Forum Topic

Hounslow Byelaws

Dear allFollowing a bit of related casework and also the recent Local Gov't Whitepaper saying that ‘The making of bye laws will be fully devolved to local authorities’ the Lib Dems in Hounslow have started looking at Hounslow's current byelaws.  Some are rather entertaining and certainly 'of their time'.Knowing the number of local history buffs on BrentfordTW8.com I thought you would enjoy taking a look at the summary we have produced and perhaps have ideas for changes:http://www.hounslowlibdems.org.uk/pages/HounslowByelaws.htmlTwo areas where I would like to explore the potential for local byelaws are light pollution and rainwater runoff from from front gardens. Best regardsAndrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6521d5 Comments

Who would have thought ‘rainwater runoff’ could be so interesting? I found this (see below) a useful article on Sustainable Drainage Systems (Suds) from ‘Building’ UK’s construction magazinehttp://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=482&storycode=3091516&c=1&featurecode=11961&encCode=0000000001357db8It suggests “The impetus for real change could come in the form of the EU’s water framework directive, which requires a reduction in the pollutants entering rivers. In order to comply, the country’s rivers need to achieve a “good” status by 2015”.It also says Oxfordshire Council are one of the most progressive in this Suds area, maybe they would be worth talking to.Suds lawSpecifier 20 July 2007By Eleanor Cochrane Regulations Our rapidly changing climate means efficient urban drainage is more important than ever. But if we are to prevent a repeat of last month’s floods, systems need to manage water flow rather than simply sucking it away quickly.There used to be a few things you could count on from a British summer – the early exit of our contenders at Wimbledon, bank holiday travel chaos and the inevitable hose-pipe ban. Although the first two may still be true, this year it has been the abundance of water that has made the headlines. The floods at the end of June can be partially attributed to the changing climate, which is bringing us warmer and wetter weather. Some of the devastating effects can also be partially blamed on poor water management. “Our existing drainage simply washes pollutants into water courses and when there’s a downpour it has a flushing effect,” says Phil Chatfield, policy officer at the Environment Agency. “We need to go back to something closer to the natural state, or our urban areas will be overwhelmed.” This is why the Environment Agency, the government and local authorities are keen to promote the use of sustainable urban drainage systems (Suds) on new developments. Rather than removing water from a site as quickly as possible, Suds have three main aims: to reduce the amount of water flowing from a site, to manage its flow so that sudden influxes are avoided and, where possible, to clean it along the way. The use of such schemes is recommended in planning guidance. PPS25 directs planners to encourage the use of Suds and PPS23 shows how they can help to control pollution. Then there is the Code for Sustainable Homes and Part H of the Building Regulations, both of which are concerned with water management. But despite this recognition of the value of Suds, they are still not being included in many new developments. In the past, this has been put down to ignorance about how they work and the industry’s reluctance to adopt new practices. Chatfield points out that this is partly because there is no one-size-fits-all solution: “Using Suds means designing something bespoke – the way sustainable drainage will work on each site is different.” However, these barriers do seem to be breaking down. “In my experience, most consulting engineers are aware of Suds and of how to design them. If they’re not, they know where to get that information,” says John Howe, general manager of precast concrete paving and kerb association Interpave. “They will also be aware – as will architects and developers – that the government’s planning policy is saying we must have Suds.” So if the information is getting through, what’s the problem? Rupert Lodge, partner at engineer Max Fordham, suggests that developers are baulking at the price. “Clients hate it because sustainable drainage is expensive but you have to do it – why should somebody downstream suffer because your scheme is well drained?” However, the overall picture seems more complex. Howe and Chatfield point out that Suds are being increasingly used in developments that remain in private ownership. This is because, in these cases, there is a single point of responsibility. But this is not always the case. “Housing is a different kettle of fish because developers build houses and their infrastructure and then pass them over to the local authority,” says Howe. “That’s where Suds are falling down. Who is going to take on their maintenance and liability?” This is the main barrier to the adoption of Suds. The management of water is split between utilities companies, the Environment Agency and councils. Once you throw a developer into the mix, it is not clear who is required to maintain the systems. Defra is aware of this problem, and has set up urban drainage pilot schemes. The aim is to get stakeholders together to see whether they can manage the water in a holistic way. Some councils are taking the initiative themselves – Oxfordshire is cited by many as one of the most progressive councils in its approach to drainage. It is using permeable paving (see right) in some of its developments and, importantly, it is designing schemes so that these are isolated from the services to avoid maintenance problems. Chatfield says that Bristol and Edinburgh are considering similar schemes. But for many the pilot schemes do not go far enough. The impetus for real change could come in the form of the EU’s water framework directive, which requires a reduction in the pollutants entering rivers. In order to comply, the country’s rivers need to achieve a “good” status by 2015 – currently, one in seven rivers in urban areas is of poor or bad quality. Suds are seen as vital to achieving this and Defra is expected to launch a consultation soon on measures to reduce pollution. These could include rules on which organisations will be responsible for Suds’ long-term maintenance. If this happens, the last barrier to the widespread use of Suds would have been removed. As the recent floods show, such systems are more necessary than ever. As Chatfield says: “In lots of places we’ve buried our rivers and lost contact with the natural environment and then we’re very surprised when it comes back to haunt us.”All about Suds- Sustainable urban drainage systems come in various forms. The techniques below can be used on their own or in combination with each other. There are five main categories:Permeable pavingThis allows rainwater to filter through a concrete surface, such as a road or pavement, for temporary storage before it infiltrates the ground. The water is reused or released into a water course or another drainage system.Soakaways and infiltration trenchesThese are underground features filled with crushed rock, which aid the dispersal of surface water run-off. The main problem is that they tend to become clogged with silt so their performance deteriorates over time.Swales and infiltration basinsThese are ground-level ponds or depressions that use vegetation to filter surface water. Swales disperse water and provide temporary storage during storms; infiltration basins are the final point in Suds.Land drainage systemsThese include perforated pipes that direct surface water to a drainage dispersal point, such as a soakaway.Onsite attenuation and storageThese systems are used where it is not possible to disperse surface water through infiltration (for example, because the water might include pollutants) or where the peak flow rate needs to be restricted. The water is stored on site and its dispersal restricted by a flow control device.

