AFTER objections by parishioners and others, the churchwardens and the PCC treasurer of All Saints’, Chelsworth (“the petitioners”), in Suffolk, have been refused a faculty to increase the floodlighting of the church from 25 hours per year to approximately 150 hours per year.
If the petition had been unopposed, it would have been granted without any difficulty, but the issue was one of neighbourliness, the Diocesan Chancellor of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich, the Worshipful Justin Gau, said.
Floodlights had been installed after the grant of a faculty in 2011. It was now proposed that the church should be floodlit for a total of 122 hours between 6.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. during weekends from 1 November to 31 March, and a further 28 hours for Christmas and events, such as concerts, that occurred after dusk.
The Rector’s reasons for the petition were that “according to the Church of England, floodlighting the church elevates its presence,” that it was “a beautiful sight when lit up”, and that it was “a comforting sight on a dark winter’s night”.
Objections were received, particularly from those who would be most directly affected by the proposed changes to the floodlighting. One couple whose house was very close to the church said that even the current floodlighting, which had been “introduced without consultation in 2011”, had caused them “stress, disruption, and sleep disturbance” because of light 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 being able to go out and look at the stars” would be adversely affected.
They also said that floodlighting had a negative impact on wildlife, including bats, and that it was a waste of valuable resources and energy when councils and businesses were turning off unnecessary building and street lighting to conserve energy.
Floodlighting was said to have become a divisive issue among the villagers, many 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 significant and adverse effect on the quality of life of those residents living close to the church”, and that it was unfair to inflict that on residents. Was the increase 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 in the face of those in the parish in the grip of fuel poverty” as well as more than six million households in the UK which were “in the same predicament”, they said.
Another said that the PCC thought that “it would 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, none of the objectors worshipped regularly at the church, or contributed directly 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 would be aesthetically pleasing and would identify the church and “publicise its faith”.
The objectors asserted that it would 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 would lead to more crime; that it would cause unnecessary light pollution; and that it would not be sufficiently visible to make “any appreciable difference”.
From all the evidence, including expert evidence, the Chancellor was satisfied that, with sufficient controls, the lighting as requested would not in 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 changed to an electricity provider that used renewable sources of energy, and would not add to the church’s carbon footprint.
The petitioners claimed that the effect of light pollution would be minimal, and dismissed the objectors’ concerns in relation to the principal objectors’ home. They similarly dismissed the objections that the floodlighting would be insufficiently visible to have any effect save on those who objected to it.
“I confess I find the tone of some of the petitioners’ rebuttals regrettable,” the Chancellor said. The main objectors set out very clearly why they objected to the lighting. It was also noted that, some time ago, the Registrar had had to intervene to stop the floodlighting being used at all, as it appeared to have been quite uncontrolled.
What was of note, the Chancellor said, was “that the objectors had to alert people that both the floodlights and the lights inside the church were on at times when they should not have been”, and that gave “the lie to the petitioners’ assertion that the church will become more noticeable if it is floodlit”. The Chancellor said that he was not “overwhelmed or persuaded” by the petitioners’ arguments.
If the petition had been unopposed, the faculty would have been granted without any difficulty, the Chancellor said, but the issue was “now one of neighbourliness”. The petitioners sought to extend the time of floodlighting the church, but could give no substantive reason for doing so, particularly in the light of objections from those who were to be most directly affected by it.
The Chancellor accepted the objectors’ submissions in relation to the increase in light pollution, particularly to the house occupied by the couple closest to the church. There was no justification for altering the current state of affairs. The petition was refused.