The relationship between planners and lighting designers has not always been a happy one. Until recently, it seemed to many lighting professionals that planners were indifferent to the visual effects of bad lighting schemes that make a travesty of the appearance of many new buildings by night, yet could quibble endlessly about minor details of lighting equipment, colour or location whose visual effects were far less damaging.
No doubt planners would say that their hands are tied by the limitations of lighting policy and its lack of precision. In recent years, however, as exterior lighting has risen up agenda, things have started to change for the better. Influenced by environmentalists and astronomers, many planners have become concerned about a particular manifestation of badly designed lighting - light pollution and light trespass.
The government's Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 will doubtless give this concern a significant boost, despite excluding many of the worst offenders such as transport hubs and sports facilities. Some authorities, such as Huntingdonshire District Council, already have local lighting engineers and planners working together to prevent the installation of poorly designed schemes.
However, designers would like to see planners' new-found interest in lighting go beyond merely discouraging or preventing the most appalling lighting schemes to positively encourage better design. Here, both new legislation and planners' greater reliance on lighting professionals' knowledge may be required. A number of possible solutions have already been aired within the profession and will be further debated at a seminar in July which will discuss the following issues.
The lit appearance of lighting schemes, particularly for new buildings, should be proposed and approved as part of the normal planning process.
Architects and developers should have to commission visual images of how a building will look by night as well as day.
Where planners do not have the necessary expertise they should routinely consult lighting professionals to consider such schemes. This would be in line with the recent Audit Commission report, which argued that planning departments should buy in outside expertise.
The enforcement of effective, regular maintenance is essential to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of all exterior lighting schemes.
As a condition of planning approval, we would like to see the inclusion of a detailed maintenance regime for a minimum of five years as part of all lighting design proposals for new buildings, areas or features. Authorities should then have the power to send out maintenance reminders and to fine building owners for non-compliance.
Urban lighting plans must be consulted on by planning departments. Over the past decade many lighting designers have prepared coherent, long-term, integrated design frameworks for all forms of lighting for more than 50 UK towns and cities, yet they are rarely recognised by planning departments as important components of urban planning. We would argue that urban lighting strategies should be integrated into authorities' strategic planning frameworks so that their prescription can be followed in future schemes by architects, lighting designers and clients.
Many planners will doubtless take issue with some or all of these proposals.
However, if you think lighting is something that planners need to take more seriously and want to contribute to the debate on 13 July then please e-mail julseminar@ile.org.uk stating your profession, employer and contact details.
- The views expressed are solely the personal opinion of the writer.
_1.png)