Duncan Walker ● 6518d

I found this e-petition response on the 10 Downing St website, which pointed to some suggested ways local authorities could use to prevent light pollution from businesses and residents. For example they say:“The Government has also given local authorities stronger powers to tackle light pollution under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. The Act extended the statutory nuisance regime and enables authorities to issue abatement notices, and individuals to take private action through the magistrate's court. Fines, upon conviction, for non-compliance with an abatement notice can range up to £5,000 for domestic premises, with up to £20,000 for industrial/trade/business premises.” Then I read this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4794249.stmwhich says that unfortunately, the Act includes a long list of inexplicable exceptions. The article has some interesting examples of other countries doing a much better job.So is this act not strong enough to tackle the light pollution in Hounslow? If not, how do you get it strengthened?The full e-petition reply on:http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12270.aspis below:Starry-night - epetition reply9 July 2007We received a petition asking:"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that all exterior lights are shaded to direct their light downwards, so as to prevent light pollution obscuring the beauty of the night sky."Details of Petition: "For those who live in our towns and cities, the night sky is filled with a dull orange glow punctuated only by the dim glimmer of an occasional bright star or planet. Fitting well designed shades on all exterior lights would stop light leaking wastfully upwards, restoring the glorious beauty of a star strewn sky overhead. Bring back the milky way!"Read the Government's responseThe Government recognises the fact that outdoor lighting has increased significantly over the past 30 years and we are working to tackle the problem through better planning, energy efficiency, improved street lighting and more effective local authority enforcement. The night sky over England is more brightly lit than any other European country, with the exception only of the Netherlands. This is certainly reducing our ability to view and enjoy the night sky, and this has implications for astronomers, stargazers and wildlife alike. The wasted energy from unnecessary lighting is also contributing to dangerous climate change.In 2003, a Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology held an enquiry into light pollution and astronomy to consider the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the impact of light pollution on astronomy. A number of sources of light pollution were considered, including street lighting, domestic and industrial security lighting, and the floodlighting of sports facilities and buildings. A number of recommendations were made, including better use of the planning process and the extension of the statutory nuisance regime to include light. The Government, broadly welcoming the Committee's recommendations, are working to reduce the amount of light pollution from premises and street lighting and have given local authorities stronger powers to take action against artificial lighting on premises and unwanted glares from security lighting.The adverse effect of some external lighting is well known, and a Transport White Paper, published in 1998, stated that 'where lighting is essential, it should be designed in such a way that nuisance is reduced and the effect on the night sky in the countryside minimised" . In the past, much street lighting has been provided by low-pressure sodium lighting units, and this often leads to an orange sky glow. Newer technologies, and in particular high-pressure sodium lighting units, allow much finer control of the light distribution and a reduction in the amount of light directed towards the sky.As a response to this White Paper, highway authorities are now encouraged to consider using high-pressure, or other light sources allowing more precise light control, when installing new lighting or updating older lighting schemes. The Government also announced £600 million Private Initiative Credits in November 2005 for street lighting schemes to help the renewal of street lighting to help bring it in line with modern standards. Better, more effective lighting should not only reduce light pollution, it can also help to reduce crime and road accidents.The Government has also given local authorities stronger powers to tackle light pollution under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. The Act extended the statutory nuisance regime and enables authorities to issue abatement notices, and individuals to take private action through the magistrate's court. Fines, upon conviction, for non-compliance with an abatement notice can range up to £5,000 for domestic premises, with up to £20,000 for industrial/trade/business premises. Since 1997, lighting has been considered as part of the planning process for new buildings, and this applies to residential as well as commercial premises. The Government is currently developing a good practice guidance on use of artificial lighting on premises. We have also provided guidance to local authorities, highway engineers and members of the public on ways to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting. This guidance, Lighting in the Countryside: Towards good practice, as well as other information on light pollution, is available via the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' website

