Technical Report

LIGHTING ASSESSMENT – HAGLEY OVAL

Report prepared by: Steve Muir of Essential Lighting Consultancy Limited

For: Canterbury Cricket Trust

Dated: 24 July 2019

100341236/1367817.6
 1

INTRODUCTION
1 This assessment has been prepared for the purposes of assisting
Regenerate Christchurch (Regenerate) in its evaluation and
preparation of a proposal under section 65 of the Greater
Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCRA) to exercise power
under section 71 of the GCRA. Regenerate proposes to amend the
Christchurch District Plan (the District Plan) rules to enable the
Canterbury Cricket Trust (CCT) the opportunity to host all
international cricket fixtures at Hagley Oval (the proposed
amendments). The amendments sought are intended to allow the
Hagley Oval to operate consistently with the Christchurch Central
Recovery Plan (CCRP).
2 This assessment considers the appropriateness of the proposed
amendments to the District Plan having regard to the potential
lighting effects of the proposal on the environment. Where relevant
these effects will be assessed considering the current planning
framework as well as the existing resource consent and conditions.
3 This assessment covers the following matters:
3.1 The proposed amendments to the District Plan provisions, as
relevant to; spill light, glare, switching levels, different types
of masts, optimum number and height of masts (or towers);
3.2 An assessment of the environmental effects of the proposed
amendments relative to the status quo; and
3.3 A conclusion as to the acceptability of the proposed
amendments to District Plan provisions.
THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Christchurch Central Recovery Plan
4 The Vibrant City chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan
(CCRP) provides for enhancements of Hagley Oval that deliver ‘a
domestic and international purpose-built cricket venue’ that
specifically includes ‘sports lighting to international broadcast
standards’. This technical report addresses these broadcast
standards in further detail below.
District Plan rules relating to lighting
5 Hagley Park (and Hagley Oval) is zoned Open Space Community
Park (OCP) within the District Plan.
6 Within this zone, built form standard 18.4.2.4(v) controls the height
of structures and permits ‘Any pole or support structure for flood or
training lights accessory to sports facilities in Hagley Park’ up to
30m height. Such lighting would also be required to comply with
other applicable standards in the District Plan, including relevant
rules for outdoor lighting glare and spill in section 6.3 of the Plan.
7 I understand that as Hagley Oval is a heritage setting (for the
heritage item known as the Umpires Pavilion) and is a major sports
facility, any flood lighting within the Oval would require resource
consent.

100341236/1367817.6
 2

8 However, flood lighting up to 30m in height is permitted throughout

that part of South Hagley Park which is not subject to the Hagley
Oval heritage setting.
Current lighting provision under the resource consent at
Hagley Oval
9 International cricket matches (and sometimes also domestic cricket
matches) are often required to be played at night time or may begin
during the day and last into the night. For these matches to be
played in hours of darkness and to ensure that players and umpires
can safely identify the ball, play in fair conditions, and continue to
play in low-light conditions, floodlights are required around the
perimeter of the cricket ground.
10 At present, the CCT holds a resource consent which allows it to erect
four lighting structures at Hagley Oval in order to provide lighting
for cricket matches. The resource consent requires that the lighting
heads are demounted (i.e. removed) during the off-season, and
when the lights are not in use the telescopic poles are to be
retracted. The consented lighting masts have a height of 48.9m
when erected for use and they otherwise retract to a height of
30.9m. The resource consent allows the lights to be used for 13
match days per annum, with conditions stipulating that the lights
may not be extended to their full height more than 2 hours prior to
a game, and lights must be reduced in power and thereafter
switched off and retracted shortly after the conclusion of a match.
The consent conditions also require the lights to meet relevant
performance standards in respect of light spill and glare.
Required lighting standards or guidelines
11 The four lighting poles currently allowed at the Hagley Oval through
the CCT’s resource consent are insufficient to achieve the level of
lighting required to host day/night and night-time domestic and
international cricket games to the standards required by New
Zealand Cricket (NZC), the International Cricket Council (ICC) and
international broadcasters. ICC recommend 6 mast installation via
the “Lighting Specification - International Cricket” document
prepared by Philips and the Lighting Design and Application Centre
(the LiDac recommendations) (Appendix 1 to this report). The
English Cricket Board (ECB) also recommend a minimum 6 mast
arrangement via the Floodlight Design Statement prepared for
Somerset County Cricket Club (the ECB recommendations)
(Appendix 2 to this report). Cricket Australia (CA) Community
Cricket Facility Guidelines – Guidance Note 4 Section 2 (the CA
recommendations) (Appendix 3 to this report) also recommend 6
mast arrangement for Televised Cricket at page 76.
12 Specifically, the ICC Guidelines for Main Camera (vertical
illuminance) Ecam, and Average (horizontal maintained illuminance)
Eh is 2500 lux over the Wicket/Inner Field Area’s and 2000 lux
Average (horizontal maintained illuminance) Eh over the Outer Field
and Boundary Area. With the original consented four mast proposal
these lighting levels aren’t achievable.
13 With a four-mast option there is limited aiming angles to achieve
the required uniformity levels. For this reason, the Glare Rating is

