Isabelle Ficker – Written evidence (ALN0081)

 

I am a Dark Sky Advocate, CPRE London Volunteer on Light Pollution and Starlit Skies, and have been the Light Pollution & Tranquillity Member of the Steering Committee for the Claverton Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2036, (Bath and North-East Somerset). I am writing in response to the Call for Evidence to the above Inquiry and in particular to those questions for which I have an understanding and competence.

 

The room for comments on the survey form being too short for some of the comments I have to make, I am forwarding this by e-mail and have cross-referenced it on the survey form.

 

My responses are as follows:

 

 

Light pollution

 

  1. What is the state of the evidence base regarding the causes and impacts of light pollution in the UK as it relates to human health?

 

 

 

 

 

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Spectral irradiation graphs of Moonlight (left) and a 4000K LED (right)

 

(Interestingly, and as can be seen from the above, although Moonlight and a 4000K LED share the same colour temperature, they do not share the same spectral distribution. The latter’s spike of short-wave blue has important implications for well-being.)

 

 

A picture containing text Description automatically generated

Spectral irradiation graph of a 4000K LED street light

 

 

Diagram Description automatically generated

From Light as Medicine, Dr. Roger Seheult, University of California Riverside School of Medicine (LM)

 

Diagram Description automatically generated

LM

 

Chart Description automatically generated

LM

Chart, histogram Description automatically generated                 Chart Description automatically generated

Chart, histogram Description automatically generated             Chart Description automatically generated

Spectral Irradiation Graphs courtesy of Professor Robert Fosbury, UCL Institute of Opthalmology

 

 

Timeline Description automatically generated

Spectral diagram courtesy of Professor Robert Fosbury, UCL Institute of Opthalmology

 

The diagram above shows that the blue LED peak overlaps the blue, reactive oxygen producing band with the logical consequence that it is the mechanism for damage. At the other end of the spectrum, is the beneficial, near infra-red region where infra-red light is readily absorbed by living tissue (human, animal, plant etc). Light in this spectral band performs a number of essential functions. We get it in abundance from sunlight but we get almost none from the current white LEDs. It is very important that near infra-red is absorbed since it is associated with the production of protective subcellular melatonin.

 

The intense point sources of LED lighting need to be properly directed and diffused to avoid glare. The effect is magnified by higher-color temperature LEDs ie blue-rich white lighting. As stated in the UNOOSA report, p. 7 “Currently lighting installations are tested by measuring illuminance on the grounds, in units of lux; however, this method does not take into account the human biological response to the lighting installations. It is well known that unshielded light sources cause pupillary constriction, leading to worse night-time vision between lighting fixtures, and cause a “veil of illuminance” beyond the lighting fixture. This leads to worse vision that if the light never existed at all, defeating the purpose of the lighting fixture.”

 

Excess illumination, especially in the blue part of the spectrum, is thought to contribute to retinal damage and degeneration. As well as the sources of light pollution listed in the Primary Sources of Light Pollution below, sources of glare include, inter alia:

 

A picture containing graphical user interface Description automatically generated

Spectral Graphs courtesy of Professor Travis Longcore, UCLA

 

 

 

 

Primary sources of light pollution are:

 

 

Street lighting inhabits a ‘grey’ area:it is neither specifically included under Statutory Exemptions, nor specifically excluded. It should be included.

 

None of the above exemptions is necessary. Safety, security and environmentally responsible lighting (which including for human health) are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

Yes. LEDs were introduced to save energy and money. There has been a ‘rebound effect’: LEDs are cheap, energy efficient and long-lasting and people are lighting more (for example, whereas householders used to have a porch light that they switched on when they were expecting visitors and switched off when they arrived, they now have uplighters in paths, downlighters in eaves, ‘security’ lights, garden floodlighting, ornamental lighting of trees etc.) Many of these lights are ‘blue rich’ ie 3000K+ (in the ‘Neutral’ to ‘Cool’ and ‘Very Cool’ range). Relevant research:

 

 

 

 

Of course, peer-reviewed research is valid until challenged by newer research. However, limited research should not be a reason not to follow the evidence. The Precautionary Principle, embedded in the Earth Charter published following the 1992 Rio Convention on Biodiversity, states: “Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.” The principle places the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.”

All research summarized in the UN OOSA report quoted above (Draft_Report_Bio-Environment.pdf (sunysb.edu) is peer-reviewed and published ergo the evidence is reliable.

