New Clause 32 - Regulations to control light pollution
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
3:15 pm
Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful for the information provided by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The new clause aims to make lighting subject to planning control by providing for enabling regulations to be made.
The CPRE offered a long new clause that would have gone into great detail. I decided that that would give Ministers too much opportunity to tell us that it would not work. The clause therefore simply gives Ministers the ability to make regulations to
''make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.''
The matter is now in Ministers' hands. How could they possibly refuse another power? They normally like accruing power, and I would be surprised if they did not accept this one.
The problem is that light cannot be classed as development, and is therefore not subject to planning controls. In some cases, however, it can be a problem. When excessive light is beamed upwards it can cause light pollution, which has a damaging effect on the environment, particularly if it is on all night. It is not physically damaging, but it affects our view of the sky. When we drive at night in rural areas, we realise that we can see an orange glow in the sky from nearby urban areas. It spoils the view of the stars and the sky. In a sense, it pushes the urban area out into the countryside.
Other problems that affect neighbours and surrounding areas are lights that are too powerful, floodlights that light too big an area, lights that stay on for an excessive time, and floodlights that light buildings excessively. There are clearly issues of public safety, and we do not want unlit areas to be dangerous and perhaps encourage crime. However, I am sure that all hon. Members can think of areas in their constituencies where there is too much light, or the light is inappropriate.
As I said, I leave it entirely to Ministers to decide whether they want a light or a heavy touch—or indeed, whether they want to make regulations at all. The new clause would not mean that they had to do so. It is an enabling new clause, which would allow them to deal with the problem later, should they wish to do so, and as such, I struggle to see how Ministers can refuse it.