lynwood lighting design review final draft report · lighting design review ... 11 5 assessment...

PREPARED BY:

WEBB AUSTRALIA GROUP (ACT) PTY LTD ABN 14 064 354 776 [email protected] www.webbaustralia.com.au

SUITE 3, 10-12 COLBEE COURT PHILLIP ACT 2606 AUSTRALIA T +61 2 6285 4365 F + 61 2 6285 4253

CONSULTING ENGINEERS ELECTRICAL LIGHTING MECHANICAL SECURITY COMMUNICATIONS AUDIO VISUAL

BRISBANE CANBERRA GOLD COAST MELBOURNE NEWCASTLE SUNSHINE COAST SYDNEY

LYNWOOD

LIGHTING DESIGN

REVIEW

FINAL DRAFT REPORT

L490brep001_D.docx of 42 WEBB AUSTRALIA GROUP (ACT) PTY LTD

7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

LYNWOOD

LIGHTING DESIGN

REVIEW

FINAL DRAFT REPORT

Copyright © 2015 Webb Australia Group (ACT) Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

This report may not be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means in part or in whole without written permission of

Webb Australia Group (ACT) Pty Ltd ABN 14 064 354 776.

Issued As: PRELIMINARY

DRAFT

FINAL

Authorised By: JOHN GRIGGS

Date: 7 JULY 2015

LYNWOOD LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW

FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................5

2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................6

3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................7

3.1 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED............................................................................................... 7

3.2 DAY TIME SITE INSPECTIONS ................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 DESK TOP ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SITE LIGHTING INSTALLATION .................................................. 7

3.4 PRESENTATION OF DRAFT REPORT ......................................................................................................... 8

4 SITE ANALYSIS FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................9

4.1 EXISTING LIGHTING INSTALLATION ........................................................................................................ 9

4.2 EXISTING LUMINAIRE TYPES ................................................................................................................... 9

4.3 PHOTO GALLERY OF LUMINAIRES INSTALLED ...................................................................................... 10

4.4 COMMENTS ON EXISTING LUMINAIRE SELECTION .............................................................................. 11

5 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA................................................................................................................. 13

5.1 STANDARDS GENERALLY ..................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................. 13

5.3 OBTRUSIVE LIGHTING MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 15

6 DESK TOP ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LIGHTING ............................................................................... 16

6.1 FINDINGS BASED ON DESK TOP ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 16

6.2 OVERALL SITE LIGHTING ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 16

6.2.1 Overall Site Horizontal Illuminance (Eh)............................................................................................. 16

6.2.2 OVERALL SITE VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (Ev) ................................................................................... 19

6.2.3 Site Luminous Intensity (I) ............................................................................................................... 22

6.3 ADMINISTRATION AREA CAR PARK ..................................................................................................... 23

6.3.1 Analysis of Existing Carpark Lighting ................................................................................................ 23

6.3.2 Discussion on Application of Australian Standards to Carpark Lighting ............................................ 23

6.3.3 Concerns Identified relating to the existing Carpark Lighting ............................................................ 24

6.3.4 Carpark Lighting Options .................................................................................................................. 25

6.3.5 Response to Community Proposals .................................................................................................. 30

6.4 12M HIGH POLE MOUNTED ROADWAY AND AREA/ SITE LIGHTING ..................................................... 31

6.4.1 Existing Installation .......................................................................................................................... 31

6.4.2 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 32

6.4.3 Discussion On Impact of Lower Mounting Heights ........................................................................... 32

6.4.4 Recommended Lighting Measures .................................................................................................. 33

6.4.5 Additional Lighting Recommended .................................................................................................. 33

6.5 TYPICAL CONVEYOR GANTRY LIGHTING ............................................................................................... 34


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776


6.5.2 Assessment of Existing Gantry Lighting ........................................................................................... 34

6.5.3 Recommend Lighting Measures ...................................................................................................... 35

6.6 TYPICAL STACKER AREA FLOOD LIGHTING ........................................................................................... 35


6.6.2 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 36


6.7 AREA LIGHTS ON BUILDING FACADES .................................................................................................. 36


6.7.2 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 36


6.8 RAIL SIDING .......................................................................................................................................... 37


6.8.2 Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 37

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 38

7.1 ADMIN CARPARK LIGHTING (TYPE B AND C) ........................................................................................ 38

7.1.1 Lighting Measures ........................................................................................................................... 38

7.1.2 Alternative Measures ...................................................................................................................... 38

7.2 12M HIGH POLE MOUNTED ROADWAY AND SITE/ AREA LIGHTING ..................................................... 38

7.3 CONVEYOR GANTRY LIGHTING ............................................................................................................. 39

7.4 STACKER FLOOD LIGHTS ....................................................................................................................... 39

7.5 AREA LIGHTS ON BUILDING FACADES .................................................................................................. 40

7.6 SCREENING METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 40

7.7 COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 41

8 THE LIGHTING QUESTION ............................................................................................................... 42


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an assessment of the existing site lighting at the Lynwood quarry, identifies sources of luminance

that may be viewed from off-site and provides recommendations to prevent and/ or minimise their corresponding off-

site lighting impacts.

The report addresses the requirements detailed in the Lynwood Quarry Full Site Lighting Review Project Brief 25

November 2014. The report reviews and provides advice on the conformance of the As-Constructed lighting across

the total Lynwood site to relevant standards / guidelines including AS1158, AS1680, AS4284, the Holcim

Development Consent (in particular, condition 50) and other relevant standards/ Guidelines.

The Lynwood quarry is located approximately 3 km from the township of Marulan, NSW and a similar distance from

the Hume Highway. The location is set in a pristine rural environment where the natural beauty and the views are

what attracts people to this region.

The facility will be a 24 hour operation and due to the height of the facility and the surrounding topography, it will be

visible from distances exceeding 10km in some directions. This report recognises that visual lighting impacts will be

experienced from the quarry at various locations in the surrounding areas, particularly those at elevated positions.

From inspection, consultation and evaluation, these issues have been investigated through computer generated

calculations which model the effects of current and proposed luminaires. Lighting has been assessed against the

requirements of the Development Consent conditions and Australian Standards to minimise the night time visual

impact from the quarry.

The recommendations are focused on the various types of lighting technologies employed, and include:

Modifications to mounting arrangements and back light shield of the major area and road lighting luminaire

to eliminate sources of high luminance.

Removal and/ or replacement options for the carpark area lighting, including a reduction in mounting height

Removal of specific luminaires identified as not required and a source of offending luminance

Replacement of luminaires with lower wattage fixtures

Replacement of luminaires with LED light sources

Fixing the tilt angle to minimise luminous intensity and spill light

Introduction of lighting controls to ensure lights are only on when required

Introduction of dimming to reduce intensity when full output is not required

Provision of means of screening luminous surfaces and light sources from view

Such recommendations are intended to provide Holcim with the tools from which they can select, as their preferred

options for satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

The report leaves the assessment of each recommendation up to Holcim to determine whether it is deemed

practicable, or otherwise.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

2 INTRODUCTION

Holcim Australia engaged the services of Webb Australia Group to undertake a review of all the existing external

lighting at Lynwood Quarry and identify all reasonable and feasible opportunities to reduce/ eliminate any potential

light spillage, obtrusive lighting, prevent and/ or minimise adverse off-site lighting impacts with respect to operations,

safety and legal requirements.