100341236/1367817.6
 3

compromised at 49 when the recommended ICC maximum Glare

Rating is 40.
14 Only the LiDac recommendations were in existence at the time of
the original resource consent application. I have been advised,
however, that due to the urgent nature of the resource consent
application there was limited to no engagement able to be
undertaken with broadcasters, multiple lighting suppliers, or an
independent lighting adviser and it is therefore likely these
recommendations were overlooked at the time. It is also possible
that at the time the recommendations were not as well circulated –
with the international broadcasting of cricket having grown
significantly only in recent years along with increased quality of
broadcasting. Also, improved lighting technology recently installed
at various international grounds has led to increased expectations
from international broadcasters.
Contents of the proposed amendments relevant to lighting
15 The proposed amendments to the District Plan would exempt
floodlighting for activities associated with sporting events at Hagley
Oval from the general lighting rules in the District Plan. A specific
set of lighting rules applicable to floodlighting for sporting events
and temporary structures for broadcasting in Hagley Oval is
proposed at Rule 18.4.1.1 P26 and Rules 6.3.4.1 P2 and 6.3.5.1 P2.
16 In addition, a maximum of six light towers located around the
Hagley Oval (excluding the Flood Light Exclusion Zone indicated in
the Hagley Oval Layout Plan at Appendix 18.11.6) at a height of
48.9m is proposed. The final position of the six light towers would
be determined by lighting installers accounting for the alignment of
the cricket wicket block, camera positions and other features at the
ground. A figure is included later in this report illustrating a possible
layout of the six light towers around Hagley Oval.
17 The proposed amendments also contain requirements at 18.4.2.8
for activities at the Hagley Oval to be undertaken in accordance with
an Operations Management Plan (OMP). With regards to lighting, a
section in the OMP is proposed which will include provisions relating
to initial commissioning of floodlighting, testing prior to events,
maximum standards and times of operation for the floodlights, and
a monitoring regime.
18 A typical headframe layout or an indication of a possible mast
arrangement for floodlighting is provided in Appendix 18.11.7.
19 Technical standards are also proposed within the Rules Rules 6.3.4.1
P2 (a) – (d) and 6.3.5.1 P2 (a)-(d) to ensure that the effects from
the floodlighting allowed by the proposed amendment to the District
Plan will be acceptable.
ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE STATUS QUO
20 AS/NZS4282 provides guidance on the control of obtrusive effects of
outdoor lighting. This report relies on and applies the standards
recommended in this document, as it represents best practice.

