Got problems with new floodlights?

[coatesg]

On 19/03/2017 at 12:52, Mr Spock said:

Whenever commercial interests are at stake the private individual will simply not be heard

Not always the case. We have no streetlights in our village, and the nearest lights are 3/4 mile away on a smallish ind. estate. A new egg processing plant was built to replace a previous egg farm - and all of a sudden, a load of floodlights pointing horizontal (so 1/2 light upwards) appeared - I could read a newspaper with no issue! 

I (alone I believe) reported this to two local councillors, parish council and planning dept, forced a retrospective planning application, spoke at the hearing, and forced some restrictive terms on the lights (nothing above horizontal, no extra lights or increase in lumens without permission). 

Ok - it would have been better with no more lights, but it's reined it in a lot, and it's almost due north and has not much effect on me anymore, and has set precedent for anything else locally.

[nightfisher]

Just for a laugh, a still shot of the offending lights and the nearby ski slope taken from the air with my phantom 3 quadcopter shot at early twilight

[nightfisher]

Still no response from council, so no DSO and put up with washed out planet views

[cotterless45]

Get in contact with your local councillor. These are elected representatives, unlike council employees. If it's in their interest , they can stir pretty deep. You shouldn't get washed out planets , they don't need contrast.

I got into binary stars and reasonably acheivable targets in response to our light pollution. It helps if you can ,by means of screens, cut out any direct light.

Your eyes take up to twenty minutes to dark adapt. It's a chemical reaction, destroyed instantly by light. I was very pleased to see folk at star parties using material draped over their head when observing.

we have nine streetlights , security lights and a golf driving range here. New buildings have added to the glow. Much of this dies down after midnight, a superb time to observe,

Nick.

[Dave Lloyd]

On 23/03/2017 at 15:48, nightfisher said:

I have sent a follow up mail to Bradford, they have decided to look into it, i wont hold my breath for a positive outcome, if nothing gests done i then have to decide should i sell up and move or scale down my astro to just Luna

Pity one of your drones isn't a reaper. These people disgust me.

[JOC]

Well the floodlights I complained about have miraculously been adjusted and shielded so they don't point so much upwards and don't point towards drivers on the road and don't illuminate the surrounding eight acres - still there, but much subdued.  Feels like a bit of result.

[nightfisher]

Having started this complaint March 21st, over the last couple of days i finally get some council response, its not good, from home i am now limited to Luna! , they opened a case yesterday........and closed it today!

Issue 431 - Omega/Leo Group Lighting

 

I must first of all apologise to you for our failure to respond to your request in a timely manner. A response was prepared for you on 13 April 2017, however, due to an administrative error this was not sent.

 

I refer to your concerns regarding floodlights erected at Leo Group, Swalesmoor Road, Halifax. As you are aware, these premises are within the district of Calderdale MBC.

 

 

Section 79 (1) (fb) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisancemay be a statutory nuisance.  Whilst the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has powers to act in relation to a statutory nuisance across local authority boundaries, case law has decided that a statutory nuisance would exist only if the premises complained about were in such a state as to interfere with the personal comfort of the occupiers making the complaint. As this is not the case in respect of this complaint, I am unable to investigate matters on your behalf. 

 

For the Department to take action for statutory nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 it must be satisfied that conditions amounting to a statutory nuisance exist or are likely to occur or recur. There is no set level at which artificial light becomes a statutory nuisance. The Council’s role is to make a judgement taking into account a number of factors. Case law has directed that factors such as frequency, time and duration, the nature and locality of the neighbourhood, standard of comfort, motive, level of interference and, most importantly, reasonableness, must be considered in determining a statutory nuisance. 

 

To be actionable the nuisance must be substantial and unreasonable, for example interfering with sleep.  It is not sufficient that an artificial light can simply be seen: a statutory nuisance must affect the personal comfort of a person. 

 

I must also advise you that the Courts have ruled that particularly sensitive persons are not afforded additional protection under the statutory nuisance regime. If a person is particularly sensitive to a type of nuisance, it is not actionable unless it can be shown that the nuisance would have affected a "reasonable" person; the Court's view being that a person should not be able to increase his neighbour's liabilities because they carry out special activities on their premises.

