Petition to regulate light pollution

[Stub Mandrel]

I think that, given it wasn't backed by a formal campaign and didn't get any national publicity the result is pretty creditable. Let's be glass half full here!

[Physopto]

4 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I think that, given it wasn't backed by a formal campaign and didn't get any national publicity the result is pretty creditable. Let's be glass half full here!

I completely agree here. It has also in the last few hours since yesterday risen by nearly another 200 signatures 11,379 now. We got the magical 10,000 and to be quite honest for an almost fringe hobby I was never expecting to get anywhere near 100,000. Nice thought but there are so many people afraid of their shadows in this country not a reality in my mind. 

The real test will be what sort of response will there be. With all of the new reports surfacing about environmental and health problems it may just help escalate any beneficial actions in future. 

Derek

[Physopto]

Signatures are at  11,404 so up 219 since yesterday at 1245 hrs so still rising considerably.  It really does not matter now how many more to some extent as we got the 10,000 but nice top see it is still rising.

 

 

Derek

[Stub Mandrel]

Just noticed I got an email from Chris Packham via his agent saying he had tweeted the petition yesterday :-)

[astrotyke]

He did indeed Neil, I saw it

[xyz]

Signed (as a UK citizen even if not a resident).

[Scosmico]

It is a good idea to do a follow up, contacting those guys who retwitted the petition telling than the inicial objective of 10k signitures was achieved etc. More detail better. I would tell, for example, Chris Packham that his twitte possible added 1000 signatures etc.

[mapstar]

Petition this morning has reached the 11500 signature point.

Maybe if we can get another prominent individual to tweet about it then it will pass 12k.

Again well done to all for their contributions. 

[caracol_uk]

I just noticed that the government has now officially responded to the petition. The full response is on the petition page.

Simon

[jrastro]

"The Government understands that light pollution and excessive or wasteful use of lighting poses a number of social, economic and environmental problems, (cont)

Read the response in full

and has worked hard to reduce the negative effects of light pollution.

In 2014, the Government published a policy update, ‘Artificial Light in the Environment’, highlighting the steps that have been taken to reduce artificial light pollution. The update is available to view at:www.gov.uk/government/publications/artificial-light-in-the-environment-policy-update.

Defra will continue to work with other Departments to enable the impact of outdoor artificial lighting to be suitably considered in future relevant Government policy development.

Street lighting in England is the responsibility of Highways England for the Strategic Road Network and the relevant local highway authority for all other public highways. Local highway authorities have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the public highways in their charge, including street lighting where provided. It is for local highway authorities to decide on what type of technology they should introduce into their service.

The Department for Transport encourages all local authorities to replace their street lighting with LED lighting where it is economically feasible to do so. New, modern luminaires can reduce the amount of glare emitted. The Department also encourages local authorities to consider best practice when making decisions about lighting on their networks. Advice is available from the UK Lighting Board and the Institute of Lighting Professionals.

Artificial light from premises is recognised in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a potential ‘statutory nuisance’. Under this legislation, local authorities have a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of “artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. More information on statutory nuisance rules, lights that are exempt and how councils can assess light is available at:www.gov.uk/guidance/artificial-light-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints.

We also recognise that artificial light is an important issue in the context of planning and sustainable development. The Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) National Planning Policy Framework includes consideration of the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. DCLG has also published additional guidance setting out when light pollution is relevant to planning: planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/light-pollution.

Light pollution can also have a disturbing effect on certain nocturnal species, particularly some bat species. However, we do not fully understand its impact on wildlife. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, certain species are protected from disturbance, which may, in some circumstances, include light, for example leaving the lights on in a church to deter bats.

Under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, public authorities have an additional duty to have regard for conserving biodiversity when carrying out their functions. In particular, any planning application that may impact on protected species should have an ecological assessment. Any such disturbance proposed in a planning application would require an application to Natural England (in England) for a licence to allow it to happen. Further information on the management of protected species can be found at:www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals.

Defra is pleased to see that policies in place to protect and enhance valued landscapes are helping to reduce light pollution. Defra Ministers have supported parks that have applied to become International Dark Sky Parks or Reserves. So far, Exmoor National Park and South Downs National Park have been successfully designated International Dark Sky Reserves. The Kielder Water and Forest Park and Northumberland National Park jointly achieved the designation of Dark Sky Park, now the largest in Europe.

An eight-point plan for National Parks was launched in March 2016. It mentions that dark sky parks are helping to extend the season for National Parks and that “The Government will work with National Park Authorities to make this possible”. Further information can be found at:www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-parks-8-point-plan-for-england-2016-to-2020.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"

At 100,000 signatures...

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Share this petition

• Facebook
• Email
• Twitter
• Whatsapp

• Created byMichael Hendle
• Deadline22 July 2016All petitions run for 6 months
• Get petition data (json format)

• Home
• All petitions
• Start a petition
• How petitions work
• Privacy and cookies
• Feedback

Open Government Licence

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated

 © Crown copyright

[Stub Mandrel]

That's a pretty even-handed review of the status quo. I think the key issue to address is that LED lighting should not be the default when sodium lighting is more efficient,  easier to filter out and has less impact on health/wildlife as it doesn't include short-wavelength blue light. This, I think is a point of weakness and potentially a point of leverage as it is DEFRA who have responded and they are not unafraid to differ from the views of Highways England.

We could seek the evidence on which Highways England base their position, and also seek clarification of the situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The admission that the impacts of wildlife are poorly understood should be a spur for research.

[bingevader]

Nothing much new there then, some of it goes back to the 80s!

Except the 8 point plan for the parks, but we don't want to set up reserves, that's the battle already lost, we want a national reduction in light pollution!

[Gina]

Quite right!!  Absolutely!