100341236/1367817.6
 4

Spill light
21 Spill light is better controlled via 6 masts verses 4 masts because
more aiming options for a similar number of luminaires and more
control of light distribution is achievable. This along with LED
technology will result in less overall spill light and less glare
compared to the consented 4 mast option.
22 In order to ensure that the spill lighting effects at the Hagley Oval
are managed and comply with AS/NZS4282, I have recommended
the following technical standards because I believe the technical
parameters are practical, achievable and have been derived from
best practice and industry research in the production of this
standard which has also been incorporated in the proposed rules:
22.1 Spill light shall not exceed a vertical illuminance level
compliant with Table 3.4 AS/NZS4282. This table specifically
references spill light for venues illuminated for TV coverage.
These values are like those within BS EN12193 – 2018 1 so I
assume they have been tested and derived from existing
research over several venues.
22.2 Monitoring of spill light is to be carried out during
commissioning at set points to comply with AS/NZS4282 and
to coincide with design calculations or predications.
22.3 Aiming and intensity limits of all luminaires shall be compliant
with Table 3.3 AS/NZS4282. The control direction for this
installation shall be 10° below the horizontal.
23 In my opinion, because the recommended AS/NZS4282 technical
standards are incorporated into the proposed rule amendments, the
effects from spill lighting at the Hagley Oval will be acceptable.
Also, the preferred arrangement of a 6-mast installation plus using
LED luminaire technology in my opinion will significantly reduce and
improve the control of spill light over the consented 4 mast option.
Glare
24 Glare is a major safety consideration for players, umpires, on-site
spectators, TV viewing, camera operators, nearby residences, and
traffic movement as it affects general visual comfort and can also
impair vision.
25 Ideally no glare would be the perfect result, but all lighting creates
some level of glare – it is unavoidable and therefore the approach is
to manage and mitigate glare through the design and configuration
of lighting.
26 Before glare can be evaluated, viewing directions, camera locations
or viewing positions need to be identified. All glare calculations
should be based on an observer height of 1.5m above the Principle
Playing Area (PPA). Glare rating is a value on a scale from 0 to 100
where the higher the value the greater the impact is from the

1 As referred to in the ECB recommendations (Appendix 2).

100341236/1367817.6
 5

lighting system. The following table from AS2560.1 – 2002 Sports

Lighting Part 1 General Principles 2 can be used as a guide.
27 Glare Ratings are also referenced in BS EN 12193 – 2018 3 Lighting
and Lighting – Sports Lighting for major general outdoor venues
should have a Glaring Rating ≤40 and the minimum requirements
≤45.
GLARE ASSESSMENT SCALE
Glare Category Glare Rating GR
Unbearable 80 to 90
Disturbing 60 to 70
Just Admissible 40 to 50
Noticeable 20 to 30
Unnoticeable 10

28 Principal means of controlling glare is to position the lighting fixtures

and aim them optimally away from normal lines of sight and at an
observer angle (angle of view from the field of play back towards
the lighting tower) to the horizon of not less than 25°. This is
achieved by the number of masts, height of masts and the
positioning of masts.

29 Disability glare impairs the visibility of objects without necessarily

causing discomfort (reduction in visibility). Threshold Increment is a
measure of disability glare expressed as a percentage increase in
contrast required between an object and its background for it to be
seen equally well with a source of glare present. The higher the
percentage of Threshold Increment the greater the value of
disability glare. Table 3.2 AS/NZS4282 limits Threshold Increment
calculated for the various Environmental Zones onto adjoining roads
to be below 20%.

30 Because there are improved aiming angles with a 6-mast installation

and the lighting distribution is more closely defined by using LED
technology an improved Glare Rating is going to result in a
reduction from approximately 49 (just admissible in table above) to
39 (noticeable in table above). This improved Glare Rating will be
noticeable for players, umpires, on-site spectators, TV viewing,
camera operators, nearby residences, and traffic movement.
Switching light levels
31 A simple way to manage lighting effects at the Hagley Oval is to
ensure that floodlights are at full illumination only when strictly
necessary. It is recommended that the level of lighting is reduced
after an event or match is over (or following a training event) but
while people are still at the Oval so that the lighting levels minimise

2
AS 2560.1 – 2002 Sports Lighting Part 1 General Principles Table 2.1 page 18.
3 As referred to in the ECB recommendations (Appendix 2).

