|
From:
Sent: 24 October 2000 21:58
Subject: Re: Sky beams
Dear Dr. Best,
Thank you for your prompt and encouraging
reply. It certainly does seem
inappropriate that gross light pollution is
allowed in a conservation area,
especially when part of the attraction of
living in Morpeth and the
surrounding areas is the delight of the dark skies.
I have an
acquaintance in Ulgham who can clearly see the light beams from
there. It does
not seem fair that an organisation can dominate the view of
the night skies
which belong to everybody, anymore than they should be
allowed to spoil the
view of a conservation area were they to erect an ugly
facade in an area of
natural beauty.
Please excuse the lengthy email,
but I found the following information which
may be helpful. Most of this
comes from the "Campaign for Dark Skies" at
http://www.dark-skies.freeserve.co.uk
Regarding
planning matters and the legality of sky beams, this has already
been a
matter that has led to the shutting off of such light shows in
Guilford,
Shepway, Great Yarmouth, Newport and Chester. Objections may
be made under
the headings of damage to the environment, traffic safety and
advertising
regulations.
I found an interesting judgement by Mr. Justice Rich in
relation to a "space
flower" searchlight on the roof of an amusement arcade
in Hemsby, Great
Yarmouth, saying that beams of light in the sky are
"advertisements", because
they constitute a "sign" used for the purposes of
advertising the presence of
a particular establishment. Consequently, such
light shows would appear to
require planning consent. The judgement reference
for such installations is
App./U 2 61 5/4/95/i 2 74 HC Judgement 23 October
1996.
Chester Local Officer Andrew Bate sent some interesting extracts to
the
British Astronomical Association's Campaign for Dark Skies from the
planning
inspectorate's report and recommendations to the Transport
Department
(DETR) on the subject of a "skybeam" set up on the roof of a wine
bar in
Chester.
These are extracts from the
report.
*********Begin Extracts************
From: Report to
John Prescott, Secretary of State at the DETR, from M. Rowe,
Planning
Inspectorate.
Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)
Regulations 1992: appeal
by (operator...against refusal of Chester City
Council...to grant consent for
"Space Flower" searchlight
display.
Chester City Council refused consent in December 1997 for the
following
reasons:... "the display is contrary to the aims of the city
lighting strategy
by virtue of its dominant appearance and detrimental impact
on the character
of the Chester City Conservation Area..."
The
astronomical societies (objecting) were in no doubt that these lights
were
used as an "advertisement" ...(they said that) the display had been
backed up
by press advertisements to "follow the beams"...the impact from the
source was
a disproportionate amount of deliberately spilled light...the
movement of the
beams was intrusive even at a distance of 5 miles.
It
has been questioned whether the light display constitutes an
"advertisement"
within the statutory definition. This is of course a matter
for the Secretary
of State and his legal advisers...the important word
listed in section 336 of
the Act is "sign" ....I am satisfied that the beams
in this case are intended
to indicate the premises from which they are
displayed, and do constitute an
advertisement within the statutory
definition... subject to control under the
regulations. ...the impact of
these powerful beams...is particularly
intrusive and has a seriously
detrimental impact on...the city centre....
They also obtrude into
the night sky from other vantage points... the effect
of this moving and
visually arresting display is also clearly very
displeasing to local
astronomers and others who appreciate the night
sky.
I conclude that the display is incompatible with the conservation
status of
Chester city centre, and detrimental to the general interests of
amenity.
*********End Extract**********
The Council for the
Protection of Rural England
http://www.greenchannel.com/cpre/
and the British Astronomical Association
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~baa/ are
pressing for...
Better protection for our remaining unlit landscapes and
countryside.
Greater attention to the siting and type of lighting used
both in the country
and in towns, in order to reduce wasted
light.
Removal of unnecessary lighting because of its impact on the night
sky.
Local authorities are becoming increasingly concerned about
light pollution.
Structure and local plans prepared by local authorities
should include
policies on light pollution.
The Swale Borough
Local Plan Consultative Draft Policy E6 February 1994
states,
"'The
Borough Council will seek to minimise light pollution. Details of
any
external lighting scheme required as part of any new development should
be
submitted as part of the planning application. Applicants will be expected
to
demonstrate to the local planning authority that the scheme proposed is
the
minimum needed for security and working purposes and that it
minimises
potential pollution from glare and spillage, particularly
to...
Residential and commercial areas.
Areas of nature conservation
interest.
Areas whose open and remote landscape qualities would be
affected."
In the Guilford case there was the following extract from
the Inspector's
decision, Para. 78:
"The impact of the lights is however
not restricted to its urban
surroundings...generally, the lights of the town
do not impose themselves in
the surrounding countryside, whereas the beams
extend, in an arc, over a wide
area and the shafts of light pierce the dark
skies above the hills. They
appear to extend the commercial nature of the
town centre well beyond its
urban confines, across rural villages and into
dark, undisturbed areas of the
countryside. Outside the context of an
illuminated urban environment, I have
to say that the beams are unwelcome
intrusions. They are alien features,
disturbing to those who appreciate the
countryside for its non-commercial
aspects, and others that wish to maintain
dark skies for observation purposes
or for its own sake. (Para. 81) It is
this far-reaching impact that is
unacceptable, as the beams are detrimental
to the amenity of the surrounding
rural areas...it must follow that the
advertisement breaches planning policies
that seek to prevent harm to the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and to
the countryside.
Para. 85:
Whether or not the owner's motives are altruistic is a matter for
conjecture.
My view is that he is partly motivated by his own creative
ambitions, and
partly by a need to draw attention to Guildford and its
attractions.
Intentionally or not, the expansive manner in which he chooses to
express
such motives has far-reaching and detrimental effects and falls within
the
definition of an advertisement under S336(1) of the Act.
Illuminated
skies blur the separation between country and town. They reduce
the feeling
of remoteness in rural areas and introduce a suburban character
deep into the
countryside.
Thank you again for your consideration of this matter and I
hope those
extracts and the information above is of
use.
Regards,
Stephen Locks
|
