The Church Buildings Council guidance on the floodlighting of churches, A Brief Guide to Floodlighting Churches (May 2022), observes:
“Many rural and urban churches are floodlit successfully by night to dramatic effect and it can be an important tool in ensuring the visibility and longer term sustainability of a church building in the community. However there are obvious environmental impacts and floodlighting should not be used for purely decorative purposes.
In addition to light pollution there are high energy costs associated with floodlighting your church building. These can be mitigated to some extent by low energy light bulbs and time switches. However, it is important that given the Church of England’s target of Net Zero Carbon by 2030, parishes think carefully what they want to achieve and how else it could be done before embarking on a floodlighting programme”.
Although CBC guidance has been available since 2012, relatively few consistory determinations have addressed the external lighting of churches[1]; early concerns in this area focussed on the disruption of bats, and more recently the associated carbon footprint has become a feature. These, and the issue of “neighbourliness” were considered in Re All Saints Chelsworth.
In the recent determination Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4, Gau Ch. refused to grant a petition for altering the terms of the faculty granted in 2011. In this lengthy judgment (19 pages), the Chancellor sets out extensively the evidence presented to the court by the various objectors [5] to [18] and the Senior Bat Advisor for the Bat Conservation Trust, acting on behalf of Natural England [19]. These are reviewed in the Discussion [20] to [26], which provides an insightful analysis of the range of issues raised, and the responses given by the petitioners.
The Churchwardens and PCC treasurer sought to move one of the floodlights installed with Faculty permission in 2011 from the South East to the North West corner of the church and to increase the floodlighting from 25 hours a year to approximately 150 hours a year [1], viz.
“[2] …28 hours for special occasions such as Christmas, concerts etc which occur after dusk, 122 hours during weekends between 1st November and 31st March. From November to February it is proposed that the lights will come on at 6:00pm and go off at 9:00pm for 2 days each weekend, either Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday, thus consuming 102 hrs. In March, they will light similarly from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm consuming 20 hrs”.
The Court was not furnished with a Statement of Needs or a Statement of Significance as required by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, although a letter from the Rector gives the reasoning for the petition as: (a). ‘According to the Church of England floodlighting the church elevates it’s presence’; (b). ‘It is a beautiful sight when lit’; (c). It is ‘a comforting presence on a dark winter’s night’. However, Gau Ch. found nothing that substantially elaborates on these reasons [4].
In assessing the submissions of the petitioners, he noted that they asserted that the proposed change would be aesthetically pleasing and would identify the Church and “publicise its faith” [20]. Against this, the objectors asserted: the lights would adversely affect wildlife, including and especially bats; it was a waste of resources; it was contrary to the Church of England’s net zero aspiration; it would lead to more crime; it would cause unnecessary light pollution; and would not be sufficiently visible to make “any appreciable difference” [21].
With regard to the objections, the Chancellor was satisfied that: with sufficient controls the lighting as prayed would not in fact adversely affect the wildlife in particular the bats; the resources to be expended would be relatively small and were to be covered by private funds; a well-lit church is a secure church, (noting that there appears to have been no issues with security or damage with the lighting currently allowed by Faculty); and he accepted that the PCC had changed to an electricity provider that uses renewable sources of energy and would not add to the Church’s carbon footprint [22].
On the last two points, the petitioners claimed that the effect of light pollution would be minimal and particularly dismissed the objectors concerns in relation to the effect on the principal objectors’ house, (the house occupied by the Cullens is very close to the church and the views from the living room and one bedroom are unobstructed and are directly facing the church [6]). They similarly dismissed the objections that the floodlighting would be sufficiently visible to have any affect save on those who object to it [23]. Noting the “regrettable tone of some of the petitioners’ rebuttals”, Gau Ch stated that the main objectors set out very clearly why they objected to the lighting, identifying the importance of their house in relation to access to the church and the assistance they had offered to the church “but, commendably, did not seek to use these matters as bargaining tools” [24].
He also noted that the Registrar had to intervene to stop the floodlights being used at all as they appeared to have been quite uncontrolled some time ago; “One can sympathise with why the objectors’ now express concern about any future use of floodlighting, let alone for longer periods”. Accordingly the Chancellor dismissed the petitioners assertions that these statements about the lengthy periods that the lights were on as “untrue”.
“[25]. …The Registrar clearly acted on clear evidence in making his decision and I have seen no evidence from the Petitioners attempting to challenge it. What is of note is 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. This gives the lie to the petitioners’ assertion that the church will become more noticeable if it is floodlit”.
Gau Ch. was not overwhelmed or persuaded by the petitioners’ arguments on the visibility of the church: “the petitioners rejected the objectors’ assertion that 6 out of 60 houses in the village would be able to see the church claiming that ’15 houses out of a total of 73′ in fact have a ‘partial view of the church’. They also accept that the church would be visible to a car being driven past for 6 seconds but claimed that “anyone walking to the pub or driving” would see the illuminated church [26].
He concluded [emphasis added]:
“[27]. Were this petition to be unopposed it would have passed the without any difficulty. The issue here is now one of neighbourliness. The petitioners seek to extend the time of floodlighting the church but can give me no substantive reason for doing so, particularly in the light of the objections from those who are to be most directly affected by it. I accept the objectors’ submissions in relation to the increase in light pollution, particularly to the house occupied by the Cullens. I have seen no justification for the alteration of the Faculty of sufficient weight to justify altering the current state of affairs.
[28]. The Faculty prayed for is, accordingly, refused. The present Faculty is still extant. Any further breaches of the timings as agreed by that Faculty are to be referred to me”.
[1] Re St. Michael and All Angels Blackheath Park, [2020] ECC Swk 1; Re St Bartholomew, Crewkerne, [2016] Bath & Wells Const Ct, Briden Ch.; Re All Saints, Hough on the Hill, [2001] Lincoln Const. Ct, Collier Ch.