100341236/1367817.6
 6

amenity impacts but provide adequate lighting to allow people to

leave the site safely and the event to be packed down.
32 Switching the number of lights to a reduced level for a period after
the end of a match or use of the ground for training allows
spectators to leave the ground safely at the conclusion of an event.
Therefore, the following approach is recommended:
32.1 Several lights could be switched off totally and or dimmed to
achieve a reduced average horizontal light level of 300 lux
(on the field) for a period of 30 minutes after the conclusion
of an event.
32.2 Then, 30-60 minutes after the conclusion of an event the
lighting levels could be further reduced so that it does not
exceed an average horizontal level of 50 lux (on the field).
32.3 A requirement that all floodlighting shall cease to operate 60
minutes after the conclusion of an event would then ensure
that light sources from floodlights are eliminated promptly.
33 These recommendations have been incorporated into Rules 6.3.4.1
P2 (d) and 6.3.5.1 P2 (d) of the proposed amendments. It is
considered that switching light levels in this manner will ensure that
lighting effects from the proposed amendments are managed
closely, while recognising health and safety obligations owed to
those immediately following any match or training.
34 An initial reduction to 300 lux is considered suitable as a contrast
from the relatively high levels of 2500–3000 lux (playing level for TV
broadcasting) i.e. 10 to 1 contrast allowing time for a human’s eyes
to adjust. This level will give adequate time for a person’s eyes to
adjust to lower light levels in gradual steps. The 50-lux level is a
typical illuminance level used for security lighting. From, this
perspective, the lighting effects are considered acceptable.
Type of lighting masts (or towers)
35 As well as being relevant to the quality of lighting provided, the type
of masts on which lighting is fixed can vastly affect the operational
costs associated with operating the lights and therefore the costs of
hosting a sports match under lights.

Removable lights
36 Removable lights have features which make them less appropriate
for long-term use at the Hagley Oval compared to permanent fixed
structure. Simply adding a further two removable lighting
structures to the existing four currently in use at the Hagley Oval
would be less efficient and significantly more costly than fixing six
permanent structures.

37 Telescopic lighting masts with removable headframes (the kind

currently utilised through the CCT’s resource consent) are
problematic as they risk possible damage to lights, headframes and
limitations on luminaire warranty. Regular handling of equipment
during assembly and disassembly is likely to increase the chance of
damage and may compromise any luminaire warranty or decrease
the life/warranty period.

100341236/1367817.6
 7

38 Removable headframes also involve truck and crane movements on

a regular basis that can result in damage to trees and surrounding
ground. The cost of installing and removing headframes on semi-
regular bases can be very high. It is alleged that Lord’s Cricket
Ground in London were incurring costs of close to £50,000 per
season to remove and reinstall their headframes each season. It is
estimated here in NZ the costs could be $100,000 to $135,000 per
season based on two headframes being installed per day and only
intermittent aiming adjustments followed by engineering checks.
39 Storage of headframes and luminaires in the off season is also an
added ongoing cost and, depending on how and where they are
stored, could result in risks of vandalism and can create a physical
visual effect in itself.
40 LED lighting technology is taking over from Metal Halide (HID)
lighting as the accepted form of sports lighting because they have
good colour rendering properties, less flicker, longer life, use less
wattage, instant start and can be controlled easily. Most of the new
installations around the world are now using LED as the preferred
lamp source and some of the existing installations are being
changed to LED because of the savings in lamp replacement costs.
Because of the issues with retractable headframes at Lord’s Cricket
Ground in London (costly headframe installs and reinstall costs) I
believe there is only one other retractable headframe installation in
the world. Most of the new major floodlit cricket grounds in
Australia (Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, and Brisbane) are using
fixed Towers. The Gabba cricket ground in Brisbane has 6 masts all
fixed at a height of 75m. Also, many in the UK are preferring to use
fixed towers – Somerset County Cricket Club has recently
commissioned fixed towers at a height of 54m.
41 Removable lights require reassembly, aiming, testing and
commissioning of luminaires at the start of every season. This
results in the lights being switched on more often, hence more
disruptions with no events taking place. Re-commissioning
removable lights each season also incurs additional costs as it
requires the assistance and oversight of engineers and other
contractors. This is estimated to be $20,000 to $40,000. It also
involves more crane hire charges to allow access to the headframes
for adjustment should that be required. These charges are
estimated and are included in this estimated figure.