Provision of adequate illumination and the need to ensure a safe visual working environment is a challenge faced by

almost all industries. The primary objectives of lighting and illumination in the workplace are generally to provide a

safe working visual environment and increase production. Lighting is particularly important in the mining industry, as

visibility is paramount to safety where large machines operate in a dusty and a potentially dangerous environment,

often 24 hours a day.

Mine/ quarry sites are often in remote locations, but where such sites are surrounded by a pristine rural environment

such as Lynwood, in which the view and natural beauty are pivotal to the local inhabitants, constraints need to be

imposed on the obtrusive effects of any outdoor lighting. A typical dilemma lighting designers have to deal with is to

find the most appropriate balance between the apparent competing objectives of limiting obtrusive lighting to

acceptable levels while ensuring a visual environment is maintained.

Note Webb Australia were not the lighting designers for the site, but were engaged to provide an independent review

of the existing installed lighting.

This report addresses the requirements detailed in the Lynwood Quarry Full Site Lighting Review Project Brief 25

November 2014 and in summary, includes the following:

An assessment of compliance of all external lighting across the Lynwood site with regard to relevant

standards/ guidelines and condition 50 of the Holcim Development Consent conditions.

Recommendations of options for improvement with respect to the above.

Identification of practicable opportunities to eliminate and / or minimise off-site lighting impacts, with

respect for operations, safety and legal requirements.

An analysis of the lighting trial of November 2014 where lamps were removed and selected lights were not

energised.

A review of the proposed recommendations in the “Lighting Assessment Action Plan” prepared by Holcim

operations personnel in response to observations of the above lighting trial.

A response to the “Lighting Question” Holcim received from the local Community.

Inclusion of a Lighting Action Plan with assigned priorities.

The Draft Report was presented to the Towrang Community at a public meeting on 13 March. Responses to

questions arising from this presentation were incorporated into the Final report (dated 14 April 2015).

Subsequent comments were tabled by the Towrang Community Progress Group (TCPG)on the “Final Report”. Webb

Australia’s responses to those comments are incorporated into the text of this Final Draft report and also included

separately at Appendix P.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

3 METHODOLOGY

The methodology adopted in the preparation of this report has been summarised as follows:

3.1 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED

The documentation provided included:

GHD lighting design drawings as follows:

21-19682-E150 Rev: A dated 21.11.13

21-19682-E151 Rev: A dated 21.11.13

21-19682-E152 Rev: A dated 21.11.13

21-19682-E153 Rev: A dated 21.11.13

Lighting Trial drawings:

21-19682-E151.T

21-19682-E152.T

21-19682-E153.T

Plus 30 Metso plant drawings

3.2 DAY TIME SITE INSPECTIONS

Day time site inspections were conducted on:

29, 30 January 2015

5 February 2015

The daytime site inspections identified the drawings provided did not reflect the existing lighting installation. The

Road and area lighting installation was found to differ from design drawings provided.

A survey of light pole locations was conducted by a surveyor and an inspection conducted to determine installed

luminaire orientations.

Exterior flood lights on buildings, on the end of stackers and lights on the conveyors systems were also noted and

documented.

As no site lighting was turned on, no night time inspection was conducted.

3.3 DESK TOP ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SITE LIGHTING INSTALLATION

The desk top analysis was undertaken using:

AGi32 lighting modelling software

Perfect Lite Software

AutoCAD

More recent background drawings were provided for use in the model.

Details of luminaires, locations and orientation, etc obtained from the site inspections was entered into the computer

model for computation.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

A range of calculations were undertaken for various areas including:

Horizontal illuminance for the site

Vertical illuminance for the site

Carpark lighting compliance calculations

Pseudo colour images of calculated results

Rendered views from off-site locations

Illuminance calculation of the conveyor gantry and corresponding rendered image

Areas of non-compliance with minimum requirements were identified.

Areas where light levels were found to be excessive were identified.

A range of options were explored to provide recommendations to improve the lighting installation with respect to the

brief requirements, based on the desktop analysis.

3.4 PRESENTATION OF DRAFT REPORT

The draft report was presented to members of the Towrang Community Group and representatives from Holcim in a

public forum at the Towrang Community Hall on the evening of 13 March, 2015.

Questions were raised by members of the Community and subsequently compiled by Holcim and forwarded to Webb

Australia on 20 March, 2015. This correspondence is included in full at Appendix N.

This Final Draft report incorporates a response to the matters raised by the Community consultation process and is

further progressed to include a Lighting Action Plan (refer Appendix J).


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

4 SITE ANALYSIS FINDINGS

4.1 EXISTING LIGHTING INSTALLATION

Site survey information collected onsite has been documented in Appendix A.

4.2 EXISTING LUMINAIRE TYPES

Existing lamps and luminaire types identified on site are shown in the following table:

Legend

Item

Application Lamp type and Luminaire description Luminaire

classification as per

AS 4282 / AS 1158

Quantity

A Roadway and

Area Lighting

2 x 400W MH (1 lamp removed) full cut-off

floodlight mounted at 12m – Pierlite Tarmac

APR-2 x 400 MH fitted with back light shield

and tilted 50

Type C cut-off/ type 6 54

B Carpark Lighting

and Admin

Quadrangle

400W MH full cut-off flood light mounted at

10m – Pierlite Max Master GMRS 400 MH

fitted with back light shield and tilted 50


C Carpark Lighting 150W MH full cut-off flood light mounted at

8.0m Pierlite Mini Master GMRA 150 MH (no

back light shield fitted)


D Flood Light on

building facade

250W MH Eye Flood light or 400W MH

Pierlite full cut-off flood light – Maxi Master

GMRA 400 MHR

Type C / type 5 10

F Flood Light on

end of stacker

400W MH full cut-off flood light – Pierlite

Maxi Master GMRS 400 MH

Type C / type 5 11

G Stacker Gantry

Lighting

70W MH industrial luminaire with prismatic

diffuser Pierlite MRA 70 H2, or Philips Metro

HGC007

- / type 4 338

H Railway Siding

Lighting

2 x 24 W T5 linear fluorescent industrial

luminaire with prismatic diffuser mounted at

5m. Pierlite Green Street

- / type 4 10

J Stairs Lighting 2 x 18W and 2 x 36W T8 fluorescent

industrial luminaire with prismatic diffuser –

Pierlite PWP

- / - Not

known

Luminaire manufacturers’ data sheets of the various luminaire types have been incorporated at Appendix B for

additional information.

Refer to drawings ES-01 and ES-02 at Appendix A for luminaire locations and arrangement.

Photos of typical examples of the various luminaire types are shown below:


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

4.3 PHOTO GALLERY OF LUMINAIRES INSTALLED

Type A Type B

Type C Type D

Type F Type G

Type H Type J


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

4.4 COMMENTS ON EXISTING LUMINAIRE SELECTION

Refer to manufactures luminaire data sheets at Appendix B for more details on luminaires installed.

Luminaire Type A

Type A luminaire is a 400W flat glass, full cut-off aeroscreen luminaire which emits no light above the

horizontal, even when tilted at 50

above the horizontal.

The light distribution is a forward throw with good back light control beyond 200

. This luminaire is

particularly suited to large area lighting applications where glare needs to be controlled.

It is not particularly suited to a roadway lighting application. Roadway lights typically have a wide side throw

asymmetric distribution to suit that application.

