by artificial light which is dispersed outside the areas it is dedicated to, particularly if directed above the level of the horizon". Under the law Czech Republic citizens and organisations are obliged to "take measures to prevent the occurrence of light pollution of the air".

  "In June 2002 the Czech Republic introduced the Protection of the Atmosphere Act, defining light pollution as `every form of artificial light which is dispersed outside the areas it is dedicated to, particularly if directed above the level of the horizon. Citizens are now obliged to "take measures to prevent the occurrence of light pollution in the air" or face fines of up to £2,800. Authorities are now required to use fully shielded lights to control the spread of light, and use flat rather than curved glass to prevent light dispersing upwards and sideways. Advertising billboards will have to be lit from above, with their lights pointing downwards. Fully shielded light fixtures not only help preserve the beauty of the starry sky, but they also illuminate more efficiently and allow people to see better at night".xxix

  Whilst the Czech Republic is the only country to introduce such an act, similar legislation has been adopted at a regional level in other countries. In Italy the Lombardy Parliament passed a Light Pollution Bill in February 2000 which would make it illegal to install light fixtures emitting a light directly above the horizontal, and near amateur and professional observatories all the lighting should be replaced within four years. Similarly, Catalonia produced the Law on Environmental Planning of Outdoor Lighting for the Protection of Night Darknessxxx, published 12 June 2001, preventing excess light pollution from escaping into the sky.

  In September 2002, the 2nd European Symposium on the Protection of the Night Sky took place in Lucerne, Switzerland. It was signed by all attendees, unanimously requesting all European governments and the EU to take immediate action to control light pollution. These actions, they suggested, should include educational campaigns, new legislation and research.

  In the USA there are both federal and state policies which attempt to discourage the waste of energy. A number of states have laws which require utility companies to minimise energy wastage and harm to the environment. In Maine, for example, there is a provision prohibiting public spending on outside lighting unless it is of the full cut-off type, ie it angles light downwards only. Maine also favours reducing speed limits or installing reflecting roadway markers over the installation of new highway lighting and has further legislated against light trespass and glarexxxi. The Clinton administration also introduced a "US Green Lights Programme" as part of its policy on Climate Change which aimed to replace existing light fittings with those which are more economical and less ecologically harmfulxxxii.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  In view of the foregoing and of the very limited terms of reference of the DEFRA consultation exercise identified at the start of this paper one can hardly be confident that the issue of light pollution is going to be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. Nor can one be hopeful that leads taken in other places to which we have made reference are likely to be followed in the United Kingdom. Furthermore it has to be accepted that there are substantial lobbies who are vociferous in support of lighting for anti crime and road safety purposes, even though there is evidence to suggest that at least some of their zeal is misplacedxxxiii. It is probably also unwise to resort to legislative action alone without employing other policy and educational measures to lead the public to accept the need for energy efficiency in lighting and curbs and restrictions on the use of lighting. These measures have already been taken with respect to heating costs, insulation and the recent adverts telling people to turn off their television set before retiring.

  Certain recommendations for reform of the law can, however, be put forward and these, we submit, should be in the form of a new licensing regime for lighting. We believe this to be preferable to trying to adapt the Victorian concept of statutory nuisance and the mid twentieth century concept of planning controls to deal with what is a growing problem in the Twenty First century. Overall what is needed is legislation which restricts the power consumption and output of both domestic commercial and recreational exterior floodlighting. All light fittings should be designed to an approved standard so that they point downward, do not emit light above the horizontal and minimise glare and spillage of light, most certainly in an upward direction. This would be similar to the Czech approach. Many existing lights simply need to be angled downwards instead of outwards to comply with this. Such a move would not have any effect on security as the light would be going downwards instead of upwards. The maximum wattage of domestic floodlighting should be limited to 100-150 watts (removing the current 500 watt bulbs from sale). Installing any relevant lighting should be subject to a license/authorisation or permitting scheme similar to that currently operating with regard to IPC and IPPC, and it should be an offence to install relevant lighting without appropriate permission. It should also be a criminal offence to mis-install full cut off lighting. For example many car parks (often local authority) have full cut off lighting which is angled outwards so as to destroy any full cut off benefit. All domestic lighting units should contain an advice leaflet about how to fit such lighting so as not to cause a nuisance to neighbours and to minimise light pollution. It must be noted that the existing 500 watt lights will use more energy than all the indoor bulbs in a standard dwelling!

  Such a licensing regime should also apply to laser and other similar lighting schemes used in "sky beams" as part of non commercial activities, eg during particular festive seasons. Such a scheme should not just apply to new lighting schemes but should be applied to existing schemes, though with some flexibility here to allow for any costs to be met, even though over time such costs are more than likely to be offset by energy savings. The analogy for such temporary "derogations" would be with the discharge consent system which exists under the Water Regulation Act 1991.

  We are encouraged to put forward these proposals by the introduction on 11 December 2002 of a Private Member's Bill into the House of Commons by Mr Bill Tynan with regard to the control of fireworksxxxiv. This has been drafted by the Department of Trade and Industry, and it enables ministers to issue detailed regulations on the use and supply of fireworks with, inter alia, regard to preventing injury or distress to animals and persons, which includes alarm or anxiety to persons. In particular curbs may be introduced on the sale to, or possession by, persons below a certain age, of fireworks, while their use after 11pm at night may be banned, though with exemptions for particular religious and public festivals such as New Year's Eve and Diwali. The sale of fireworks would be restricted to persons and outlets licensed under a new scheme, whilst organisers of public firework displays would be required to demonstrate appropriate levels of training, experience and insurance. The Bill was given an unopposed second reading on 28 February 2003 and appears to be a response to the large number of complaints about fireworks and their noise received by Members of Parliament from their constituents.