 

Areas identified by the UN OOSA report (p. 36, N5.11) for further urgent research are:

 

Interdisciplinary research among lighting, medical, and environmental research communities. This is urgently needed in the following fields and should be encouraged.

 

 

 

Research is limited and only being carried out in a very few universities (so either funded by universities or research councils).

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/esi/research/projects/artificial-light/

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) should be involved as the main research funder in academia. Such research could be of interest to the:

 

It needs to be made more of a priority area, and thus see funding unlocked.

 

 

 

  1. Where does light pollution intersect with public policy in the UK? Is the existing regulatory regime effective?

 

The current regulatory regime is governed by a number of different regimes and frameworks inter alia the

Below that there are regulations that are also relevant inter alia the

Much of this sits outside of planning policy and planning determinations. There is also a plethora of professional national guidances inter alia

 

 

 

The statutory nuisance is a reactionary process, and does not require installations to prevent pollution as a matter of design at the installation phase. The APPG Ten Dark Sky policies for the Government (https://appgdarkskies.co.uk/policy-plan) sums up the current problems:

 

“Under section 79(1)(fb) of the Environmental Protection Act 199020 (inserted by section 102 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005), “artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance” is a statutory

nuisance. If it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists or is about to occur or recur,the local authority must serve an abatement notice under section 80 of the EPA 1990 requiring that the nuisance is abated or restricted to prevent its occurrence. Complainants will also be able to take a private action in the local magistrates’ court under section 82 of the EPA 1990. This does give local authorities some power to regulate light emissions. However, in order to amount to a statutory nuisance, the emission must be ‘‘prejudicial to health, or a nuisance’’. This sets a high threshold, and one that is focussed on the impact of light emissions on humans, rather than the environment.

 

Under section 79(5B) of the EPA 1990, a number of exemptions from the statutory nuisance provisions also exist for certain premises. This includes: (i) airports; (ii)harbour premises; (iii) railways premises; (iv) tramway premises; (v) bus stations and any associated facilities; (vi) public service or goods vehicle operating centres; (vii)lighthouses; (viii) prisons. Light emissions from these premises will not amount to a statutory nuisance.

 

Further to this, the EPA 1990 sets out that all industrial, trade, business or outdoor sports facilities have the defence of ‘‘best practical means’’ available to them,meaning that compliance is necessary only to the extent that it is “practicable” to the current state of technical knowledge and to the financial implications, and does not impede their ability to provide safe working conditions. This gives a considerable degree of flexibility to landowners to argue that no offence has been committed, even where a statutory nuisance has been committed from the emission of light.”

 

It is invidious that the onus should be on the victim to complain, rather than on the owner of the lights to comply with regulations. In residential settings this can be a source of friction between neighbours. Who should be responsible here? the person whose bedroom is lit up by their neighbour’s ‘security’ light? or the person whose light shines into their neighbour’s home?

A picture containing dark Description automatically generated      A picture containing dark Description automatically generated    A picture containing dark, silhouette Description automatically generated

(Left) Front door lights seen in winter; left on all night, 365 days a year (curtains partially drawn); (middle) Garage ‘security’ light on a sensor; light cannot be angled downwards and shines directly at the neighbours’ house opposite (right) the lights lighting up the main bedroom of the house opposite.

 

Lights such as these are installed during the day-time with no consideration for their impact at night. Legal limits need to be set to the amount of blue light luminaires an have in their spectrum and manufacturers, distributors and installers of lighting should be encouraged to adopt best practice in this area.

 

A legal requirements needs to be introduced so that all lighting units are sold and distributed with instructions for the countrol of obtrusive light, dark skies-friendly mounting instructions and issue penalties for non-compliance.

 

 

“By section 57(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 199018, planning permission is required for the carrying out of any “development” of land. However, the installation of any lighting inside and outside a building does not amount to “development” and therefore will not require planning permission. This means that, for example, the installation of new floodlighting within a sports stadium, where the floodlights themselves are not visible from outside, will not require planning permission under the existing regime. Even where floodlights are installed on the exterior of the building, this may not amount to development. Currently it is only necessary to consider whether the external appearance of the building has been materially affected. If it has not, “development” has not taken place, and planning permission is not required. In deciding whether or not the external appearance of the building has been materially affected, only the impact of the structure itself on the external appearance of the building can be considered. This therefore excludes significant amounts of exterior lighting and internal spill through glazed surfaces, where the lighting itself often does not materially affect the external appearance of the building.