Type A luminaires have been installed along Lynwood Road, the access road to the Admin carpark and other

area lighting locations.

Luminaire Types B, D & F

Type B, D and F luminaires are 250W or 400W flat glass full cut-off aeroscreen luminaires, which emits no

light above the horizontal, even when tilted at 50


The Light distribution is asymmetric forward throw and is suited to area lighting. It has poor back lighting

control and is not suited to locations where back spill light may be undesirable.

This luminaire is also available with an asymmetric side throw distribution (GMRA), which is better suited to

carpark lighting than the model installed, however the entire luminaire would need to be replaced to change

over to this fixture.

Type B luminaires have been installed at the Admin building carpark. Types D and F have been installed on

building facades as area lights and at the end of stackers, to illuminate the product stack areas.

Luminaire Type C

Type C luminaire is a 150W flat glass, full cut-off aeroscreen luminaire, which emits no light above the

horizontal, even when tilted at 50


The light distribution is a symmetrical forward throw with good back light control beyond 400

.

Two only of these luminaires have been installed at the northern end of the Admin building carpark on 12.5m

poles.

Calculations have demonstrated these luminaires are suitable for the carpark lighting application. Refer

below for more detailed information on this topic.

Luminaire Type G

Two very similar luminaires from two different manufacturers are used for type G applications, i.e. conveyor

gantry lighting.

These fixtures are 70W industrial luminaires with a clear refractor lens, suited for this application.

The Pierlite model has a wide side throw asymmetric distribution with 1% UWLR.

When tilted and rolled, the upward waste light component increases, especially when the roll is more than

50

.

Emergency lights are typically the Philips model, as shown in the photo at section 4.3.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Luminaire Type H

Type H luminaire is a 2 x 24W high output T5 fluorescent luminaire with a prismatic refractor lens and good

upward light control.

The light distribution is asymmetric wide side throw with poor back light control, suitable for applications

where backward spill lighting is desired.

These luminaires are located along the rail siding corridor.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

5 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

5.1 STANDARDS GENERALLY

An investigation into lighting standards that are applicable to surface mines and quarries has identified that there is

no Australian Standard that is specifically dedicated to this application. However, there are lighting applications on

the Lynwood site to which minimum and maximum lighting design criteria are applicable, from a number of sources.

These sources are identified below.

5.2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Safety is identified as the primary purpose of lighting in Min Ex Guideline – Surface Mines and Quarries. Clause

7.1A states:

“The lighting provisions for all workplaces, travelling ways and fixed installations should be designed so that

all activities can be carried out safely”.

Note the document referenced above is a Surface Mining and Quarrying Industry Code of Practice, it is not a Lighting

Standard. The above quotation is a general principle with no quantifiable requirements stated. Other than a

reference to emergency lighting, the above document makes no further reference to lighting requirements, so this

report looks elsewhere for assessment criteria.

In the absence of any Australian Standard specifically dedicated to the lighting of quarries, this report provides an

assessment of the external lighting at the Lynwood quarry against the minimum requirements of the following:

AS 1158.2: Part 2 – Computer procedures for the calculation of light technical parameters for category V

and category P lighting

AS 1158.3.1: Part 3.1 – Pedestrian area (category P) lighting – performance and installation design

requirements

AS 1680.2.4 – Interior and workplace lighting Part 2.4 Industrial tasks and processes

AS 1680.5 – Interior and workplace lighting Part 5: Outdoor work place lighting

The assessment criteria for minimum requirements are summarised in the following table.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Minimum Illuminance Requirements

Area

Minimum Average Maintained Horizontal Illuminance (Lux)

AS 1680.

2.4:1997

AS 1158

.3.1:2005

CIE129:

1998

BMA

Coal

GHD

Design

AS

1680.5:

2012

Assessment

Criteria

Adopted

Railway Freight track areas 10 10

Access roadways 7(Cat P1) 20 10 7

Intersections 40 40

Light vehicle carparks 7 (Cat

P11b)

10 7

Heavy vehicle areas 30 30

Stockpiles 30 30

Water Pumping Stations 40 40

Materials handling- wagon

loading & unloading

40 50 40

Weighbridge, refuelling, truck

wash

60-80 60

Open area, machines (site

inducted personnel)

10 10

Conveyors & gantries 40 40


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

5.3 OBTRUSIVE LIGHTING MAXIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS

The external lighting is also assessed against the maximum recommendations of the following:

AS 4282 Control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting

Holcim Development Consent Conditions (in particular, condition 50)

AS 4282 applicable recommendations:

The maximum values recommended by AS 4282 applicable to this site are summarised as follows:

Curfewed Hours Dark Surrounds

Illuminance in vertical plane (Ev) Limits apply in plane of windows of habitable

rooms or parallel to and set back from

property boundary

1 lux

Luminous Intensity emitted by

luminaires

Limits apply where views of bright surfaces

of luminaires are likely to be troublesome to

residents, from positions where such views

are likely to be maintained

500cd

Clause 5.3.1of the Standard stipulates the limiting value of luminous intensity during curfewed hours applies for each

luminaire.

Also no determination of luminous intensities need be made where the luminaires cannot be seen from direction of

concern due to physical obstructions.

Threshold Increment (TI) is another LTP criteria referred to in AS 4282 to measure obtrusive light. TI is a measure of

disability glare and is applicable to users of transport systems from relevant positions in the direction of travel. As the

scope of this report was concerned primarily with obtrusive lighting when viewed from off-site, TI has been ignored

and not been calculated.

Refer to Appendix K for the full text of the relevant portion of the Standard.

Holcim Development Consent Conditions, condition 50:

Condition 50 of the Holcim Development Consent Conditions states:

“The Applicant shall take all practicable measures to prevent and/ or minimise any off-site lighting impacts

from the development”.

Note: AS 4282 provides recommendations of minimum light technical parameters (LTPs) that are intended to restrict

limits to a degree of obtrusiveness that would be acceptable to the large majority of recipients. Condition 50 of the

Development Consent goes beyond this degree to “prevent and/ or minimise any off-site lighting impacts” by taking

all practicable measures to do so. The condition aims to reduce the LTPs to zero, wherever practicable and to a

minimum (less than AS 4282 levels) elsewhere. Satisfying condition 50 is more onerous than complying with AS

4282.

Holcim Development Consent condition 50 does not include any assessable criteria against which compliance can be

assessed by Webb Australia.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6 DESK TOP ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LIGHTING

6.1 FINDINGS BASED ON DESK TOP ANALYSIS

As describe in Section 3 above, no night time/ visual inspections were conducted and Webb were limited to

undertake a desk top analysis based on day time, site observations and site information provided by Holcim.

The Webb findings did not have the benefit of a night time, visual assessment, either from within the site or from the

nominated off-site viewpoints. However, the results of the calculations undertaken as part of the disk top analysis

are considered accurate and the findings are considered reliable.

The desk top analysis examines and provides and assessment the following against the project brief criteria:

Overall site lighting

Overall site horizontal illuminance (Eh)

Overall site vertical illuminance (Ev)

Overall site luminous intensity (I)

Admin carpark lighting

12m high pole mounted roadway and site area lighting

Typical conveyor gantry lighting

Typical stacker area flood lighting

Area lights on building facades

Rail siding lighting

6.2 OVERALL SITE LIGHTING ANALYSIS

6.2.1 Overall Site Horizontal Illuminance (Eh)

The horizontal illuminance calculation for the existing site installation is with one lamp removed from all 58 of the 2 x

400W Pierlite Tarmac fixtures (type A), to be consistent with existing site conditions.