[ChrisLX200]

Just so! I found the response insulting - pretty much a case of 'Look what we've done already so stop complaining'.

ChrisH

[mapstar]

Agreed that the response is passé stating there has already been a lot of work done.

I think there are some points in there though that can be built on as Neil (stubmandrel) says. 

 

[SteveNickolls]

So, to paraphrase the government's response: apart from the effects on wildlife which it is unclear over the government feels pretty happy with its handling of light pollution as an issue to date.  They have introduced the various legislation and guidance that has led us all to this point. Unless greater pressure can be applied we will have to make do with the existing dark sites around the country that few can visit with any regularity to sustain a hobby interest. I don't detect much in the reply showing any meaningful sliver of potent leadership from the government, except delegating the onus on us to reach 100,000 signatures and hoping (?) that we won't get there. It's at a time like this that we should naturally look to those among us with some public profile and influence (I bet we can all think of a number in this regard) both in the fields of astronomy and wildlife to add their weight to the case and debate the issues and popularize the cause.  The general public need to be engaged with more and help prick the bubbles of fear and misunderstanding about the dark. Realistically we will struggle to reach 100,000 signatures going on as we have in the past.

However, well done everyone so far.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[CSM]

My suggestion would be to turn our attention to local councils and see if we can, where it has not already been done, at least get the lights turned off at 11pm or midnight.  And to push the point about shielding lights.  Lots of small steps like this could make quite a difference in the long run.

[rockystar]

it seemed to be very much a "yeah we know your concerns, there are some things that we are working towards (slowly), but there are somethings that out of our control" kind of response.

[Stub Mandrel]

We forget that there are organisations whose prime function is to campaign for dark skies, notably the Commission for Dark Skies.

We should use the petition to show them (they are promoting it) a level of grass-roots support. I have been sitting on an invitation to talk to the CFDS about helping out for months and have re-contacted them, offering to help with incorporating the wider environmental impacts of light pollution into a response back to Government.

 

[Physopto]

The reply was more than I was expecting. It could so easily have been just a couple of very bland lines saying that they were looking into it.

At least someone actually cut and pasted readily available information into the reply. It is now in the general domain, that there may be a problem with L.E.D. lighting. Also, that it may affect the health of the animal kingdom.  What we have helped to achieve is a warning that now cannot be ignored if and when something concrete happens. The Government cannot now say that there have been no warnings given publicly concerning L.E.D. current and planned lighting in the near future!

There are still another 8 days or so for the petition to run. I do not expect many more votes but you never know. For a period of just over two months I think we have done amazingly well in promoting a basically unnoticed and rather obscure petition. The original poster of the petition here on SGL did us all a favour and also helped the originator of the petition no end.

Everyone who helped in any way should be proud of their efforts. I hope Bob Mizon of the CfDS takes note that this may not have been possible without our sustained efforts.

Derek

[Jonk]

I don't think pushing the point about leds and filtering is going to hold much weight, it's likely that pushing leds and blue light in human and animal health regards that is likely to have more weight.
Much in the same way about the "studies" conducted with regards to kids and led lit devices like tablets and tvs.

 

[caracol_uk]

The response is in line with what I was expecting based on the responses to most other petitions. Some of the points mentioned in the linked documents are quite interesting, particularly the comparison between noise and light pollution. The way that is written suggests noise pollution gets more attention because more people complain to their local council about noisy neighbours than neighbours causing light pollution. Perhaps the message there is to start reporting instances of light pollution. As they say, it's the squeaky cog that gets oiled!

Simon

[Aaron F Johnson]

It's interesting as LED technology evolved the goal was to create more light with less power. We humans always want more and its what drives us and our technologies. But if the idea is to save energy LED technology is in part a failure due to the fact we use the increased light emission to extremes without a trottle. Making the streets 300% brighter and reducing energy costs by half is a groovy thing but if your serious about light pollution and also a high school graduate you would install LED technology with emissions that mirror existing and save 6x as much energy.  Flawed as all this may be it is ingrained into our very nature and the technology itself. I have been following this post and am opposed to the foolish waste of energy ( I like trees too ). The physics of all this are simple, nights of good seeing where atmostheric conditions allow for better propagation of the light spectrum will also better propagate the polluted light and all that really sucks bad...I commend everyone here for working to move this petition and hope even after the battle is lost the war is not over...it's imortant that children get to see the same or better sky's than we have.  

[mapstar]

The petition has 2 days left and at present stands at 11610 signatures which is a darn sight better than how I thought it would be.

The response is something to continue to work with but it was a lot more in depth than what I was expecting. I agree it is stating current legislation but the only constant in the universe is change so it can be altered. 

I personally shall be looking into the existing legislation in detail and become more active in raising awareness.

If every retail, business park was to reduce their lighting I'm sure it would make a huge difference to the skies. 

Anyway the outcome to me has been a good one and thanks again to all those that participated in getting a response.

 

 

 

[Jonk]

When I was young (paper round age), I used to see a lot of red lights on buildings at night, with the buildings being in darkness.

I didn't realise at the time that these were red lights for the CCTV cameras. These days, UV leds are used, which are invisible to our eyes, but light up camera sensors no end.

It would appear as though UV lighting and CCTVs are no no longer the 1st choice for some reason, but flood the entire building / estate with lights. Gives the burglars something to look at!

Even with all the good work on this petition, I fear that nothing much will change unless something becomes law.

Here's an image of an old people's home opposite my mum's house (taken about 5 months ago). Disgusting, glaring right into her bedroom!

I asked her to write the company a letter, quoting the current regulations with a copy of this photo.

I don't know if she did, but she's told me that the bright lights are now gone. (or maybe broken as she put it!).

This is just another example of poor lighting that only the law will be able to reduce.

Keep up the good work.