Crossed wires over lighting principles

I think this was misreading the situation.

Clarification was sought because clients and end users look to lighting professionals for guidance as to whether particular lighting designs conform to the requirements as laid down in the Approved Documents. Unfortunately, these Building Regulations are not based upon lighting principles, but are only a means of controlling energy usage.

However, the actual Regulations call for no more than “reasonable provision to be made for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings”. I would suggest that the employment of a qualified lighting designer or engineer who undertakes to follow the SLL Lighting Code more than fulfils these requirements. SLL publishes a register of its active lighting diploma holders.

In 1994, the energy targets incorporated in CIBSE lighting recommendations were higher than those being proposed for the Building Regulations in 2006. CIBSE has a policy of CPD, so a qualified engineer would be abreast of the latest developments in energy efficient products and controls. Furthermore, proposals submitted would provide best-practice lighting to ensure good visual performance, together with a comfortable, safe, healthy and productive environment. Approved Documents may assist in those situations when professional advice has not been sought. The content of Approved Documents should be comprehensible to those unaware of the efficacy achievable from modern lighting.

Finally, a one-design-fits-all approach given in Approved Documents cannot cater for the vast range of lighting tasks carried out by the entire population in a variety of buildings. SLL aims at improving lighting excellence, which is far removed from setting minimum standards. Both are important but fulfil different and separate roles.

Richard Forster MCIBSE, MSLL