A rendered image and a pseudo-colour image of the horizontal illuminance of the existing lighting is included below.

The 1 lux vertical illuminance is a criterion for compliance with obtrusive lighting, but it is the horizontal illuminance

that can be seen by observation. Consequently, the 1 lux horizontal illuminance isoline is significant, as it

demonstrates that the horizontal illuminance falls away quickly generally within the site boundary and goes nowhere

near approaching a residence.

The notional site boundary is selected as the extremity of the site and if the levels satisfy AS 4282 requirements at

this location, then it also demonstrates compliance is achieved anywhere beyond that point.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

RENDERED IMAGE


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

PSEUDO-COLOUR IMAGE


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

The drawings ES-03 and ES-04 at Appendix C show the calculated isolux plot for the existing site horizontal

illuminance. The following observations are made:

1. Range: 0-225 lux

2. Highest value is located north of the Workshop building.

3. The 1 lux isoline is generally contained within the nominal site perimeter, with the following exceptions:

a. Extends up to 20m beyond the western perimeter, near the southern entry to the site

b. Extends up to 10m beyond Western perimeter near Admin carpark

c. Extends a few metres beyond the railway line along the southern site perimeter

4. The highest horizontal illuminance value at the nominal site perimeter is less than 10 lux, occurring near the

southern site entry, opposite the refuelling station.

5. The Upward Waste Light Ratio (UWLR) for the overall site is 2.3%. This is below the maximum value of 3%

for type 5 luminaires recommended by AS 1158.3.1. (Luminaire types A, B, C, D & F may be classified as

type 5 luminaires.)

Assessment

The calculated values of horizontal illuminance across the site have been assessed against the selected criteria.

The minimum horizontal illuminance requirements have generally not been achieved. Refer to Table at Appendix G

for details.

Note: This assessment is against minimum values. Holcim Consent Condition 50 relates to maximum levels so an

assessment against the condition is not provided here.

6.2.2 OVERALL SITE VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (Ev)

The vertical illuminance calculation of the existing site installation is with one lamp removed from all 2 x 400W

Tarmac (type A) luminaires. The light loss factor used for the vertical calculation is unity (1.0).

The drawings ES-05 and ES-06 at Appendix C show the calculated vertical illuminance at 1.5m above the ground for

the four quadrants or points of the compass.

Rendered images of the existing site lighting when viewed from an elevated position from north, west, south and east

are shown below.

Note, the distance from the site of these viewpoints is undeterminable. The views below are zoomed in to enable

detail of the site lighting to be seen, but as they are magnified, they do not give an actual representation of what

would be seen by the unassisted viewer (i.e. without binoculars) located at any of the nominated off-site locations.

These views do however provide a more reliable impression than Community photographs as they incorporate the

contribution from all the external luminaires on the site. The views are magnified to provide more detail, as are the

community photographs.

For rendered images of views of the quarry site lighting from the nominated off-site locations, refer to Appendix D.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

NORTH WEST


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

SOUTH EAST


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

For further rendered images of the site when viewed from seven nominated off-site locations, refer to Appendix D2.

The locations are identified on drawing ES-07 at Appendix D1.

From a review of the vertical illuminance calculations shown on drawings at Appendix C2, the following observations

are made:

The 1 lux vertical illuminance isoline is generally contained within the nominal site perimeter, with the

following exceptions:

a) Extends up to 35m beyond the western perimeter near the southern entry to the site.

b) Extends up to almost 20m beyond the western perimeter near the Admin carpark.

c) Extends up to 20m beyond the railway line along the southern site perimeter.

The highest vertical illuminance at the nominal site perimeter is between 10 and 20 lux, occurring near the

southern site entry, opposite the refuelling station.

Assessment

The calculated values of Vertical illuminance across the site and beyond the site boundaries have been assessed

against the selected criteria.

The maximum value of vertical illuminance (1 lux) recommended by AS 4282 at residential viewpoints was found to

extend marginally beyond the notional site boundary but complies with the selected criteria at all off-site viewpoints.

Refer to Table at Appendix G for details.

6.2.3 Site Luminous Intensity (I)

The selected criteria for luminous intensity is 500 Cd. This criteria is applicable to residential areas with dark

surrounds during curfewed hours. The limits apply in directions where views of bright surfaces of luminaires are likely

to be troublesome to residents, from positions where views are likely to be maintained.

The limiting value of luminous intensity applies for each luminaire.

Provided ALL luminaires on the site are aimed such that the luminous intensity of each luminaire in the direction of

residents is controlled below 500 Cd, then the site lighting complies with the selected criteria.

As the peak intensity of all luminaires on the site exceeds 500 Cd, aiming of each luminaire is critical to satisfying this

criteria.

Assessment

As the luminous intensity criteria is applicable to each luminaire, the assessment for compliance against the selected

criteria can only be applicable to each luminaire and collectively, for each luminaire type. Consequently assessment

of compliance against the luminous intensity criteria is provided for each luminaire type in the sections that follow

that examine specific applications.

Calculations confirm the luminous intensity of all the site lighting luminaires are AS 4282 compliant beyond 1000m

from the plant area. As all the nominated viewpoints are much further from the site, the luminous intensity of these

luminaires is also compliant with the requirements of AS 4282. Refer to Table at Appendix G for details.

Holcim Development Consent condition 50 does not include any assessable criteria against which compliance can be

assessed by Webb Australia.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6.3 ADMINISTRATION AREA CAR PARK

6.3.1 Analysis of Existing Carpark Lighting

The calculated Light Technical Parameters (LTPs) for the existing car park lighting are shown in the following table

with the minimum requirements of AS1158.3.1 for lighting subcategory P11a and P11b.

The recommended design criteria for the car park lighting is subcategory P11b.

Average Horizontal

Illuminance

(Eh)

Point Horizontal

Illuminance

(Eph

)

Illuminance

(horizontal)

Uniformity (UE2

)

Point Vertical

Illuminance

(Epv

)

P11a 14 3 10 3

P11b 7 1.5 10 1.5

Calculated values 40 3.6 1.9 5.6

The calculated values clearly demonstrate the existing car park lighting exceeds the minimum requirements for

lighting subcategory P11b and also achieves compliance with the minimum requirements of lighting subcategory

P11a.

Subject to acceptance of the recommendation to classify the minimum requirements of the car park lighting to

subcategory P11b, there is opportunity to reduce the existing lighting while maintaining compliance with P11 b

requirements.

6.3.2 Discussion on Application of Australian Standards to Carpark Lighting

As part of the lighting review, Webb Australia conducted an assessment of the car park to determine the appropriate

assessment criteria to apply to the existing lighting installation.

Our assessment for determination of the appropriate lighting subcategory for the car park was based on the

application of Table 2.5 (Lighting categories for outdoor car parks) of AS1158.3.1 (Lighting for roads and public

spaces), as follows:

Selection Criteria Assessment

Night time vehicle or pedestrian movements Medium

Night time occupancy rates (NTOR) More than 25%

Less than 75%

Risk of crime Low

Based on the above assessment, the application of lighting subcategory P11b was recommended.

The minimum average horizontal illuminance for a car park lighting installation to subcategory of P11b is 7 lux and the

minimum point horizontal and vertical illuminance is 1.5 lux.