 

With regard to your query regarding planning permission, this is a matter for the Planning Enforcement team at Calderdale MBC and you should contact them direct as, again, I am unable to assist you.   

 

Yours sincerely

 

Issue 431 - Omega/Leo Group Lighting

 

I must first of all apologise to you for our failure to respond to your request in a timely manner. A response was prepared for you on 13 April 2017, however, due to an administrative error this was not sent.

 

I refer to your concerns regarding floodlights erected at Leo Group, Swalesmoor Road, Halifax. As you are aware, these premises are within the district of Calderdale MBC.

 

 

Section 79 (1) (fb) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisancemay be a statutory nuisance.  Whilst the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council has powers to act in relation to a statutory nuisance across local authority boundaries, case law has decided that a statutory nuisance would exist only if the premises complained about were in such a state as to interfere with the personal comfort of the occupiers making the complaint. As this is not the case in respect of this complaint, I am unable to investigate matters on your behalf. 

 

For the Department to take action for statutory nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 it must be satisfied that conditions amounting to a statutory nuisance exist or are likely to occur or recur. There is no set level at which artificial light becomes a statutory nuisance. The Council’s role is to make a judgement taking into account a number of factors. Case law has directed that factors such as frequency, time and duration, the nature and locality of the neighbourhood, standard of comfort, motive, level of interference and, most importantly, reasonableness, must be considered in determining a statutory nuisance. 

 

To be actionable the nuisance must be substantial and unreasonable, for example interfering with sleep.  It is not sufficient that an artificial light can simply be seen: a statutory nuisance must affect the personal comfort of a person. 

 

I must also advise you that the Courts have ruled that particularly sensitive persons are not afforded additional protection under the statutory nuisance regime. If a person is particularly sensitive to a type of nuisance, it is not actionable unless it can be shown that the nuisance would have affected a "reasonable" person; the Court's view being that a person should not be able to increase his neighbour's liabilities because they carry out special activities on their premises.

 

With regard to your query regarding planning permission, this is a matter for the Planning Enforcement team at Calderdale MBC and you should contact them direct as, again, I am unable to assist you.   

 

Yours sincerely

 

[CraigT82]

50 minutes ago, nightfisher said:

Having started this complaint March 21st, over the last couple of days i finally get some council response, its not good, from home i am now limited to Luna! , they opened a case yesterday........and closed it today!

Try again and this time say you cant sleep?!

You shouldn't be limited to just the moon.  I enjoy lunar, planetary observing and imaging and double splitting from my balcony which is horrendously light polluted, being in the city centre... I have a huge illuminated ferris wheel a couple hundred metres away!

 

 

 

[nightfisher]

Some good news.........looking at Calderdale council website/planning application page, the offending factory never put in an application, so looks like some action may be taken after all 

[happy-kat]

There is a government lighting document I'll add a link later there are many good phrases in it and what is acceptable and lighting guidelines. 

[barkis]

Council Speak is written and designed by Wordsmiths when they are troubled by residents with a beef about something, in this case light
pollution. Mostly, complainants resign themselves to having failed in their attempt to right something they feel is wrong, unless they delve and delve
looking for legal avenues to pursue. Councils are in fear of breaking laws, and it seem in this case they may be guilty of that.
If that really is the case, then they must act, and quickly to rectify their wrongdoings.
Well done for not giving up on this one, that light interference is horrendous, I see no point in overkill like that, wherever It might be.
They must  think energy is free to waste, my electricity quarter bill is frightening, and I'm as  careful as I can be using it.
 

[coatesg]

Go for planning - they have enforcement powers for exactly these things. Also, look within the planning section of your local council for their policies with regards to light pollution, preservation of rural character (?), and refer to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution for details of how they should be approaching the application (the fact it is retrospective has nothing to do with the lack of lighting design).

And yes, from environmental health in councils, you will get the above response, but you should be contacting your local councillors - they are elected to represent you, and should not fobb off with a regurgitation of laws relating to public nuisance. Possibly worth inviting them over to see first hand the impact the lights have on the sky?