Temporary truck or crane mounted headframes

42 Temporary truck or crane mounted headframes are considered
inappropriate because it is difficult to get the required height from a
relatively small area. Lighting tower heights and weights are limited
by the amount of available deck area on the truck, roading transport
heights and widths to and from the site plus the applicable weight
capacity of the truck. The height restriction limits the ability to
control light spill and glare because of lower aiming angles. The
weight restriction limits the number of lights that can be connected
on each truck hence lower light levels are the result making it
difficult to meet adequate broadcasting requirements. Temporary or
removable lights tend to be more suited for general use hence offer

100341236/1367817.6
 8

less control of light output from the luminaires. They throw a “pool”
of light in a general direction and offer poor control in respect to
glare, spill light, and upward light into the surrounding environment.

43 Similar to the issues relating to the removable lights discussed

above, more handling means more maintenance and luminaire
warranty issues and temporary truck, or crane mounted headframes
also raise similar storage issues when the headframes are not in
use.

44 More truck and crane movements are also likely to cause more
damage to the surrounding trees and ground.

Cantilevered or Base Hinged masts

45 Cantilevered masts are masts that break at a predetermined height
and swing downwards towards the ground. They cannot swing the
full 180° but they can be closer to the ground resulting in lower
access to the lights. There are engineering issues with these types
of masts that need to be addressed namely; more area around the
mast is required to allow for the full swing movement and
limitations of any sideways or twisting movement as the top section
is lowering or is in its stationary lowered position. If lowered for a
period, it needs to be secured to restrict possible movement over
varying weather conditions.

46 Base Hinged masts are like Cantilevered Masts but hinge at the base
via a counterbalance or a moveable hydraulic trolley to assist with
the mast weight while being lowered. Height and weight restrictions
usually apply to these types of masts, so they are usually limited to
smaller installations with lower lighting requirements. These types
of masts can have demountable headframes, but they are also
considered inappropriate for similar reasons to truck or crane
mounted headframes.

Example of cantilevered column and trolley from Abacus.

47 Cantilevered or Base Hinged masts with headframes fixed in place

would occupy a large area when lowered hence this is likely to be
more obtrusive to the park area during times of no use (off season).
When stored in this lowered position the luminaires, headframes and
masts could be subjected to higher levels of vandalism which could

100341236/1367817.6
 9

result in minor aiming and adjustments needing to be done to

ensure there are no obtrusive lighting effects.

48 Cantilevered or Base Hinged masts would also require aiming,

testing and commissioning of luminaries at the start of every season
– causing the same kinds of problems as discussed above regarding
the removable structures.

Permanent lighting masts (or towers)

49 Fixed height masts are the most common lighting tower used for all
sports codes throughout the world. Heights can be designed during
construction to best suit the installation and achieve the desired
lighting results. Foundations can be designed to best suit the
situation with no allowance being required for multiple situations,
such as wind and weight loadings at alternative positions.

