AFTER objections by parishioners and others, the churchwardens and the PCC treasurer of All Saints’, Chelsworth (“the petitioners”), in Suffolk, have been refused a college to extend the floodlighting of the church from 25 hours per 12 months to roughly 150 hours per 12 months.
If the petition had been unopposed, it could have been granted with none difficulty, but the problem was one among neighbourliness, the Diocesan Chancellor of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Worshipful Justin Gau, said.
Floodlights had been installed after the grant of a college in 2011. It was now proposed that the church must be floodlit for a complete of 122 hours between 6.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. during weekends from 1 November to 31 March, and an additional 28 hours for Christmas and events, resembling live shows, that occurred after dusk.
The Rector’s reasons for the petition were that “in line with the Church of England, floodlighting the church elevates its presence,” that it was “an attractive sight when lit up”, and that it was “a comforting sight on a dark winter’s night”.
Objections were received, particularly from those that can be most directly affected by the proposed changes to the floodlighting. One couple whose house was very near the church said that even the present floodlighting, which had been “introduced without consultation in 2011”, had caused them “stress, disruption, and sleep disturbance” because of sunshine pollution that brightly lit up their living areas and bedrooms at night.
They also said that light pollution destroyed natural darkness that was “essential to human health and well-being”, and that the “pleasure of with the ability to exit and take a look at the celebrities” can be adversely affected.
They also said that floodlighting had a negative impact on wildlife, including bats, and that it was a waste of beneficial resources and energy when councils and businesses were turning off unnecessary constructing and street lighting to conserve energy.
Floodlighting was said to have turn into a divisive issue among the many villagers, lots of whom had been lobbied by PCC members to support the petition, and objectors had experienced bullying behaviour by the PCC.
Objectors said that the “substantive increase” in lighting would have “a big and antagonistic effect on the standard of lifetime of those residents living near the church”, and that it was unfair to inflict that on residents. Was the rise in lighting to be carried on in perpetuity, they asked, and was there a process for residents to complain or a review after a given period? The proposed floodlighting seemed “like a beacon of ostentation within the face of those within the parish within the grip of fuel poverty” in addition to greater than six million households within the UK which were “in the identical predicament”, they said.
Another said that the PCC thought that “it could be nice for passers-by to see the church all lit up,” and remarked that surely the “irritation of our neighbours having their houses lit up outweighs a moment of joy as someone walks to the pub”.
A churchwarden, Sir Gerald Howarth, responded to the objections, and denied allegations that the village had been “bullied” into supporting the PCC or that objectors had been bullied by the PCC. He said that, with three exceptions, not one of the objectors worshipped commonly on the church, or contributed on to it, and that the PCC’s proposals had the “overwhelming support” of the villagers and the regular worshippers.
The Chancellor decided the petition on the written evidence and arguments. The petitioners asserted that floodlighting can be aesthetically pleasing and would discover the church and “publicise its faith”.
The objectors asserted that it could adversely affect wildlife, particularly bats; that it was a waste of resources; that it was contrary to the Church of England’s net-zero aspiration; that it could result in more crime; that it could cause unnecessary light pollution; and that it could not be sufficiently visible to make “any appreciable difference”.
From all of the evidence, including expert evidence, the Chancellor was satisfied that, with sufficient controls, the lighting as requested wouldn’t in actual fact affect the wildlife. He accepted that the resources to be expended were relatively small, and were to be covered by private funds. He also accepted that a well-lit church was a secure church, and noted that there had been no issues with security or damage with the lighting currently allowed by faculty. The PCC had modified to an electricity provider that used renewable sources of energy, and wouldn’t add to the church’s carbon footprint.
The petitioners claimed that the effect of sunshine pollution can be minimal, and dismissed the objectors’ concerns in relation to the principal objectors’ home. They similarly dismissed the objections that the floodlighting can be insufficiently visible to have any effect save on those that objected to it.
“I confess I find the tone of a number of the petitioners’ rebuttals regrettable,” the Chancellor said. The foremost objectors set out very clearly why they objected to the lighting. It was also noted that, a while ago, the Registrar had needed to intervene to stop the floodlighting getting used in any respect, because it appeared to have been quite uncontrolled.
What was of note, the Chancellor said, was “that the objectors needed to alert folks that each the floodlights and the lights contained in the church were on at times once they shouldn’t have been”, and that gave “the deceive the petitioners’ assertion that the church will turn into more noticeable whether it is floodlit”. The Chancellor said that he was not “overwhelmed or persuaded” by the petitioners’ arguments.
If the petition had been unopposed, the school would have been granted with none difficulty, the Chancellor said, but the problem was “now one among neighbourliness”. The petitioners sought to increase the time of floodlighting the church, but could give no substantive reason for doing so, particularly in the sunshine of objections from those that were to be most directly affected by it.
The Chancellor accepted the objectors’ submissions in relation to the rise in light pollution, particularly to the home occupied by the couple closest to the church. There was no justification for altering the present state of affairs. The petition was refused.
