Update
GEORGE NEWS - In a recent issue, George Herald reported about a Wilderness Heights resident accusing George Municipality and the Garden Route District Municipality (GRDM) of passing the buck to each other when it comes to tackling the issue of light pollution.
The GRDM stated, among others, that the matter requires civil action and as a sphere of local government, the GRDM does not have any right to intervene.
The full comment of Herman Pieters, chief communicator of the district municipality, was as follows:
"It would be illegal for the institution to act against anyone accused of light pollution. The GRDM cannot, for example, issue a notice without the backup of a by-law. The GRDM can only formulate, adopt or apply a by-law in terms of a function delegated to it through national or provincial legislation. A by-law that is in contravention of this is illegal.
Lighting is not an air quality function. Lighting is also not a function in terms of the municipal health by-laws (which are district matters).
We also made contact with provincial government and metropolitan municipalities, who confirmed that they do not deal with lighting complaints in terms of their legislation.
"The GRDM did mention before that this could reside with the local municipality in terms of building control. Journalists should request such information from local municipalities to see if it exists or is at all incorporated in any by-laws. Even if the lighting is an emerging matter, it must be determined where the function resides - with a district or local municipality.
Only then can the applicable authority start with the development and adoption of new by-laws to address the matter. The GRDM would have certainly and immediately addressed the issue, as it does with all other matters within its jurisdiction. GRDM has an excellent track record when dealing with public complaints."
George Municipality's communications department confirmed that no by-law exists that addresses light pollution, and referred George Herald to the GRDM.
Asked what recourse complainants about light pollution have, and which authority the concerned can turn to to lobby for a by-law, Pieters confirmed that the issue relates more to a local municipality. "It could fit the definition of public nuisance (except health nuisances), which normally forms part of local municipal by-laws. Building control resides with the local municipality.
Lighting could be regulated there, such as lighting specification and direction."
RELATED ARTICLE: Wilderness Heights residents unhappy about light pollution
He said the GRDM will request further guidance from the Western Cape Provincial Department.
"We already spoke to the air pollution section of province and they confirmed that it does not reside with air quality management (a district matter). Based on their input, GRDM could liaise with the local municipalities to request the initiation of a possible by-law on lighting, or to incorporate it as a section within an existing applicable by-law.
This all depends on whether the function indeed resides there. The complainant could also speak with the SABS in order to determine if they know about any SANS standard on lighting, and if so, who must police it."
Model Lighting Ordinance
George Herald in the previous article quoted Cape Town lighting engineer Philip Hammond about the existence of a Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) that already provides adequate standards for a by-law. As is, all outdoor lighting must comply with the standards of the MLO that meet the requirements of the International Dark Sky Association (IDA).
'We bring you the latest George, Garden Route news'