50 Ongoing maintenance costs are less because the headframes are

fixed, and luminaires are not removed or adjusted on a regular
basis. This also results in less damage to trees, grass or internal
roads. No Engineering costs are incurred because after the initial
commissioning there is no need to undertake annual testing or
recording because the lighting levels will slowly diminish through
lumen depreciation and dirt accumulation.

51 Initial costs are competitive or less because engineering

requirements such as wind and weight loadings are known.
Luminaire arrangement on the headframe can be designed into the
mast that will provide a unique character for the location. Because
the luminaires are fixed in place, fit for purpose with less unknowns
there is no compromise on warranty issues from the luminaire
supplier.

52 No storage facilities are required so there is no risk of visual clutter

at another site or any likelihood of vandalism issues. No security
fencing or barriers are required. Further, because there are less
handling operations there are also less Health and Safety concerns.

53 For the above reasons I consider the Permanent Fixed Mast option
the most suitable mast option for Hagley Oval.
Number and height of lighting masts (or towers)
54 The ICC 4, the ECB 5 and AC 6 all recommend a minimum six mast
arrangement for international televised cricket. The reason for this
is to achieve good horizontal and vertical illuminance using a range
of different suppliers’ equipment to all camera positions for good
quality International TV coverage.

4 I understand ICC recommend the levels indicated in the LiDac recommendations (Appendix 1 to this
report) but don’t have any documented specification themselves because their intention is to promote the
game at all levels.
5 ECB recommendations are supported via the ECB recommendations (Appendix 2 to this report). BS EN

12193 – 2018 also references Glare recommendations for Major Sporting venues.
6 www.community.cricket.com.au references the CA recommendations (Appendix 3 to this report) on

Floodlighting. Section 2 page 76 references a recommendation on a 6 mast installation for Televised

conditions and to improve the control of spill light.

100341236/1367817.6
 10

55 NZC does not have a formal requirement for a minimum 6 mast

arrangement but this organisation along with other
recommendations is considered internationally as the best practice.
56 It is recommended that a six-mast arrangement at Hagley Oval will
give the best overall lighting solution. This is because the six-mast
arrangement will:
56.1 result in less glare;
56.2 be safer for the players and spectators because it is a more
uniform form of lighting with less glare from more viewing
angles;
56.3 provide good lighting uniformity levels throughout to enable
quality TV Broadcasting 7;
56.4 result in better vertical illuminance with less spill light; and
56.5 allow more competitive pricing for the supply of LED
luminaires from more suppliers.
57 Locating lighting masts is always a challenge when lighting an
existing venue with physical site limitations, but with some
compromise and careful planning six mast positions can be achieved
at Hagley Oval. As noted above, the final position of the six light
towers would be determined by lighting installers accounting for the
alignment of the cricket wicket block, camera positions and other
features at the ground, however a possible layout of the six light
towers around Hagley Oval is set out in the plan below.

7
There are no known Broadcasting Standards for reference, but Philips have provided a guidelines
document that they work with or reference when they design a televised facility.

100341236/1367817.6
 11

Figure 1: diagram showing potential plan for six mast option at Hagley
Oval (ELC)
58 With reference to Figure 1, no lighting masts would be located
within 25° (either side) directly behind and in front of centre wicket,
to ensure lighting is outside the direct line of sight of the batsman
and the bowler. Other lights would be located within 10° (either
side) at right angles to the centre of the cricket pitch. These
locations are those recommended within IESANZ Lighting Guide for
Outdoor Cricket LG – 4.01 as identified in the CA recommendations
(Appendix 3). Lighting masts would be located a minimum of 5m
from the outer boundary to allow for a clear “run-off” area as also
recommended in the above document.
59 The overall number of luminaires required to achieve comparable
lighting levels is likely to increase slightly going from Metal Halide
technology (consented option) to LED technology because of the
lower wattage/output of the LED source. However, using six masts
verses four or five but using the same luminaire technology is not
likely to increase the overall number of luminaires significantly
resulting in fewer lights per mast. The number of luminaires in the
4-mast consented option is 96 lights per mast whereas the proposal
in Appendix 18.11.7 indicates 90 lights per mast (being LED).
60 An optimum mounting height of any floodlight is required to achieve
the required illumination levels on the field of play (FoP). This
lighting level needs to match the level of play so the players can
play to their full potential safely and within the recommended
guidelines set out in the LiDAC, ECB and CA recommendations
(referenced above) plus enable uniform light for TV Broadcasting.
61 The installed height of the light fixtures should be so that the lowest
luminaire from the centre of the playing area (PPA) to the furthest
luminaire location is set at an angle to the horizontal of not less
than 25° for optimum glare control. The formula for determining
optimum height is; h = 0.47 x d (where d is horizontal point directly
below the light fixture to the centre of the PPA). Hence if the height
of the lowest luminaire is 41.1m high the horizontal distance from
the centre of the playing pitch to the column should be a minimum
of 87.5m away.

