Source : Perth Now news
It’s lights off for an illuminated cross above a City Beach church, which residents claimed was making it hard for them to sleep at night.
The Town of Cambridge council has refused Holy Spirit Church’s request to continue illumination of the 5.6m cross hanging above its building on Keaney Place.
The council had received six complaints from nearby residents about the holy light’s night-time glow, with one neighbour claiming the brightness disrupted them even with blackout blinds in place.
Speaking at the June 30 council meeting, Cr Xavier Carr — who declared an impartiality interest because he previously attended the neighbouring Holy Spirit Primary School and the occasional Mass at the church — said he had spoken to other nearby residents who supported the LED-lit structure.
“It seems to have divided the community somewhat, which is unfortunate, because many people I’ve spoken to around there find the cross a symbol of joy, comfort and reassuring, and a visual symbol of Jesus’s love and redemption for all of us,” Cr Carr said.
“They want to, for this reason, see the cross continue to be illuminated.”
Cr Carr voted against the town officers’ recommendation to refuse the application, instead seeking conditions to reduce the light’s intensity and hours of operation.
But mayor Gary Mack said the council could not “second guess” what the church might want and argued refusal was “entirely appropriate”.
“I’d highly recommend that the applicant comes back and has a chat to the town’s officers to really understand what they need to do to get this over the line, if that’s what they really want,” he said.
According to the church, the cross was installed in the 1990s and the lighting added in May last year.
The cross, which is about 20m above the ground, was producing a 3000K warm-white glow while operating at 100 per cent intensity between 6pm and 7am.
The parish claimed it did not realise development approval was required to illuminate the cross and said a dimmable driver could be installed to reduce intensity to 1 per cent.
But a town report said no amended proposal or details were provided to show what this would involve and whether it would address concerns.
It supported the existing cross structure without illumination, arguing the light was not compatible with the surrounding low-density residential area.
“The illumination is clearly visible from nearby dwellings and the public realm at night and is considered to result in an unreasonable amenity impact,” the report said.
