INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the inquiry of the Science and Technology Select Committee on light pollution. Light pollution—including light trespass, sky glow, and glare—is caused by poorly directed lighting and over-lighting. Inefficient and inappropriate lighting causes pollution due to wasted energy, spoils the view of the stars in the night sky, damages the character of the countryside, and can have impacts on wildlife and residential amenity. CPRE appreciates the improved quality of life that well-designed lighting can bring, but there is a pressing need to tackle inefficient lighting and to assure that necessary lighting respects broader social and environmental concerns.

  2.  CPRE is launching Night Blight! a campaign to reduce light pollution in May. This campaign aims to raise awareness to the effects of light pollution and its damage to the character of the countryside by discussing the extent of light pollution, lighting laws, the effects of poor lighting. It will propose ways for Government, local authorities and private parties to reduce light pollution. This submission addresses the questions posed by the Committee from this wider perspective.

  3.  When we launch this campaign, in partnership with the British Astronomical Association, we will be publishing new data on light pollution obtained by satellites in the form of maps of the UK and English regions. This data suggests there has been a rapid growth in light pollution between 1993 and 2000. Enclosed with this submission is our campaign literature (to be published on May 9th) analysing this data and setting out our campaign aims. It comprises (i) a summary leaflet, (ii) a 32-page background report and (iii) a set of eight light pollution maps of the English regions. We hope these are of interest to the Committee, but we ask for them not to be put into the public domain until May 9th. (Not printed)

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

  4.  CPRE does not have expertise in astronomy. We would suggest that the problem of light pollution extends beyond astronomers to every person with an interest in the night sky or who is concerned about the character of the countryside. Artificial light blocks the view of the stars, the Milky Way, and other celestial bodies for everyone. We urge the Committee to consider this wider view of light pollution in pursuing its inquiry.

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

Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs)

  5.  CPRE does not believe that the current planning guidelines are strong enough to protect against light pollution. Three PPGs briefly mention light pollution, yet they do not carry sufficient weight to have a large impact in controlling its extent. Further, there is no mention of light pollution in the overarching PPG1 General Policy and Principles or in PPG7 The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development. More powerful planning guidelines are needed in order for the problem of light pollution to be effectively controlled.

  6.  In PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, paragraph 19 deals with floodlights on sports grounds. It states that local authorities should ensure local amenity is protected when granting permission for such lights. This guidance advises that the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character of the countryside should be key factors in determining permission. But this is only referring to the visual impact of lighting towers during the daylight, not the light they produce at night.

  7.  Paragraph 2.18 of PPG23 Planning and Pollution Control states that "the factors which planning authorities should take into account in preparing local planning policies will include: ...the possible impact of potentially polluting development on land use, including the effects on health, the natural environment, or general amenity, resulting from releases ... of light." This guideline only states factors that local planning authorities "should" take into account and this excerpt is from a list of six items in one paragraph of a 67-page guidance note. Nowhere else in PPG23 is the issue of light pollution addressed. The likelihood of this statement having a strong effect in ensuring the control of light pollution is very slim because there is no incentive to implement this measure which is only optional.

  8.  Furthermore, there is no uniform set of lighting guidelines issued by the Government. This is likely to lead to confusion and non-uniform lighting. A set of standards that all authorities are required to implement is needed. One example which needs to be more effectively implemented is the Institute of Lighting Engineers' (ILE) Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution (2000). This publication discusses the causes of light pollution and methods to reduce it by proper installation and use of light.

  9.  There is very little evidence of effective local planning policies to control light pollution. PPG12 Development Plans says that light pollution is one of the environmental considerations that development plans should take into account, comprehensively and consistently. Yet it gives no guidance on how or to what extent development plans should take light pollution into consideration, making its effect marginal.

  10.  Lighting is mentioned in two further PPGs. PPG15 Planning and Historic Environment states that security and other floodlighting for historic buildings requires consent and that it should only be granted for undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions. PPG19 Outdoor Advertising Control advises that local planning authorities should have regard to the effect of advertisements on the appearance of buildings and on visual amenity in the immediate neighbourhoods. These two measures are helpful but they do not address some of the main causes of light pollution: road lighting, personal floodlighting, industry and recreational area lighting.

PLANNING REGULATIONS

  11.  There are essentially two ways to regulate light pollution through the current planning system. Local planning authorities may refuse an application for planning permission on amenity or environmental grounds or grant permission subject to conditions or a legal agreement. With the plan-led system, local authorities should take decisions in the light of development plan policies.