The minimum average horizontal illuminance for a car park lighting installation to subcategory of P11c is 3.5 lux and

the minimum point horizontal illuminance is 0.7 lux. There is no minimum vertical illuminance criteria for subcategory

P11c.

Members of the Community challenged the position of treating the car park as a public car park, asserting that it was

a private car park and therefore, did not have to comply with the public lighting code.

In our professional opinion, if the function of the car park includes the provision of night time parking for visitors or

contractors or staff whom may be unfamiliar with the site, then the car park must be treated as a public car park and

AS1158 is applicable.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

From discussions with representatives from Holcim, we understand there will be truck drivers, maintenance

personnel and contractors using the car park at night, some of whom may be doing so for the first time and may be

unfamiliar with the site. There is also the possibility of visitors attending at night. With heavy vehicle traffic entering

and leaving the site on a regular basis, we understand there will be no security staff monitoring site entry and exit,

consequently members of the public will not be actively prevented from accessing the site or from using the car park

at night.

From our understanding of the access to and potential use of the car park, we believe Holcim are obliged to provide a

safe space for parking at night. The applicable Australian Standard is AS1158 Lighting for roads and public spaces

Part 3.1 Pedestrian area (Category P) lighting – Performance and design requirements.

The above standard defines three lighting subcategories relating to car parks, P11a, b and c.

As indicated above, our initial recommendation for the car park was P11b.

Holcim have confirmed the night time occupancy rate of the car park will exceed 25% and is more likely to be in the

order of 70% when the site is fully operational. Based on this information, we would not endorse the application of a

P11c lighting subcategory, as the occupancy rate of the car park is likely to exceed 25% at night.

Recommendation

In conclusion, it is the recommendation of this report that AS1158.3.1 is applicable to the Administration building car

park and the recommended lighting subcategory is P11b.

6.3.3 Concerns Identified relating to the existing Carpark Lighting

The existing car park lighting has been identified as a source of illumination that is contributing to the luminance of

the adjacent Admin building façade and to the roof of the nearby section of covered way.

The luminaire on pole L47 that faces the Admin building illuminates the roof of the Admin building to a level exceeding

30 lux, making it clearly visible from elevated positions off site. The contribution to the illumination of the Admin

building roof from L48 is considered minor and of little significance.

As the Administration building roof is clearly visible from a number of locations off-site, the strategy for reducing the

lighting of the car park must also consider the impact of the proposal on the luminance of these surfaces.

The technical solutions that are recommended in this section of the report are aimed at complying with the minimum

requirements of AS 1158.3.1 and preventing and/ or minimising any off-site lighting impacts to provide Holcim with

options to satisfy the Development Consent conditions.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6.3.4 Carpark Lighting Options

Two options have been investigated to address the above concerns, as follows:

Carpark Option 1: Replace existing 400W luminaires with new 150W luminaires

Carpark Option 2: Remove alternate light poles L36, L38, L40, L42

AGi32 lighting calculations demonstrating compliance for both options 1 and 2 are at Appendices F and G

Rendered images and pseudo colour images are shown below to enable a comparison of the existing installation and

each of the two lighting options:

FIG. 1: CAR PARK - EXISTING INSTALLATION: RENDERED PLAN VIEW IMAGE

FIG. 2: CAR PARK – EXISTING INSTALLATION: RENDERED VIEW FROM WEST


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Fig. 3: Car park – Existing installation: Pseudo colour view from west

An analysis of the above rendered and pseudo-colour images will identify high luminance on the nearby section of the

Admin building façade, on the far section of roof of the Admin building and the highest on the roof of the covered

way.

Carpark Option 1: Replace existing 400W luminaires with new 150W Mini Master luminaires

The car park lighting has been reviewed and found it is possible to maintain code compliance by replacing the 400W

luminaire with 150W luminaires. The major benefit of this is the reduction of spill light onto the Administration

building façade and roof.

Option 1 includes:

the removal of the existing 400W luminaires and

provision of new 150W Pierlilte GMRA Mini Master luminaires on existing poles

removal of one 400W Pierlite Maxi Master from Pole L47 (that faces the Admin building)

The following images have the luminaire on pole L48 that faces towards the Amenities building also turned off, but

the above images where it is on do not show this luminaire having a significant detrimental effect on the illumination

of the roof of the Amenities building. Consequently, this luminaire on L48 may remain and its impact be reassessed

by a visual inspection.

Refer to Appendix H1 for AGi32 calculation demonstrating compliance of Option 1 with AS1158.3.1 lighting

subcategory P11b requirements.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

FIG. 4: CAR PARK – OPTION 1: RENDERED PLAN VIEW IMAGE

FIG. 5: CAR PARK – OPTION 1: RENDERED VIEW FROM WEST


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

FIG. 6: CAR PARK – OPTION 1: PSEUDO COLOUR VIEW FROM WEST

The above views at Fig. 5 and fig.6 show a much improved installation with substantially reduced luminance of the

surfaces of concern when compared with the existing installation at Fig. 2 and Fig 3.

There is still some spill light noticeable from the light remaining on pole L47 that faces away from the admin building.

This may be addressed by:

providing a generous custom back light shield on this luminaire

or

replacing the existing 400W Pierlite Maxi Master with a 400W Pierlite Tarmac

(as the Tarmac has far superior back light control to the Maxi Master).

An added benefit of this choice would be the improved illumination of the area east of the Admin building, as the

Tarmac has a much more forward throw than the Maxi Master.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Carpark Option 2: Remove alternate light poles L36, L38, L40, L42

Option 2 includes:

the removal of the existing 400W luminaires and poles at L36, L38, L40 and L42

removal of one 400W Pierlite Maxi Master from Pole L47 (that faces the Admin building)

The following images have the luminaire on pole L48 that faces towards the Amenities building also turned off, but

the above images where it is on do not show this luminaire having a significant detrimental effect on the illumination

of the roof of the Amenities building. Consequently, this luminaire on L48 may remain and its impact be reassessed

by a visual inspection.

Refer to Appendix H2 for AGi32 calculation demonstrating compliance of Option 2 with AS1158.3.1 lighting

subcategory P11b requirements.

FIG. 7: CAR PARK – OPTION 2: RENDERED PLAN VIEW IMAGE

This view demonstrates the lighting is noticeably patchy and the uniformity is not as good as it is in Option 1.

The views at Fig. 8 and Fig.9 show a much improved installation with substantially reduced luminance of the surfaces

of concern when compared with the existing installation at Fig. 2 and Fig 3.

The luminance of the nearest section of the Admin building façade is to L41 is lower than from the existing lighting

but higher than Option 1. The provision of custom horizontal louvre type back light shield on pole L41 may address

this problem.

There is also some spill light noticeable from the light remaining on pole L47 that faces away from the admin building.

This may be addressed as described above for Option 1


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

FIG. 8: CAR PARK – OPTION 2: RENDERED VIEW FROM WEST

FIG. 9: CAR PARK – OPTION 2: PSEUDO COLOUR VIEW FROM WEST

From the above assessment, Option 1 is the preferred option.

