More heat than light? The surprising controversy over switching off streetlights

A war of words has erupted over a seemingly innocuous item in Thursday's county council meeting.

“Dark Skies: Street Lighting Illumination Proposals” is a title that at first glance suggests nothing more than a sensitive approach to light pollution across the county. But what’s proposed is radical: the majority of the county’s streetlights will be switched off at 11 o’clock at night, with a brief return from 6.30am until dawn (so mornings would only be lit between September and March). 

There will be a raft of exceptions. Lights will stay on in alleyways and underpasses. “Town centres supporting a night-time economy”, determined by the number of late-opening bars, will also remain lit up. County council officers are recommending that Deputy Leader Pete Sudbury approves the proposal as a minor change to an existing policy, with a “strong supporting evidence base” and “sufficient precedent” to press forward without further consultation.

War of words

The Police & Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley, Matthew Barber, was quick to raise concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour in a letter to county leader Liz Leffman. “Badly lit streets can exacerbate both the risk of crime and the fear of crime,” commented Barber, observing that visitors to the ‘night-time economy’ will have to find their way home in the dark. He also raises concerns that it will reverse a recent decline in knife crime while limiting the effectiveness of new CCTV cameras.

The Clarion reached out to the County Council for comment. They provided a robust and detailed defence of ‘part-night lighting’, citing one study commissioned by Barber’s counterpart in Essex (“no overall impact on crime or road safety“) and another using Thames Valley’s own crime data (“switching off street lights between midnight and 6am may actually reduce some types of crime”). The latter research suggested that part-night lighting halved car crime, and that criminals actively moved into areas where the lights were left on.

The Police & Crime Commissioner’s press release was unusually combative, and the County Council’s response no less so:

The College of Policing, quoted by the PCC, notes that improving street lighting reduces crime by 21%, but this reduction is evenly spread across day and night. […] The four studies that examined the impact of improved street lighting on levels of crime at night showed no evidence of an impact on crime. […] Their conclusion is that replacing old and decrepit lights with new ones improves the look and feel of an area, and this regeneration reduces crime. The ideal combination seems to be new, bright lights when people are out and about, and Dark Skies when they are not. That, alongside the LED replacement programme, is exactly what our policy promotes.

The County Council’s statement actually begins by thanking Thames Valley Police for helping to ensure the proposal “reflects the best available evidence and wise police advice”.

It’s unusual for a single item in a workaday County Council meeting to result in a campaign website being set up. Even more so when that site, keepthelightson.uk, is run by the elected Police & Crime Commissioner, and takes a strongly party political line – repeatedly calling it a proposal from “the Lib Dem-run Oxfordshire County Council”, even though it’s the Green deputy leader who will decide. But Barber was recently re-elected as a Conservative PCC, and given new leader Kemi Badenoch’s target of winning back local councils, this looks likely to herald a more confrontational approach.

Lubna Arshad, (Labour) Oxford City Council’s cabinet member for a Safer Oxford, said she was “deeply concerned by the proposal”:

Darkened streets create an environment that fosters antisocial behaviour and crime, putting our most vulnerable residents at increased risk. The County Council have failed to address how this policy will impact women specifically, nor have they consulted Oxford City Council’s Safer Streets lead or myself. This proposal disregards public safety concerns raised in the Violence against Women and Girls agenda, ignoring both actual and perceived risks.

Oxford City’s Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, did not entirely row in behind the County proposals. Their group leader Cllr Chris Smowton said there should be more engagement with women and older people, “focusing on the need for a sense of safety and security when out at night”:

Part-night lighting has been rolled out in many cities, and if it's done right it can divert taxpayer money from lighting empty streets at 4am to vital services like social care. Those cities have also thankfully not seen an increase in crime or vehicle accidents – but it's vital we keep not just safety itself, but a sense of safety too, and that means keeping the lights on when people are coming home from pubs, clubs and other night-time venues. There are already plans to keep lighting on 24/7 where it's needed for safety, but we need to make sure people are aware of these carve-outs and can fully engage in their design.

The Greens’ Cllr Pete Sudbury, who will be responsible for taking the decision, pointed out that the policy decision was actually taken by the county council’s Cabinet two years ago, and that Thursday’s meeting aims to approve “what we should be aiming for as a general framework for implementation”:

It certainly isn't an implementation plan. There is no "big switch off": it's not technically possible or socially desirable. The suggestion for that would be to begin with a pilot in my [Cllr Sudbury's] division, and from there focus initially (also as a pilot) on rural highways, small towns and villages, working with their elected representatives, as we did for the 20mph implementation. The City, along with larger built-up areas, is the last and most complex place to address.

Pros and cons

So why do it? Is this all about savings? The council forecasts a substantial £400,000 a year – much needed in these straitened times – but also saving an estimated 400 annual tonnes of CO₂. Street lighting makes up 32% of the council’s direct (Scope 1) emissions, even after nearly all the county’s lights have been switched to energy-efficient LEDs, and OCC has pledged to become carbon-neutral by 2030. The proposal also touches in general terms on light pollution as harmful to wildlife (although there is no mention of the harm to astronomers).

The equalities impact assessment flatly says there will be no discriminatory impact on women. Yet the Clarion’s inbox has been buzzing with comments. One correspondent warned of the unintended consequence that it will push women towards car journeys late at night, and that there is no measure of suppressed journeys by those who decide to stay at home. A correspondent from the countryside is more concerned that the change will lead her neighbours to install more of the powerful security beams which blight her nighttime walks. Another correspondent, from central Oxford, spoke of a very bright streetlight immediately opposite their bedroom – saying they'd love it to be switched off, so they and their neighbours would sleep better. They called out light pollution being a problem for human health and wellbeing, wildlife and birds.

But under the cover of darkness, these may be the first shots fired in the battle for May's county elections. As always, we will do our best to illuminate the issues.