Government's response to our campaigning
Many CPRE members wrote to the Prime Minister asking the Government to act to stop the spread of light pollution. Those letters were passed on to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a full reply. Rather than responding to each individually, Lord Whitty, then Minister for Food, Farming and Sustainable Energy, wrote an open letter to CPRE members on behalf of the Government in late 2003.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has been inundated with letters in recent months from supporters of the CPRE highlighting their concerns regarding light pollution, or 'night blight'. We have endeavoured to answer each piece of correspondence individually but this is proving time consuming and is tying up valuable resources.
We ask that this open letter from the Minister, agreed with the relevant Government Departments, be displayed prominently on the CPRE website or in newsletters that you send to members. It responds to the specific points raised by CPRE in their briefing to supporters urging a letter writing campaign to the Prime Minister about light pollution. This way we can free up our limited resources in order to concentrate on the practical development of policy areas that deal with the very real concerns that light pollution raises.
- Lighting is an issue which concerns three Government Departments. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for lighting within the planning regime, the Department for Transport is responsible for street lighting, and my department, Defra is responsible for nuisance from security lighting.
- The Government is taking steps to tackle light pollution and will shortly be responding to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report on Light Pollution and Astronomy. Without prejudging that response, we support the introduction of reasonable means to help mitigate the adverse effects of external lighting and are considering ways in which existing planning powers can be used more effectively to proactively prevent any unwanted effects of external lighting.
- Defra has already started to look at the nuisance caused by security and decorative lighting in its consultation titled "Living Places - Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". The paper sought opinions as to whether the Government should introduce new regulations for positioning of external lighting (other than street lights) and the powers to extend the statutory nuisance regime to include lighting.
The UK Government will consider what additional guidance on light pollution may be needed taking into consideration any recommendations emerging from Defra's consultation exercise and the House of Commons Select Committee's report.
With regards to CPRE's specific suggestions
- to change building regulations so they clearly require that lighting does not pollute surroundings when it is installed
- Place strict control over lighting installation in areas where the character of the countryside would be damaged by intrusive lighting. This could be achieved through the designation of 'areas of special control' by local authorities.
Part L1 (Conservation of fuel and power in dwellings) of the Building Regulations requires that external lighting that is fixed to new dwellings should have effective controls and/or use efficient lamps. Building Regulations only apply to the design of new buildings and change of use of buildings. They do not control the existing stock, nor how the building and its lighting is used. If the Government considered it appropriate to use Building Regulations for the purpose of controlling light blight it would require changes to the Building Act 1984, which would be a lengthy process. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 may offer more effective control through the Statutory Nuisance provisions. The Government has no current plans to introduce 'areas of special control' by local authorities.
Finally, the letters we receive on behalf of CPRE have helped us to gauge the scale of the concern that light pollution raises, and are welcomed. However, unless future correspondence raises new points we do not intend responding to each individually for the reasons set out above. We ask for your understanding on this.
LARRY WHITTY