 

Even where planning permission is required, under the current planning regime planning permission can be granted automatically – in particular in relation to agricultural uses, and for ports and airports. These are two types of development that can result in significant light pollution, the former through large-scale agricultural lighting such as glasshouses; the latter through floodlighting often on tall columns.

 

Should planning permission be required, the development must be assessed against the policies in the development plan. There is a duty to determine the application in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise: see section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 200419. In this respect, the National Planning Policy Framework, itself a material consideration, states that: “Planning policies and decisions should…limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation”. A number of local authorities have adopted policies that seek to do this, but a key failing of the existing legal regime is that a number of development proposals are simply not assessed against such policies at all due to the aforementioned ambiguity around whether or not light can be classed as “development”.

 

A tall tower in a city Description automatically generated with low confidence

 

The problem with such installations is that they are emulated and lead to an increase in the number of similar events and also to domestic / residential interpretations. There is also a tendency to try and out-do previous pieces by creating bolder and brighter designs. A recent proposal for an events dome in Stratford, London refers to a concept ‘like a sun on earth’. Clearly, some level of principle not to needlessly create harmful light pollution for the sake of impact, is required otherwise this competitive tendency will continue.

 

A picture containing outdoor, city Description automatically generated

Stratford, East London could be the site for a new MSG sphere

 

Licensing: this does not come under the Planning regime and events and venues can therefore be granted licences without regard to such regulations as exist to control light pollution. This means, for example, that a restaurant in Bath can be granted a licence without restrictions on outdoor lighting, despite Bath and North-East Somerset Council having a specific policy for Protecting Bats in Waterside Development (https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ba306_bath_bats_and_lighting_guide_10_june_2018.pdf); and licences can be granted in bat-sensitive areas for outdoor events that (1) use lighting that does not conform to the Institution of Lighting Professionals Guidance on Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK and (2) extend in duration beyond the Planning convention of a 22.00h curfew (in place to protect highly light-averse bats) – and this during the sensitive breeding season.

 

 

 

I assume that the last sentence is meant to read “… within organisations charged with regulating or enforcing regulations on artificial light.“

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot comment.

 

 

 

What is needed is a single, UK regulatory instrument for lighting. Local authorities should not be in the position of interpreting Government advice but applying and monitoring it. All local authorities should follow best practice. The following is a template, written by the UK Dark Skies Partnership, for use by ALL local authorities:

https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Towards-A-Dark-Sky-Standard-V1.1.pdf

 

Best practice is set out in:

 

 

  1. What recommendations would you make for changing Government policy on light pollution?

 

 

 

 

 

“An Urban Night Sky Place (UNSP) is a municipal park, open space, observing site, or other similar property (hereafter, generally, “places”) near or surrounded by large urban environs whose planning and design actively promote an authentic night-time experience in the midst of significant artificial light.”

The designation does not afford any UK specific legal protection but requires the stakeholders to establish appropriate policies, lighting and engagement opportunities that single out that place as an important site for access to darker skies. Local authorities can adopt policies to those used by protected landscapes (e.g. South Downs National Park) as these are tried and tested. Once designated, the local authority should require any development to have regard and compliance for protecting dark skies and reducing light pollution. It is important to note that this does not mean banning lighting.

 

There is a need for effective policies on lighting that reflect current technology and existing professional guidances on lighting to try to ensure that (to quote the Institution of Lighting Professionals) that we achieve :

 

“the right light, in the right place and the right time”.

 

 

 

 

United Nations summary and links here: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC191885

https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5609968&fecha=18/01/2021#gsc.tab=0

Lombardy (Italy) : https://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/istituzionale/HP/DettaglioServizio/servizi-e-informazioni/Enti-e-Operatori/Ambiente-ed-energia/Energia/ser-illuminazione-pubblica-lr-31-del-2015/illuminazione-pubblica-lr-31-del-2015

Andalucia (Spain) : https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/portal_web/web/temas_ambientales/atmosfera/contaminacion_luminica/International_Declaration_on_Blue-Rich_Light_EN_v1Maquetada.pdf

Austria, Ireland and Liechtenstein have non-binding guidelines only.

 

16 February 2023

 

22