Jennifer Macmillan-Johnson stated the lights would destroy Lane Cove and the habitat of possums, kookaburras and owls for the sake of “a couple of balls on a couple of tennis courts”.
“We’re very fortunate to stay there for its magnificence, for its greenery, for its magnificent night time skies,” she instructed the listening to. “There’s far an excessive amount of gentle. Sydney itself is lit up in all places. Why ought to we gentle up an space that’s so lovely and so treasured?”
Crusing legend Adrienne Cahalan was one of many close by residents to lodge an objection, which ran to twenty-eight pages.Credit score: Wolter Peeters
The panel additionally heard from residents who supported the lights. Karen Stevens stated her household used the courts a minimum of as soon as per week, and floodlights on two courts had been a modest, sensible addition.
“It’s not such as you’ve acquired the SCG sitting on the market,” she stated. “I can’t imagine that individuals would stand in the way in which of change like this. We’re in the course of a metropolis.”
Loading
Tennis membership president Alison Posney stated the membership initially needed to play till 10pm seven nights per week however had accepted 9pm six days as a compromise. The lights would have dimmers and could be turned off when the courts weren’t in use. The membership had no plans to gentle the opposite three courts, she stated.
In approving the lights, the panel discovered the influence on visitors and parking could be minimal. It additionally cited an ecological evaluation by Utilized Ecology, included with the event software, that stated the lights would solely have an effect on “a really small space of habitat” for threatened and guarded species.
“Small shifts in behaviour are probably throughout hours of illumination, nonetheless these shifts mustn’t influence the power of any species, and even any particular person, to persist within the space,” the report discovered.
The panel chairperson famous that demand for tennis, whether or not rising or falling, was not a related consideration in a planning matter.