  12.  Local planning authorities may include policies on lighting in their development plans and refuse an application based on those policies. The Government encourages this approach in PPGs 12 and 23. Cornwall County Council provides an example in its Structural Plan which contains the following policy: "Development must be compatible with the prudent use of natural and built resources. In particular this should be achieved by ... avoiding development likely to lead, directly or indirectly, to the risk of significant levels of pollution or contamination to air, land, or water, including noise and light pollution." This is a welcome policy, but Cornwall was the only County Council to include such a policy out of the five CPRE surveyed. The others suggested that it was not appropriate to include policies on light pollution in the County Structure Plans.

  13.  In the same survey, CPRE contacted 44 district and unitary (borough) councils in England, from all eight English regions, to assess the extent light pollution was taken into account in their development plans. Of this sample, 39% had specific light pollution policies in their local plan and 7% had some coverage of light pollution within their policies (eg on general pollution and sports and recreation issues). Another 5% said they had included light pollution in the review of their plan, 9% were considering including it in the future and 5% had included guidance on the reduction of light pollution, although not as a specific policy. Thus 35% of these district and unitary councils had no light pollution policies of any kind and no plans to introduce them.

  14.  The local plan of the Borough of Allerdale, in Cumbria gives a welcome example of a specific local light pollution policy. It states "Proposals for development including or likely to require external lighting shall include details of lighting schemes. Such schemes will be expected to:

—  Be the minimum required to perform the relevant lighting task.

—  Minimise light spillage and pollution.

—  Include landscaping/screening measures in edge of town, village and rural areas to screen illuminated areas.

—  Avoid dazzle or distract of drivers on nearby highways."

  This short policy enables the Borough to reject applications on the basis of poor lighting, thus helping to protect the character of the countryside.

  15.  Under section 70(1) of the 1990 Planning Act, a condition may be added to a planning application. South Norfolk District has used the following example of a planning condition relating to lighting, "No permanent external lighting shall be erected on the site unless full details of its design, location, orientation and power have first been agreed in writing with the local planning authority." This condition is welcome, but must be added to all relevant applications to have any substantial effect.

ROAD LIGHTING

  16.  Road lighting is a major source of light pollution. Many streetlights cast much of their illumination sideways and upward, where it is not needed. Local highway authorities and the Government's Highways Agency have the power to eliminate this problem because they determine what lights are used, their design and location. The British Standards Institution's Code of Practice for Road and Street Lighting (BS 5489) recognises that upward beams should be minimised, but it does not require full cut-off lights. The code confines itself to saying that their installation should "be considered" in the countryside and environmentally sensitive areas, at roundabouts and on elevated roads and bridges.

  17.  The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) has proposed EN 13201, Standards for Road Lighting. Written in four parts, it consists of a step-by-step selection procedure to arrive at the appropriate type of lighting for different sections of roads depending on users from cars to pedestrians. Part 2 Clause 8, entitled "Appearance and Environmental Aspects" states that the appearance and output of a light installation can make a great difference to the appearance of the road environment to both users and observers away from the road. It goes on to state that consideration "shall be given" to day and night time appearance, controlling unwanted light, and minimising light emitted in directions where it is neither necessary nor desirable. This is a step further than the current standards contained in the British Standards.

  18.  In relation to minimising light, the impact of light pollution on astronomy is discussed. The EN 13201 states that "Light when emitted above the horizontal which when scattered in the atmosphere obscures the natural sight of the stars and impairs astronomical observation. Light emitted above the horizontal can be regulated by restriction of the upper light output ratio." In this way, the EU standard specifically addresses light pollution's effect on astronomy and requires consideration to minimising unnecessary light by use of semi and full cut-off lights.

  19.  There is presently considerable opportunity to reduce light pollution caused by road lighting. According to the Institute of Lighting Engineers, 61% of England's streetlights are more than 20 years old and 27% are over 30; the designed life of most lights is 25 years. The Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport makes a pledge to clear the nation's backlog of road maintenance, and the spending plans are intended to fund the replacement of a large portion of the ageing stock of light columns. A requirement that the replaced lights should enable full cut-off would be a simple and effective way to help reduce light pollution caused by road lighting.

Are planning guidelines being applied and enforced effectively?

  20.  CPRE does not believe that the current planning guidelines are being applied and enforced effectively. Limited as they are, PPGs indicate only that planning authorities "should" take into account the possible environmental impact and effects on health. Noting CPRE's survey, only 39% of district and unitary councils in England had specific light pollution polices in their plans. It is clear that the Government needs to do more to promote the inclusion of lighting policies in development plans and for them to be applied effectively.

  21.  PPG18 Enforcing Planning Controls gives improved powers to local planning authorities to serve a "planning contravention notice" or a "breach of condition notice" and to seek an injunction to restrain an actual or expected breach. Yet the breach of condition notice will only work to control light pollution if there are specific lighting conditions attached to each permission. Further, according to statistics of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, general enforcement action is in steady decline and is at its lowest since records began. A North Warwickshire District Council recently told a complainant that it simply "does not do any enforcement." There is considerable evidence to show that when authorities are given a choice, many do not take enforcement action.