6.3.5 Response to Community Proposals

Comments from the Community with respect to the alternative approaches to the carpark lighting have included the

following:

a) Use shorter poles in lieu of taller poles

b) Trial of 3 or so lights at reduced height (say 4m)

c) Use of ground mounted lights


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Webb’s response to the above comments are as follows:

a) Pole heights could be reduced from 8m to a minimum of 5m and still satisfy Australian Standard (code)

requirements however this would require additional lights and the number of poles would increase from

eight (8) at least ten (10)

b) Code compliance could not be achieved using mounting heights below 5m, so a trail of 3 lights at 4m is not

recommended

c) Ground mounted lighting would not satisfy code requirements and is not recommended

6.4 12M HIGH POLE MOUNTED ROADWAY AND AREA/ SITE LIGHTING

6.4.1 Existing Installation

The 2 x 400W Pierlite Tarmac luminaire (type A) mounted on 12m poles is the typical luminaire installed for general

pole mounted area lighting and roadway/ intersection lighting and heavy vehicle parking areas.

The original lighting design included both 400W lamps, however, upon our inspection, we were advised one of the

400W lamps had been removed from all of these twin lamp luminaires.

The light output from these luminaires would have been reduced accordingly.

As there is no IES file available for these luminaires with only one lamp fitted, our calculations are an approximation

with the lumen output adjusted to reflect one lamp being removed.

As identified in Section 4, these luminaires are exceptionally well suited to large area lighting with a forward throw

distribution. With an UWLR of zero, no light is emitted above the horizontal and they have good back light control.

The Tarmac luminaire is not suited for roadway applications. The site lighting has been limited to targeted locations

so that there are parts of the site where there is no lighting. Not all roadways are provided with lighting and not all

open areas are illuminated. The existing site lighting has been selectively applied to suit the operational requirements

of the site. This would explain why the Tarmac luminaire was selected for this application.

12m Roadway/ site lighting has been installed to meet site night time operational requirements and does not appear

to have been designed to satisfy the requirements of Australian Standard AS 1158. The lighting installation appears

to have targeted areas of night time activity rather than applying lighting generally throughout the road network

across the site. For example, such lighting has been provided for the following areas:

Access roadway

Refuelling station

Vehicle weighbridge

Product weighbridge

Intersections

Areas of elevated pedestrian activity, such as around the Admin building, etc

Lighting has not been provided for substantial sections of Lynwood Road and subsidiary roadways.

As these luminaires are mounted on 12m poles, they are visible from virtually all directions off-site. Their sharp cut-

off characteristics mean that there is no direct view of the lamp, but as there is a pole and often other supporting

structure below the lens, these objects are what can be seen from off site. (Refer to the answer to the lighting

question in Section 8 for further explanation).


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6.4.2 Assessment

The areas covered by the roadway and area/ site lighting include the following:

Access Roadway

Intersections

Heavy vehicle areas

Water Pumping Station

Weighbridge

Refuelling Station

Vehicle wash bay

Open areas

The existing lighting for many of these areas does not comply with the minimum lighting assessment criteria.

The provision of additional lighting in these areas is an operational matter for Holcim and is considered outside the

scope of this report. Refer to Table at Appendix G for more details.

6.4.3 Discussion On Impact of Lower Mounting Heights

Lighting may be provided at a lower mounting height, but this will require more lights and more poles than the

existing 12m mounting height arrangement to achieve the minimum required lighting design criteria.

For the heavy vehicle parking area to be illuminated using luminaires at a lower mounting height, additional luminaires

on the opposite side of the parking area will be required. These additional luminaires will need to be aimed toward

the western site boundary, exacerbating the off-site lighting impacts.

The above outcomes would be considered counterproductive with respect to the intended purpose of reducing off-

site lighting impacts.

As the main area/roadway (type A) luminaires are flat glass aero-screen type fixtures that emit no light above the

horizontal, it would be ideal if they could be located below the height of the off-site viewing positions to minimise

corresponding off-site lighting impacts.

By comparing topographical information with elevations of the surrounding off-site locations, it is evident that five (5)

of the seven locations are below the elevation of the highest pole mounted light on the site. (Refer to drawing ES-07

for more information.)

Point E is the lowest location at 57m below the level of the highest pole mounted luminaire. The actual angle relative

to the horizontal plane has been calculated for each site. The largest angle calculated (at point C) is 0.74O

below the

horizontal plane. Due to their distances from the site, all of the off-site locations are less than 1O

below the highest

pole mounted luminaire or above it.

Due to the elevation of the off-site locations relative to the site, it would not be possible to locate the luminaires at an

elevation below these points simply by reducing the luminaire mounting height.

An examination of type A luminaire I-Table was conducted and over laid on drawing ES-07 to check luminous

intensities directed toward the nominated off-site locations at their respective elevations. It was concluded that no

light emitted directly from the existing type A luminaires would reach any of the nominated off-site viewpoints.

The only light that would be visible from these locations would be indirect or reflected light. Subject to resolving the

mounting arrangements as recommended, the most significant source of reflected light visible from the nominated

off-site viewpoints would be the poles.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

Reducing the height of the poles would reduce the length of the poles that may be visible, however, the brightest,

most visible section of the pole would be at the top, nearest the luminaire. Where the upper section of the poles are

still within view, reducing the height of the poles would only remove the bottom section from view by lowering the

upper section. The brightest section at the top of the pole would remain in view. Consequently, the reduction in off-

site lighting effects due to highly illuminated pole surfaces achieved by reducing the height of the poles is considered

minor to inconsequential.

In summary, the impact of lowering the mounting height of the luminaires currently installed along the access road

and car park has been considered and the following comments are provided:

The off-site locations range from 2.8km away to over 9km distance from the site.

The existing type A luminaires mounted on 12m high poles emit no direct light component that would reach

any of the nominated off-site locations.

Reducing the mounting height of the type A fixtures would have no effect on direct light emitted toward the

off-site locations.

The surfaces that may be most visible from the nominated off-site locations would be the poles. Where still

within view, reducing the height of the poles would only have a minor impact on reducing their visibility, as

the brightest part would still be visible, at the top of the pole.

Reducing the mounting height of the access road lights would mean different luminaires would be required

to achieve the required illumination levels and potentially more of them. That may mean more poles which

would have a counter-productive effect on reducing the off-site lighting impacts.

6.4.4 Recommended Lighting Measures

The following measures are recommended to minimise luminance of surfaces that may be visible from off-site

viewpoints:

Remove back light shields on luminaires that face towards the nearby site boundary

Rearrange mounting brackets of luminaires so the luminaire is below any bracket or cross arm structure

Remove luminaires facing West from poles L47 and L48

Paint the top section of the light poles black to 4m above ground level

Replace existing ballasts with a two set dimming ballast and provide a lighting control system that

communicates by Wi-Fi to dim the lights during periods of inactivity

Erect screen to mask the view of the Admin and Amenities buildings from off-site view points to the West

and North

The above technical measures are aimed at providing solutions to satisfy the Development Consent conditions.

6.4.5 Additional Lighting Recommended

It is noted a common pedestrian route exists between the Administration Building, the Control Room and the Process

Plant Area. The lighting in this area is poor with horizontal illuminance falling to below 1 lux for some distance.

It is recommended additional lighting be installed to provide a safer illuminated notional pathway for pedestrian

access at night.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6.5 TYPICAL CONVEYOR GANTRY LIGHTING


The gantries that align each side of the conveyors are illuminated by 70W luminaires (Type G). While the majority of

type G luminaires are the Pierlite MineMaster, there are a number of Philips Metro luminaires also installed on the

gantries.