Duncan Walker ● 6518d

Duncan - I would agree that these issues would ideally be covered by national legislation.  Unfortunately at the moment there is no legislation that allows the Council to get businesses along the Great West rd (for example) to turn lights off at night or get people to use permeable paving designs (to reduce rainwater run off) when covering over their front garden for parking.Whether the fines that we could impose through bylaws would make a GW Rd company flinch is another matter.  (And whether we could finance the enforcement.) Persuasion and highlighting financial costs of lighting might be the best way forward.  There is also a tension here with lighting often being used as a security measure.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6518d

Andrew,You say you are exploring the potential for local byelaws on light pollution and rainwater runoff from front gardens. Wouldn’t these be best covered by some general laws as they seem to be problems for all?You gave some hilarious and bizarre examples such as ‘not being able to lie on the floor of the library without permission’. I found some other bizarre byelaws of England in a Guardian article:“• Should you need to transport your livestock, the law states that you can herd your cattle along the streets so long as you do not "wantonly and unlawfully pelt, drive or hunt" them. • Anyone who dies in a royal palace is eligible for a state funeral, this includes the Palace of Westminster (parliament). • Although it is an offence to "beat or shake any carpet, rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District of London" you are allowed to shake out your doormat before 8am. • In Hereford you are apparently allowed to shoot a Welsh person at any time on a Sunday as long as you do it with a longbow inside the Cathedral Close. In York you can shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow on any day except Sunday.”This book, The Strange Laws of Old England by Nigel Cawthorne,  looks like essential reading;(“Did you know that the law requiring a London taxi driver to carry a bale of hay on top of his cab to feed the horse was in force until 1976? Or that Welshmen are not allowed in the city of Chester after dark?”...)http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strange-Laws-Old-England/dp/0749950366/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_1/203-4800686-7158349 I found this discussion paper, describing byelaws helpful.http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/303/LocalAuthorityByelawsinEnglandADiscussionPaperProceduresformakingconfirmingandes_id1165303.pdf

Duncan Walker ● 6519d

Had to look tipcat uphttp://museums.leics.gov.uk/collections-on-line/GetObjectAction.do?objectKey=273976anyone played it? and will you admit to playing it in the street?:-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6521d