Lowest light fixture on headframe

Lowest luminaire height h

Max angle 45°

Min angle 250

Horizontal distance d from light to centre of PPA

100341236/1367817.6
 12

62 Lights should not be mounted at an observer angle of 45° or greater

because the mast would then be at an extreme height that is not
practical.
63 Therefore, the proposed amendments provide for the most
appropriate number, type and height of lighting masts to enable all
of the standards and best practice guidelines to be met.
CONCLUSION
64 All new lighting installed in conjunction with the proposed
amendments will comply with the maximum values set down within
AS/NZS4282 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.
Hence all obtrusive effects on the environment from the lighting for
this facility will be controlled.
65 The proposed amendments to the District Plan to provide for six
mast lighting installations using fixed towers with angled
headframes at a maximum height of 48.9m would allow a more
uniform lighting installation to meet ‘international broadcast
standards’, improved player/spectator safety as well as improved
spill and glare requirements.
66 Light spill and glare effects will be appropriately managed by the
proposed amendments to ensure no worse effects on the roads,
residential zones or the hospital than what is currently consented. In
fact, the proposed lights will result in less obtrusive effects what has
been consented.
67 Because the mast and headframes would be fixed there is no need
to remove the headframes and luminaires on a regular basis, hence
the expected luminaire life (15 to 20 years) and manufacturer’s
warranty can be upheld. This also decreases the impact on the
environment and possible risk of damage to trees and grass
associated with truck and crane movements during the installation
and removal of headframes.
68 Operational costs and ongoing monitoring costs are also reduced by
using the permanent six-mast option, as compared to the existing
lighting configuration at Hagley Oval under the existing resource
consent and as compared to the other options examined above.
69 The impacts of the lighting can be managed through implementation
of the recommendations discussed above, including by reducing
switching levels as soon as possible after the completion of an event
while still maintaining safe levels to allow the crowd to leave the
ground.
70 Overall this report recommends that six permanent lighting masts at
Hagley Oval (as set out in the proposed amendments) would offer
an improved installation with individual floodlight poles and masts
being of a smaller scale than the consented lights, with less impact
damage to the surrounding environment, and a more practical
operation. This would result in an improved long-term solution for
CCT with less ongoing operational and maintenance costs.
71 The proposed lighting configuration would also comply better with
the LiDac, ECB, and CA recommendations, as well as broadcaster
requirements (and therefore the ICC guidelines). Such lighting

100341236/1367817.6
 13

would enable Hagley Oval to operate as ‘a domestic and

international purpose-built cricket venue’ with ‘sports lighting to
international broadcast standards’ as sought by the CCRP.
72 In conclusion, I consider that the provision for floodlighting and the
associated rules managing the operation and effects of this lighting
is acceptable.

Dated: 28 June 2019

__________________________
Steve Muir

100341236/1367817.6
 14

APPENDIX 1

100341236/1367817.6
 15

APPENDIX 2

100341236/1367817.6
 16

APPENDIX 3

100341236/1367817.6