There are over 300 gantry lights on the site, some of which are the highest elevated lighting on the site and their

visibility from off-site would be attributed to a number of factors, including:

Their elevated position

The quantity of lights

Their close proximity to each other

Their close proximity to the conveyor covers

The tilt of the luminaires

The slope of the gantry causing the luminaires to roll

6.5.2 Assessment of Existing Gantry Lighting

Minimum Criteria

The minimum criteria for conveyors and gantries as recommended by AS 1680.2.4 is 40 lux average horizontal

illuminance.

Refer to Appendix E for details of a lighting calculation of a typical section of an existing conveyor gantry lighting

installation. The gantry is illuminated to approximately 50 lux (average) and 15 lux (minimum), while the vertical

surface of the conveyor covers are illuminated to approximately 30 lux (average) and 7.5 lux (minimum).

It is concluded the existing gantry lighting complies with the minimum illuminance criteria. Refer to Table at Appendix

G for details.

Luminous Intensity Assessment

The AGi calculations undertaken confirm the luminous intensity of all the Gantry lights are AS 4282 compliant beyond

approximately 1000m from the plant area.

As all the nominated viewpoints are much further from the site the luminous intensity of these luminaires is also

compliant with the requirements of AS 4282 at those locations. Refer to Table at Appendix G for details.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

FIG. 10: RENDERED IMAGE OF SECTION OF TYPICAL GANTRY LIGHTING

6.5.3 Recommend Lighting Measures

Methods to minimise the off-site lighting impacts from the gantry lights may include the following:

Provision of local lock-out switching to suit operational requirements.

NB: As these fixtures are HID, the following features must be taken into account:

They are not instant ON and will take time to warm up to reach normal operating output

Switching must ensure they are NOT turned OFF inadvertently. When turned off they will take

several minutes to cool down before they can restrike and return gradually to full brilliance, leaving

the gantry with no lighting for some time.

Modification of the distribution of the existing luminaires to limit their distribution above the horizontal by

using a shield system has been considered and discounted as an option as minimum illumination

requirements would not be achieved by this method.

Replacement of the existing lights with LED hand rail lighting – LEDs could provide uniform light on gantry

from low wattage point sources that may be less visible from a distance than the existing luminaires.

LED lighting has become a common method of illuminating pedestrian bridges, steps, etc. in the public

domain where spill light is a concern (such as Eastern Valley Way Inlet pedestrian bridge in Belconnen, ACT).

Install a cover that conceals the lights and illuminated surfaces of the conveyor covers from view on all

gantries that are above the horizon and in plain view from the off-site locations of concern

The above technical measures are aimed at providing lighting solutions to satisfy the Development Consent

conditions.

6.6 TYPICAL STACKER AREA FLOOD LIGHTING


400W Flood lights have been installed at the highest point of the stackers, so their elevated position makes them

highly visible form off-site.

We understand these fittings were not aimed as the lighting designer intended at the time of the inspection, and if

energised in their aiming position would have exceeded the minimum luminous intensity recommendations in AS

4282 for obtrusive light.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

6.6.2 Assessment

Minimum Criteria

The assessment criteria for illumination of the stockpiles is 30 lux minimum average. It is noted that not all stackers

have a flood light at the end to illuminate the product stock pile. Where lights are installed, the levels generally vary

from less than 20 lux to over 40 lux.

It is concluded that although some stock pile areas may be illuminated to levels that achieve compliance with the

minimum illuminance requirements of BMA Coal, a number of these areas do not achieve compliance with selected

minimum lighting criteria. Refer to Table at Appendix G for details.

Maximum Criteria

Calculations have demonstrated these flood lights must be aimed at no more than 100

above the horizontal. This is

considered the maximum tilt to maintain AS 4282 compliance. Refer to Table at Appendix G for details.


Tilt luminaires to maximum 10 degrees above the horizontal with a mechanism preventing the ability to tilt

above 100

when maintenance is conducted

Provide remote and/or local ON/OFF control, subject to operational requirements, to limit the ON period to

only when it is required

Provide two step dimming ballast that may be remote controlled by Wi-Fi back at the control room or hand

held remote control devices operated by the staff in the vicinity

The above lighting measures are aimed of providing technical solutions to ensure compliance with AS 4282 and

satisfy the Development Consent conditions.

6.7 AREA LIGHTS ON BUILDING FACADES


The buildings on the site generally have no flood lights on their facades except where there is process plant. The only

exception identified was the Workshop, which is likely to have pedestrians accessing the building at night, so lighting

is provided for that purpose. The height of these lights vary, as they are generally over roller doors which vary in

height. The luminaires include:

Pierlite 250W and 400W MH flat glass flood lighting (type ‘D’) and 250W Eye flood lights, generally aimed 0

to 100

tilt.

6.7.2 Assessment

The peak horizontal illuminance achieved by these luminaires is high due to the relatively high lamp wattage

luminaires and corresponding low mounting heights. The maximum level calculated for the entire site (225 lux) is

directly below one of these fixtures.

The Workshop building is not near the perimeter of the site and is surrounded by a number of other buildings, and

because the tilt is set close to zero, no direct light from these luminaires would reach any of the off-site viewpoints

and AS 4282 compliance is achieved subject to maintaining the existing tilt arrangements. Refer to Table at

Appendix G for details.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776


Replace 400W luminaires with 250W luminaires where the mounting height is below 6m

Ensure the tilt of each luminaire does not exceed 100

above horizontal

The above lighting measure are aimed at satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

6.8 RAIL SIDING


Rail siding is illuminated by 2 x 26W T5 fluorescent luminaires, type H on 8m poles. As the siding is in a valley, these

lights are generally not seen from off-site.

6.8.2 Assessment

Minimum Criteria

Lighting levels achieved are very poor, with horizontal illuminance less than 1 lux in between luminaires. The selected

lighting criteria for railway freight track area is 10 lux minimum average.

The existing installation does not achieve compliance with the assessment criteria and additional lighting may be

required, pending the outcome of a safety risk assessment by the Developer. Refer to Table at Appendix G for

details.

Maximum Criteria

No recommendations are provided, nor considered necessary, to satisfy the Development Consent conditions.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section brings the findings from the desk top analysis to a conclusion and provides recommendations for

consideration. Refer also to Appendix J for a tabulated Lighting Action Plan.

The technical solutions recommended in the report are aimed at preventing and/or minimising any off-site lighting

impacts and achieving compliance with the Development Consent conditions.

Some of the recommendations are clearly quite achievable and others are more difficult. Because of the element of

subjectivity in determining what is “practicable”, the Report reserves judgement on whether the recommendations

are “practicable”.

The Report leaves the assessment of each recommendation up to Holcim to determine whether it is deemed


The recommendations included in this section do not constitute a design, but are conceptual in nature, to be

developed further, where appropriate, independent of this report.

7.1 ADMIN CARPARK LIGHTING (TYPE B AND C)

7.1.1 Lighting Measures

Minimise the off-site lighting impacts from the carpark lighting by the following measures:

Remove existing 400W type B luminaires from carpark light poles

Replace the above with new 150W GMRA luminaires

Remove one luminaire from pole L47 and L48(the fixtures that face west)

Install custom louvred back light shield to the remaining luminaires on L47 and 148 to control light spill onto

the roof of the Admin and Amenities building.

The above lighting measures are aimed at minimising off-site lighting impacts by minimising the luminance of the

illuminated surfaces of the buildings and so satisfy the Development Consent conditions.

