Light pollution from new developmet

[Meerkat]

Just an update from http://stargazerslounge.com/astro-lounge/165382-light-nuisance-new-development.html really.

I have now managed to get the planning office to get the developer to supply a light plot using the zero light pollution flat lenses.

Low and behold, they give the same lighting figures as the horrible bowl glazing, but without any light escaping above the horizontal.

Still having a problem getting them to change them though, but at least I've got some science on my side now.

Seeing the local councillor on Saturday to try to enlist her help.

Also want to get the actual lighting level down equivalent to the surrounding roads.

Steve

[JamesM]

Best of luck Steve and hope you can help make the necessary changes - must be so frustrating.

James

[laser_jock99]

Sounds like you're making progress. Thanks for the update.

[Carbon Brush]

Good luck with the campaign.

I used to have some documents somewhere describing 'regulation' required light levels on certain classes of road. If it is still relevant, I will pass it on.

[m.tweedy]

is this it?

http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/pdfs/ile.pdf

[Crunchard]

In my case it is the spill light behind the light that is the problem.

I rang our local lighting people who were going to investigate ... that was last year now.

This document is excellent though, and I will be sending this on to them

The spill light is so bad I can actually read in my upstairs bedroom window from the street light.

Fingers crossed this does the trick

[Naemeth]

Such a shame, didn't you get a chance to appeal against the development? I just wish it was illegal to allow light spill.

[Digz]

Such a shame, didn't you get a chance to appeal against the development? I just wish it was illegal to allow light spill.

TBH I don't think appealing against the development would have done much. Not knowing the history etc, unless there was a specific planning condition on external lighting an appeal or even lodging a complaint during the planning process wouldn't have done much, unless you could demonstrate the proposals would directly affect you and your well being due to excess light trespass. Nevertheless if any condition was imposed i doubt it would have been very conducive to astronomy, but more about preventing light trespass and light spill.

Still, looks like something is moving and despite what I say above I can sympathise with your situation.

[Meerkat]

Such a shame, didn't you get a chance to appeal against the development? I just wish it was illegal to allow light spill.

This is just part of the response I sent, that was totally ignored.

"

1. In none of the plans can we see a lighting scheme. Our main bedroom is at the rear of our home and any lighting must not project in our rear windows. There is now significant evidence showing that exposure to light at night can disrupt the body's production of melatonin, a brain hormone best known for its daily role in resetting the body's biological clock. Secreted primarily in the brain, and at night, melatonin triggers a host of biochemical activities, including a nocturnal reduction in the body's production of oestrogen. Research has shown that decreasing nocturnal melatonin production increases an individual's risk of developing oestrogen-related malignancies, such as breast cancer. Please see http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/pdfs/ile.pdf , (also attached), for guidance."
   

[Meerkat]

Such a shame, didn't you get a chance to appeal against the development? I just wish it was illegal to allow light spill.

In fact these new houses are covered by "Secure By Design" principles and have to be signed off by the police.

30.3 of this document states

"SBD requires that only luminaries with suitable photometry serving to reduce light spill and direct light only to where it is required may be used"

However, the local police guy looking after SBD just says he is not a lighting expert and is guided by the lighting specialist, who happens to be paid for by Bellway Homes, the developer.

So if the developer says they are OK, they are OK.

I have also asked using the Freedom of Information Act for all of the information the SBD police guy has concerning the lighting.

Just got back that the information is not in a format easily retrievable and would take more than 18 hours to sort it, so they are exempt.

You couldn't make this up.

I could just imagine what my old boss would have said had he asked for similar information and I'd told him it would take me 18 hours to get it......

Steve

[Carbon Brush]

Have you tried approaching the Environmental Health dept, rather than planning?

Regardless of who is affected, or how much it costs, or what stage the planning/building has progressed, environmental health are duty bound to act on nuisance, health risks and pollution.

As an example. Many years ago a clay pigeon shoot was approved by planning near to housing, including mine. Planning rejected/ignored all the resident's complaints. So we approached environmental health. They were required by law to act on the nuisance and reduce it. In this case they (not the residents) ended up taking the site operator to court. The site operator was told to shut down until he could explain to the court a scheme to significantly reduce the noise pollution. Obviously he could not come up with a scheme and the problem went away. The shoot closed down.