  22.  Current enforcement powers can only have an effect on future light pollution. The powers give little power to rectify the lights that are causing current light pollution, or to control the addition of new lights on a developed site since lighting does not constitute development under current planning laws.

  23.  Defining light pollution as a statutory nuisance would be a powerful means of enforcing control over light pollution. The Environmental Protection Act (EPA), under Section 79(1)(a), states that "any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance" constitute a statutory nuisance. CPRE believes that defining light pollution as a nuisance in this context could have a positive effect in securing a reduction of light pollution by allowing persons to take action against obtrusive lighting.

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

  24.  CPRE does not have the technical expertise to answer this question in detail. We suggest that the Committee consider the advice on this issue offered in the British Astronomy Association's submission.

  25.  We would also refer the Committee to the Countryside Agency's report, Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice (1997) which discusses the properties of light. It states:

Light is a type of radiation and forms part of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the eye. It is measured in lumens (lm). A modern electric light takes in energy in watts, and its efficiency can be measured in lumens per watt (lm/w). The amount of light falling on a surface is known as the illuminance and is measured in lumens per square metre or lux. This is easy to calculate and measure and is therefore widely used. The illuminance of direct sunlight is approximately 100,000 lux, but normal daylight, which is filtered through a cloudy sky, is between 5,000 and 10,000 lux, while moonlight is as little as 0.25 lux.

  26.  Light and light trespass are thus quantifiable as a measure of luminance and easily measured by a standard light meter, similar to a meter purchased from a camera store. Regulatory controls could set the maximum amount of light that may fall on an area within a certain radius from a source.

Are further controls on the design of lighting necessary?

  27.  CPRE firmly believes that further controls on the design of lighting are necessary. The background report for our Night Blight campaign sets out a range of actions which would help control the spread of light pollution. In particular, we propose that Government amends planning law so as to introduce regulations for exterior lighting similar to those that currently cover outdoor advertising including the designation of areas of special control. This would ensure sensitive areas could be given protection. Consent would be required from the local planning authority before new lighting could be installed. Using the model of the "Advertisements" clause in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, we propose legislation should state that "Regulations under this Act shall make provisions for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety." This would also provide for enforcement control, which could include prosecution and fines and give power to local authorities for the removal of unauthorised lights.

  28.  The advantages of these new provisions are that

—  It would provide a self-contained code through regulations for the control of lighting.

—  It would not depend on the lighting constituting development, requiring planning permission or constituting a nuisance. The nature of lighting requiring specific consent would be defined in the regulations.

—  If consent is granted it could be made subject to conditions eg limiting the hours.

—  Having a code set out in regulations is more flexible than if set out in primary legislation.

—  It allows for the designation of areas of special control which would receive extra protection against intrusive lighting.

—  There is a precedent for this approach in the regime applicable to advertisements.

  29.  Private parties could help tackle light pollution if it was legally defined as a Statutory Nuisance. It is capable of constituting a statutory nuisance under the first, general category set out in the EPA as stated above. This would allow people to take action in the civil courts against lighting that causes substantial interference with use and enjoyment of their property. A judge could order the removal of light or other action that gives relief. This could give power to the most local level and allow people to protect the quality of their own part of the countryside.

  30.  Road light pollution could also be tackled by a change in the British Standards Institution's Code of Practice for Road and Street Lighting requiring full cut-off lights. This measure would be simple and extremely effective in the reduction of light pollution. Further, the code could allow for other non-light polluting alternatives such as light emitting diodes in rural areas. These studs put in the roads allow drivers to see curves beyond their headlights. Such items are already in use in the UK and they are cheaper than streetlights to install, maintain and operate.

  31.  Finally, a Government standard for lighting could make lighting standards uniform throughout England. The ILE's Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution defines light pollution, discusses ways to reduce unnecessary light, and gives examples of proper lighting fixtures. This standard would make lighting uniform by dictating how to achieve effective lighting. It could be used alongside the above-proposed solutions.

  32.  Other suggestions to tackle light pollution include amending building regulations, establishing a cross-departmental working group to decide the best and most cost effective of the above policy options, and the establishment by Government of an indicator showing when light pollution is getting better or worse and basing policy decisions on such data. These ideas are discussed further in the campaign literature enclosed. Finally, the Government should make it clear which department has the responsibility of tackling light pollution.

  33.  CPRE believes the problem of light pollution is one that can be alleviated. We believe the adoption of one or all of the above measures would have a positive effect on reducing light pollution, and we urge the Committee to give careful consideration to these proposals.

April 2003