Inner Sydney High School - Inner Sydney High School - Modification 6 Facade Lighting

I wish to object to the increased use of lighting in Modification 6 for the following reasons.

1. The increased light production from the building at night will reduce the living amenity for the residents who live in close proximity to the building on the eastern side of Chalmers St. This point is exacerbated by the number of days proposed and the unknown occasions upon which this will occur.
2. This building is an educational institution and the increased lighting does not increase educational outcomes or learning opportunities for the students. It does not provide information for either the school or local community.
3. This lighting will contribute to light pollution. It is an unnecessary questionable decorative accompaniment to a school building.

In conclusion I strongly believe that this increase in lighting should not proceed.

I am the owner-occupier of an apartment that faces directly onto the relevant facades of the School, per the attached photographs. The proposal is to have luridly coloured LEDs be flashed into the main bedroom and living spaces of my home in the hours of their peak usage in the late afternoon and evenings. From July, we will be caring for a newborn baby in these spaces, and the impacts of the light pollution as outlined in the documentation will exacerbate the stresses of this period of the baby's upbringing. While I support the use of the LEDs for special occasions like Vivid and NYE, this proposal in fact seeks to routinise the use of LEDs on the facade, with the lights on for 1 in 4-5 days of the year. This is not the Sydney Opera House or Darling Harbour, where the use of lights is part of the precinct's entertainment function. This is a tranquil public park surrounded mostly by residences. Prince Alfred Park is something of sanctuary from central Sydney's light pollution. Many people use the space at night to get away from brightly lit spaces in the areas around Central. This is particularly true of the areas around the school that are furthest away from the lit-up tennis courts. This proposal will prevent its function as a sanctuary in this way, and further erode the livability of the area even as there are proposals to significantly increase housing density nearby (which I support). This is a school, not an entertainment facility, and lighting is not in any way core to its mission and purpose. The proposal to have lights on the facade in the first place did not make a lot of sense, and those funds could have been better used; for example, by increasing its energy rating. The lights are there now, and I don't oppose their use altogether. However, I think 20 days a year to cover Vivid and landmark days like NYE is acceptable. Anything further is to have a frivolous design idea inessential to the building's purpose dictate how nearby residents and park users occupy and make use spaces that play key roles in their lives and well-being.

When the LED lighting was installed and tested it cause outrage around the area, not just from the residential building across the road. There was no warning about the installation and testing of the LED llighting.

The lighting technicians were given access to our building at 188 Chalmers Street Surry Hills to conduct testing on the strength of the lighting. DEtails of which are included in the submission documents.

When they dropped the capacity down to 10% the LED strips gave a nice level of lighting which was in tone with the rest of the area. They would provide a welcome addition to the area if they could be used to promote and support event like Mardi Gras, Football Games, Vivid Festival, International Womens Day etc.

I support the submission to use the lighting only if they are kept at 10% of their capacity, and look forward to seeing the lighting enhance our local area.

Greg Warrilow

The LED lighting that was fitted to the building facades east, west and north (in breach of planning approval at the time) was tested at night after the school opened and the intensity and visual pollution that it created to the north, east and west was significant and unsightly in the extreme. The quantity of LED is excessive across such a significant high rise structure and the intensity and brightness and the colour at the time (lime green) created an appalling lime green wash across multiple buildings and streets in the vicinity and extended into residents living rooms and to multiple streets in an almost one hundred metre radius.
Multiple complaints were forwarded to City of Sydney at the time.
To consider that this visual pollution will be created on a regular basis for school celebrations would be unacceptable and a major interruption to the quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood.
What the school is requesting is excessive in the extreme and unnecessary. To suggest that regular school celebrations should expose local residents and businesses to the north, east and west to significant visual pollution extending across an enormous area via the wash of the lighting is intolerable and unacceptable.
The installed LED is excessive in quantity and layout and unsightly in colour and effect (strobing) and the intensity (brightness) of the multiple LED fixtures is unhealthy and extreme.
No other building either residential or commercial would receive approval for such significant lighting pollution and a local school should not receive special treatment especially when the local neighbourhood would suffer as a consequence.
Approval should be denied for this unlawful modification.

Re: Proposed Lighting Adjustments at Inner Sydney High School – Concerns and Request for Trial Period

I am writing in response to the proposed adjustments to the lighting at Inner Sydney High School, as outlined in the recent documents from the NSW government. As a resident of Buckingham Street, I am concerned about the potential impact of the proposed lighting changes on my and my wife's sleep schedule.

The previous floodlighting from the school was highly intrusive, illuminating our entire apartment and significantly disrupting our ability to sleep. While I appreciate the efforts to address this issue by proposing a maximum of 6 LUX from 12pm to 10pm and 1 LUX after 10pm, I am concerned that even this reduced level of lighting may still be too bright for comfortable living conditions during evening hours.

To ensure that the new lighting levels are suitable and do not adversely affect the residents of Buckingham Street, I respectfully request a trial period before the final implementation. This trial would allow us to assess the actual impact of 6 LUX lighting on our living environment and provide feedback on its suitability.

I understand the importance of adequate lighting for the school's security and aesthetic appeal, but it is crucial that this does not come at the expense of the well-being of the surrounding residents. I hope that a compromise can be reached that satisfies both the school's needs and the comfort of the local community.

Thank you for considering my concerns and request. I look forward to your response and am hopeful for a positive resolution.

Yours sincerely,
Simon Darmody
Owner of Unit 29/61-89 Buckingham Street Surry Hills