  We submit that a similar pattern of regulation and licensing on the lines we have proposed is equally appropriate with regard to intrusive lighting which also figures prominently as an issue in MP's post bags.

  Existing planning controls should be retained, but thought needs to be given to clarifying the law so as to introduce curbs on the floodlighting of buildings where the sole or a predominant purpose is to draw attention to the building's presence as a centre of commercial or leisure trading. Indeed, the law could require that such lighting is switched off at midnight or 11pm. Malta has adopted such a scheme for public buildings. This could be even more widely adopted to private car parks, which are locked at night, but still floodlit for "security" reasons. Although it is unclear as to what is going to be stolen from an empty car park at night.

  Finally, both central and local authorities should set publicly declared timetables for the retrofitting of less polluting forms of lighting for highways. Local authority buildings such as schools and even hospitals could nationals save millions of tax payer's pounds by turning off unnecessary lights at night (particularly car park lights). What has happened in Calgary should, arguably, happen in the United Kingdom. Astronomers are not the only body to suffer from light pollution and lighting controls could help cut the production of CO2 and assist in the UK meeting its CO2 targets.

REFERENCES

  i Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy (2003) Cm 5761, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London.

  ii (2002) ODPM, London, http://www.urban.odpm.gov.uk/greenspace/living/index.htm.

  iii DTI, Op Cit para 3.2.

  iv DTI, Op Cit para 3.42.

  v (2002), DEFRA, London.

  vi Op Cit, Summary, p1.

  vii The matter was, however, previously examined at some length by Jewkes (P) in Light Pollution: a review of the law [1998] JPL 10-22, Jewkes (P), Light Pollution and the law; what can you do? (1998) 108, (5) J. Br. Astro.Assoc., 258-260, and Taylor (MM), And God Divided the Light from the Darkness—Has Humanity mixed them up again? [1997] 9(1) Environmental Law & Management (ELM) 32.

  viii http://www.astro.cz/darksky/.

  ix In this connection the efforts of the Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) and the International Dark Sky Association may be particularly mentioned, their web sites are http://www.dark-skies.org and http:www.darksky.org/ respectively. CfDS was begun by the British Astronomical Association in 1990, being joined in that campaign by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) in 1994. Note also "Light Pollution, Responses and Remedies", Mizon (B), (2002) Springer-Praxis, London.

  x See Taylor (MM), Op Cit at p33.

  xi Cinzano (P), Falchi (F), Elvidge (C.D.), "The First World Atlas of the Artificial Night Sky Brightness", Man.Not.R.Astron.Soc.000.1-16, available on-line http://www.celfosc.org/biblio/basic/CL.0108052.pdf.

  xii http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/litc/index.htm.

  xiii http://www.dark-skies.org/images/imgarchive/EarthLightsDMSP-LG.jpg. See also http://www.light pollution.it/dmsp/ for further images of light pollution.

  xiv Mizon (B), Op Cit p.63.

  xv http://www.gov.calgary.ca and search for "light pollution" in the search box.

  xvi Light Pollution, a review of the law, Jewkes (P), [1997] JPL 10 at page 11, and see also "And God Divided the Light from the Darkness""—Has Humanity mixed them up again?"—Taylor (MM), [1997] 9(1) ELM 32 at 33.

  xvii Mizon (B), Op Cit p54, and see http://www.flap.org/new/nestegg2.htm.

  xviii "The Age" 3rd August 2002 at http://theage.com.an/articles/2002/08/02/1028157844148.htm.

  xix Stated on http://www.star.le.ac.uk/astrosoc/cfds/theproblems.html.

  xx Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice para 5.1.

  xxi See DoE Circular 5/94 "Planning Out Crime", (1994) Department of the Environment, London.

  xxii See Part 3 of the Bill.

  xxiii "The Character of England: Landscape, Wildlife and Natural Features" (1996), English Nature and the Countryside Commission, London.

  xxiv ODPM, Op Cit para 5.2.2.

  xxv (1992) 7 PAD 572, (1992) Current Law Yearbook, Sweet & Maxwell, London, at para 4200.

  xxvi [1981] JPL 190 and see generally Grant (M), (1998), Permitted Development, Sweet & Maxwell, London, at p.159 et seq.

  xxvii Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution, (1994) Institute of Lighting Engineers, Rugby.

  xxviii Jewkes (P), Op Cit p.13.

  xxix ibid n.18 at http://www.star.le.ac.uk/astrosoc/cfds/successes.htm.

  xxx http://www.am.ub.es/contaminacio-luminica/fitxers/luminicacast.doc.

  xxxi See Taylor (MM), Op Cit at p37.

  xxxii Taylor (MM), Loc Cit.

  xxxiiiSee further Taylor (MM), Op Cit at p36.

  xxxiv See also "The Times" 1 March 2003 p.2, and http://www.publications.parliament.uk/.

April 2003