Tennis court lighting: Why VC5 certification gets skipped – and how a lighting consultant can help

Most private tennis courts are never independently tested by lighting engineers against VC5’s lighting limits. When a neighbour dispute arises, that’s the problem and the opportunity to resolve it with evidence.

Tennis court lighting disputes lighting engineer

Most private tennis courts in Victoria are lit without anyone ever independently measuring whether the installation actually meets the requirements that govern it. The Code of Practice (VC5) requires the finished lighting system to be certified after installation by a qualified lighting engineer. In practice, that step is skipped constantly. Courts get built, lights go up, everyone assumes it’s fine – until a neighbour complains, and suddenly nobody has any actual evidence about what the lighting is doing at the boundary.

That gap is where tennis court lighting disputes go bad for both sides.

If you own the court

You’ve had a tennis court built to enjoy – not to end up in a stand-off with the neighbours. But if a complaint lands, “the builder said it was fine” isn’t evidence. VC5 sets specific, measurable limits: 12 lux maximum, 10 lux average, measured at the nearest habitable room window or 3 metres outside the boundary, whichever is closer. Without a report showing your actual installation against those numbers, you’re arguing from a position of nothing… even if your lighting is genuinely compliant. An independent lux reading, taken properly and reported clearly, is usually the fastest way to either put the matter to rest or show you exactly what needs adjusting before it escalates further.

If you’re the neighbour

The reverse is just as often true. A court next door with lights that feel too bright, too late, or too intrusive doesn’t mean it’s actually non-compliant – but you have no way to know that without a measurement, and “it feels too bright” doesn’t hold up in a planning complaint or at VCAT. An independent assessment gives you either the evidence to pursue a genuine breach, or the clarity that the installation is within its legal limits – which matters, because compliant lighting can still be the subject of a nuisance claim if the interference is genuinely unreasonable, regardless of the lux numbers.

Why this rarely resolves itself

Two things make tennis court lighting disputes drag on longer than they should: nobody has measured anything, and both parties are usually citing a standard that doesn’t apply. AS/NZS 4282 gets mentioned constantly in these disputes (it’s the standard most people have heard of) but private tennis courts are actually governed by VC5’s own numeric limits, not AS/NZS 4282’s environmental zone tables. Getting the right framework applied from the outset by a lighting engineer or a lighting consultant, with an actual measurement behind it, is usually the single biggest step toward resolving the argument rather than prolonging it.

Where independent testing actually settles it

Before it’s a dispute: pre-installation lighting design and the post-installation certification VC5 explicitly requires – so there’s never a gap to argue about
Once a complaint’s been raised: independent, on-site lux measurement against VC5’s exact limits, giving either party something concrete rather than a subjective argument
If it’s heading to VCAT: an independent expert report, prepared to a standard that holds up under tribunal scrutiny – not a builder’s assurance, not a guess

Whichever side of this you’re on, the fastest path out of a tennis court lighting disputes is the same: get it measured, get it reported properly, and stop arguing about numbers nobody’s actually confirmed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Not necessarily. Under VC5, a planning permit isn’t required to construct, illuminate or use a private tennis court if every requirement of the Code is met – including the lighting limits. A permit becomes necessary when a proposal falls short of one or more elements, most commonly the illumination or location requirements, at which point neighbouring properties are notified as part of the process.

Yes. VC5 compliance and a common-law nuisance claim are separate matters. A neighbour can still pursue a nuisance claim if the lighting’s frequency, duration, timing or intensity causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with their property, regardless of the measured lux figures. This is a legal question rather than a lighting one, and anyone facing this situation should get advice from a lawyer alongside any independent lighting assessment.

Completed lighting system must be certified after installation by a qualified lighting consultant / lighting engineer. This certification confirms the installation meets the Code’s lux limits and other performance requirements, and provides the documented evidence needed if a tennis court lighting disputes or council enquiries arises later.

No. It demonstrates that compliance can be achieved, but the final installation must align with the design and is often verified through on-site testing.

GLARE EVALUATION

LIGHT SPILL ANALISYS

RESOLUTIONS

Lighting AUDITS

Need a Light Spill Report ?

Spaces At Night provides professional lighting impact assessments for planning approvals, compliance and design verification in Melbourne. If you need a lighting compliance assessment report or want to ensure your project is set up correctly from the start, get in touch with your lighting consultant.