In your case loudly and boldly state to EH that the light pollution into your bedroom is disturbing sleep. You don't need to explain betond that at this stage. If they don't act promptly, then approach your local councillor and ask him to take the case to the local govt ombudsman. Very embarrassing for the council.

[Meerkat]

I have spoken to the EH guy as well, he said that as the light is not directly shining into the bedroom he can't do anything.

He wasn't interested in the glare and the effect it has on my hobby.

He also said, and I find this strange, is that I would have a good case if I took them to court under Section 82.

Just sounded to me like they did not want to spend any money.

I have a meeting with the local councillor who is responsible for where the development is this Saturday. My councillor didn't even reply to my emails.

I know this sounds strange but the parish border is at the bottom of my garden.

Steve

[nytecam]

In my case it is the spill light behind the light that is the problem.The spill light is so bad I can actually read in my upstairs bedroom window from the street light.Fingers crossed this does the trick

Most councils will fit a back shield to the lamp to stop this happening:rolleyes:

[Crunchard]

I've rung them again today ... they were quite surprised I had heard nothing (even though my original call was on their system!) and have indicated that if anything does get done it is at my expense!

They say that because I've lived there 10 years I have "put up with it" so it isn't really a problem ... sodding cheek! Ten years ago my eyesite/sleep patterns etc were all different, I didn't have kids, etc.

Utter beep beep the lot of them!

[Carbon Brush]

Here is an extract from a letter to me from EH on a different light issue. The matter relates to wasteful and polluting light some 2KM from my home.

Whilst I understand your comments regarding the “waste of energy and gross light pollution”, the environmental health department can only approach the problem if it is a `statutory nuisance’ to you as a light nuisance to your home. If for example, the light were to be shining into your bedroom windows, or interfering with the enjoyment of your property, we could investigate and suggest measures to the operators at the source to reduce the affect it might have on neighbouring properties. I am afraid that we have no power to restrict the use of the lighting in any other circumstances.

In this case, the developer had sneaked in lighting details past the 'small print' of planning requirements, so I decided to approach EH.

The important phrase here is 'interfering with the enjoyment of your property'. I think you have good grounds to go back to EH and remind them of their obligations.Good luck and keep us posted.

[Meerkat]

Thanks for that, the actual phrase used by environmental protection uk is "neighbours' right to enjoy their own property"

So I have applied for a reassessment under that condition.

Do you think that I will have to prove that I am an existing amateur astronomer?

Steve

[Carbon Brush]

I think that EH have to satisfy two conditions before considering action.

First that you are suffering a problem from the nuisance (light).

Second that the problem really exists and is not just a nutty householder grumbling about some trivial issue..

Seems easy to me, but then again I'm biassed.

Overspill lighting is fairly easy to demonstrate.

If you could get some night sky photos nearby and away from the pollution, that might be useful. In my album there is a with/without CLS filter photo. Just a camera on a tripod with wide lens and about 20sec exposure. This gives the idea.

Something similar from you showing the sky looking over the LP, then from a couple of miles down the road. Make sure a recognisable group of stars are in both pics and take them on the same evening.

Keep this in your pocket though and produce it only if required to demonstrate your case.

[Meerkat]

Spoke to EH again, same guy as visited me before, and he said unless something has changed there is still no criminal nuisance.

I asked about my right to enjoy my property and he came up with that it's a human rights thing not an EH thing and if I want to pursue that avenue I need to read up on human rights.

Go figure.

[Carbon Brush]

Hi. Sorry this is dragging on.

Do you have a written statement from EH that they either cannot, or are unwilling, to do anything?

If not ask them for a written statement of their position with reasons. Make this request in writing.

If my understanding is correct, whether it is civil or criminal is irrelevant. EH have a statutory duty to act.

It is easy to fob people off with verbal comments. But anything written can be used later.

Good luck with the next step.

[Meerkat]

Snowballs chance in hell of that I think.....