7.1.2 Alternative Measures

As an alternative to the above measures, a screen may be erected to mask the view of the Admin and Amenities

buildings and carpark lighting from view from the western and northern off-site viewpoints. This would eliminate

these highly illuminated surfaces from view and so prevent such off-site lighting impacts, further satisfying the

Development Consent conditions.

7.2 12M HIGH POLE MOUNTED ROADWAY AND SITE/ AREA LIGHTING

Options recommended to minimise off-site lighting impacts include the following:

Remove back light shields on luminaires that face towards the nearby site boundary

Consider the installation of custom louvre type back light shields, to L47 and L48 (identified in 7.1.1 above)

Rearrange so that the luminaire is mounted below any bracket or cross arm structure

Removal of west facing luminaires from L47 and L48

Replace existing ballasts with two step dimming ballasts and provide a motion sensor on each pole that

interfaces with adjacent lights, to control the lights by Wi-Fi

Provide local isolating switches on poles that do not need to be on all night, including L64 and L50


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

The visibility of the poles may be reduced by reducing the reflectance of the pole surface, thereby reducing their

luminance. The highly reflective surface of the galvanised steel poles may be substantially reduced by painting them

black, so reducing their luminance and making them much less visible from a distance.

Paint the top sections of the poles (above 2.5m AFGL) with a flat matt black paint suitable for application on

galvanised steel, or equivalent treatment of the pole surface.

Provide additional lighting for safe pedestrian access between Admin building, Control Room and Process

Plant area

The above lighting measures are aimed at minimising off-site lighting impacts by removing highly illuminated surfaces

from view, turning lights off when not required and dimming lighting when possible. These measures provide Holcim

with a range of options to satisfy the Development Consent conditions.

As an alternative to the above options, a screen may be erected to mask the view of the majority of the area/ site

lighting from the western and northern off-site viewpoints. Reducing the mounting height of the luminaires would

reduce the height of the screen required to accomplish these objectives.

This option would eliminate the view of such lighting and so prevent such lighting impacts from western and northern

off-site viewpoints. These lighting measures are aimed at further satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

7.3 CONVEYOR GANTRY LIGHTING

Methods to reduce or minimise the off-site lighting impacts of the conveyor gantry lighting include:

Provide local switching to enable the gantry lights to be turned off when not required (note considerations

described in Section 6.5)

One light nearest the entry and exit points to each gantry must remain ON, uncontrolled by local switching.

Other gantry lights below RL 673m may also remain ON, uncontrolled by local switching.

Replace existing lights with LED type hand rail lighting

Install a cover to screen the view of conveyor covers and lights above RL 673m. This could be constructed

from securely fastened, light weight perforated material to minimise additional weight and wind loading on

the structure.

The above lighting measures are recommended options that are aimed at eliminating and minimising off-site lighting

impacts from the conveyor gantry lighting and satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

7.4 STACKER FLOOD LIGHTS

Methods to reduce or minimise the off-site lighting impacts from the stacker flood lights include:

Adjust tilt of luminaires to maximum 100

above the horizontal

Provide mechanism that enables the luminaires to be serviced and aimed but permanently prevents the tilt

of the fixture exceeding the above 100

Provide switching so that lights can be turned off when not required

Develop a work place procedure to ensure lights are only ON when required

Switching may be remote (from control room) or local, subject to operational requirements

Provide dimming ballasts to existing luminaires to enable them to be switch dimmed when full intensity is

not required. Dimming could be controlled remotely from control room, via Wi-Fi or locally by hand held

infrared remote devices.

The above lighting measures are recommended options that are aimed at eliminating and/ or minimising off-site

lighting impacts from the stacker flood lights and satisfying the Development Consent conditions.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

7.5 AREA LIGHTS ON BUILDING FACADES

Where applicable, the following measures may be adopted to minimise the off-site lighting impacts of the flood light

on building(s):

Adjust tilt to maximum 100

above horizontal

Replace 400W luminaires with 250W luminaires where mounting heights are less than 6m

The above lighting measures are recommended options that are aimed at eliminating and/ or minimising off-site

lighting impacts from the area lights on the building facades and satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

7.6 SCREENING METHODS

Non-lighting solutions include the provision of screening which would be most effective on the western site boundary.

The ground level falls away to the east making this method less practicable on the eastern side of the site.

Major screening initiatives to eliminate or minimise off-site lighting impacts could include methods such as :

Construction of a wall or screen to mask lighting from view

Construction of an earth mound and / or

Establishment of a dense plantation of suitable trees

Based on the highest lights being at an approximate RL of 696m, it has been estimated any one, or any combination

of the above methods would have to be at least 25m higher than the ground level of the Admin building car park and

approximately 800m long to totally eliminate the lighting impacts from the plant lighting to the nominated western

off-site locations.

It was estimated that a further 400m of screening at the southern end of the site, to a height of approximately 10m

above the car park level (or an RL of 681m), would also be required to totally eliminate the lighting impacts from the

existing roadway lighting to the nominated western off-site locations.

Further site analysis has subsequently been undertaken in conjunction with Holcim and the proposal of a screen

combined with reducing the height of the site/ area/ roadway lighting and carpark lighting luminaires has been further

developed.

The outcome of this proposal would provide the following benefits to off-site lighting impacts from viewpoints to

north and west:

Prevent the direct view of Admin and Amenities building

Prevent the direct view of the access roadway lighting

Prevent the direct view of the majority of the site/ area lighting

Prevent the direct view of the majority of the stacker flood lights

Prevent the direct view of the conveyor gantry lights below the corresponding RL. Those mounted above

that RL could be switched off when not required

Prevent the direct view of the lights on the building facades

This screening solution is aimed at satisfying the Development Consent conditions.


FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

7.7 COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

As identified above, the Report provides technical recommendations aimed at preventing and/or minimising any off-

site lighting impacts from the development and satisfying the Development Consent conditions.

The solutions identified in the Report provide Holcim with the measures to enable the site to fully comply with the

regulatory Standards and the Development Consent conditions.

Some of the recommendations are clearly quite achievable and others are more difficult. Because of the element of

subjectivity in determining what is “practicable”, the Report reserves judgement on whether the recommendations

are “practicable”.

The Report leaves the assessment of each recommendation up to Holcim to determine whether it is deemed



FINAL DRAFT REPORT


7 JULY 2015 ISSUE D ABN 14 064 354 776

8 THE LIGHTING QUESTION

The Question:

“If light bulb is shielded from above, is it possible that the light is visible from an elevated position? (i.e. above the eye

line of the shield)”.

Answer:

Direct or incident light emanating from a shielded light source would be prevented from being seen from an elevated

position by the shield, as described. If the light were not intercepted by any surface below the shield, that light would

be invisible and not be seen from the elevated position.

Light will travel in a straight line until it strikes a surface, where some may be absorbed and the remainder then

reflected or refracted, dependent upon the characteristics of the surface.

If there is an object below the light source where it is not directly shielded from view, the light will be reflected off the

surface of the object and that object may be seen from the elevated position. Such an object could be the ground, a

light pole, a building, a luminaire mounting bracket, a back light shield or even fine particles in the atmosphere, such

as dust or moisture.

All of these “objects” may be illuminated and may be seen from the elevated position, even when the light source is

shielded from view, as shown in the sketch below.

lynwood lighting design review final draft report · lighting design review ... 11 5 assessment...

Documents