 

 

[Alfian]

4 hours ago, coatesg said:

but you should be contacting your local councillors - they are elected to represent you

Good idea, its especially handy, if possible to speak to a councillor "in opposition" as they sometimes feel obliged to make a bit more noise.

[coatesg]

54 minutes ago, Alfian said:

Good idea, its especially handy, if possible to speak to a councillor "in opposition" as they sometimes feel obliged to make a bit more noise.

Yes, agreed, though trickier round here (40 vs 9!) and if you get a ruling councillor on side it does help. Ours isn't afraid of speaking out in favour of local residents.

And as it turns out (as I discovered at the meeting), one of the other county council members is interested in astronomy too...  One councillor did speak in favour of the floodlights we had to deal with (he was a ex-haulier, and waffled about safety aspects, etc - just completely didn't get my argument about shielding, not turning them off. Sigh.). YMMV...

[happy-kat]

My own council refers to papers that established safety levels don't change with/without lights and it's just a perceived safety with lights... But then waffle on about respecting that view too but but our part dark lights out is a mid way compromise..

[Ibbo!]

I would carry on complaining and not accept that reply as being reasonable.

 

As has been said they work for us .

[happy-kat]

Lighting schemes should be mindful to the points covered in the Government’s document LINK which includes ‘for maximum benefit, the best use of artificial light is about getting the right light, in the right place and providing light at the right time.' and 'Light intrusion occurs when the light ‘spills’ beyond the boundary of the area being lit. For example, light spill can impair sleeping, cause annoyance to people, compromise an existing dark landscape and/or affect natural systems (eg plants, animals, insects, aquatic life). It can usually be completely avoided with careful lamp design selection and positioning'.

My local Council supports part night lighting and within documents available on the Council’s website recognises that ‘studies show that there is no direct link between reduced lighting and increased crime’.

Good luck.

[BeerMe]

Very enlightening thread, if you'll pardon the pun.

The houses across the back from us are a very strange configuration, but basically they necessitate a back court light for the upper 2 floors.  The light they have installed recently is very intrusive, so much so that we have to completely shut our blinds at night and, in my observing area, it casts long shadows.  I've found a spot behind their own hut, bordering my garden, that blocks the worst of it for observing purposes but I really need to get something done about it.

Off to the local councillor I think :-)

[nightfisher]

I have notified the relevant council that these lights have been erected without planning permission, I guess the company will be told to put in a retrospective application, I will do my best to object, I might try to gather support through Facebook local group as there is plenty of opposition to the work this company engage in.

If this fails I will have tried my best

[Alfian]

Good going Jules, step by step, you never know some change may come out of it .

[nightfisher]

2 hours ago, Alfian said:

Good going Jules, step by step, you never know some change may come out of it .

Thanks Ian, I might not have bothered to go to this trouble but for the fact the lights are in the direct path of the lower ecliptic and for the fact they are just way over the top.

I have previously voiced concerns that said company are "allegedly" shall we say "looked after by a council" so i do wonder if no action will be taken, but i have done what i can 

[Alfian]

It sounds slightly defeatist but when I said "some change" it crossed my mind that rather than nothing happening maybe at least they would look into what lights were actually deemed to be necessary, H&S and all that, that , type, power, positioning, etc with regard to the community sensitivities, might be taken into consideration as and when the required "retrospective" planning permission is granted.  So maybe not a total eradication but at least some beneficial change. Perhaps I'm being naively optimistic but stranger things happen.

[nightfisher]

Ian, i dont for one minute  see these pesky lights being turned of, all i can hope for is a reduction in the out put, or some shielding to stop the things lighting up the Andromeda galaxy

[happy-kat]

There is writing in the links provided that details what lights should take into account, use of gov reference and wording might be useful. To see them like it appears you do makes them look unshielded and generating huge light spill.

[nightfisher]

Well, i should find out this week if any action is to be taken on these lights, in theory the company should be told to put in a retrospective application, but i think it will be brushed under the carpet, i will then decide if i scale back my kit to a single scope/mount set up or not