I'll ask but the feeling I get is that they are only interested if it's an open and shut case, there is no way they want to go to court to fight it because it costs money.

He's not said that in so many words, but it was very implied.

All is not lost as our local councillor is really interested in fighting this and has already spoken to him about it to find out about the legalities.

Next step is for the councillor to write to the 3 parties involved asking for reasons why these lights cannot be shielded.

Steve

[Carbon Brush]

Hi Steve.

I don't know how much the rules have changed in the last few years. When I got involved in sorting a stupid planning decision, we forced EH into a corner. In this case it was noise, not light. The council employees involved tried to get away with fobbing us off with verbal replies. This meant that when they misinformed us about rules for revoking planning consent, etc, we did not have the evidence for a later challenge.

When we insisted on written responses, they had to be careful about what they said. Someting in print on council headed paper can't be denied later.

In the end, EH had to take action under a 'control of pollution' act. We told them about the act. I suspect that if we had not kept up the pressure and reminded them of their statutory obligation, they would have continued to try to walk away.

If a council neglect their duty, there are (or were) several courses of action open to the suffering individuals. These included taking legal action themselves and recovering the costs from the negligent council. Another lower risk and zero cost option is to file a report with the local governemt ombudsman.

There are really two things to remember here.

1/ It does not matter if it is one person suffering nuisance caused by many. The council are required to control or eliminate the nuisance. Regardless of cost.

2/ They will always go for the easy life of verbal responses with minimal or even incorrect information to get you off their backs. If you ask for a written response, they have to ensure it is correct. It may not be complete - but it should not be wrong.

Imagine you are taking part in a new ball game. You go into the pitch/area/court. You have a vague idea about the size of the ball. But you don't have the rule book. The other team have played before and have the rule book. You have to keep asking about running, touching, lifting, etc. If you ask a specific question, the opposing team will answer truthfully, but not necessarily fully. They will not volunteer information. This is planning and EH for you. Keep asking and insist on written responses.

It isn't 'snowball in hell'. It is about persistence and learning the rules of the game.

Keep us posted. Do get a councillor or two on side. If you demonstrate the financial costs of wasteful lighting and show them photos of the sky outside the area they have allowed it may help.

If someone (councillor or employee) does not give you written response, write again to them along the lines of... Following phone call on (date), you said blah promise action blah. you said you would confirm by letter but I have not yet received any response.

Good luck with the ongoing campaign and keep us posted. Keep at 'em.

The not quite latin saying comes to mind (if the naughty words filter doesn't catch it) Nil illegitamae carborundum.

David.

[Meerkat]

Our councillor is really throwing their weight around threatening press releases and court action etc.

There is now light at the end of tunnel as one of the major protagonists have said if the cost is shared between the two "owners" of the lamps, then they will fit the flat zero pollution glazing.

Now just got to wait a couple of weeks for the people involved to get back to our councillor with what they are going to do.

Steve

[Carbon Brush]

Hi Steve this is good news indeed that changes are being considered.

Hopefully common sense will prevail with this development and your sky will return.

However, in the wider field of developments in your council's whole area, this will have an impact. In my view, a positive impact.

Next time that a planning application drops through the council's door, someone will have the alarm bells ring in their head. Hopefully making them take more note of the proposed lighting arrangements and asking questions. So preventing a recurrence of the problems. This is not to help the likes of you and me, but for other reasons. More likely to justify their role in the planning office. Also give themselves, and their colleagues, an easy time. But if the end result is the same, who cares?

As you say, light (or should that be dark?) at the end of the tunnel.

Keep us posted.

David.

[Meerkat]

We've just had a new library built in Maidstone, and what type of lights have they used in the car park?

Those that project the light vertically to hit a downwards facing reflector, well not downwards so much as sideways.

Unbelievable.

Steve

[Carbon Brush]

Hi Steve.

Interesting to know that Maidstone council have been consistently incompetent and stupid!

Seriously though. if things move slowly, or stall, on your main issue, then a few photos of the 'upside down' light installation would do well to highlight waste and pollution by your council. This being made public at the time they are no doubt crying about cutting back on social care, schools, libraries, etc. Very embarrassing for them.

David.