Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Contents

CONTENTS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 4 Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles............................................................................. 5 Assessment Results ........................................................................................................... 9 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 21

Appendices

Appendix I Appendix ii

Site Location Plan, Tabled Results and Contour Drawing Overshadowing Assessment

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Introduction

1.
1.1

Introduction
GVA Schatunowski Brooks have been instructed by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and Domain Developments Limited to provide daylight, sunlight and overshadowing advice for the redevelopment at West End Lane.

1.2

We have been provided with a 3D Z map model which shows the bulk/massing of the adjacent properties. We have also been provided with the proposed drawings from John Thompson and Partners, drawing reference 00437.

1.3

We have attended site and reviewed the adjacent properties, counting brick courses in order to locate the height and locations of the adjacent windows to the neighbouring residential properties. We have also sought to obtain layout information and elevations for the adjacent properties in order to provide a greater accuracy.

1.4

For the residential properties to Sherriff Road we have had to make estimates on the location of the windows as access to the rear of these properties is restricted and the foliage from the trees limits the ability to see all the windows to the rear of these properties.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Executive Summary

2.
2.1

Executive Summary
The daylight and sunlight assessments to the neighbouring residential properties have demonstrated that there will be a good level of daylight and sunlight retained in the proposed condition. The development site currently has low level small buildings and therefore a comprehensive redevelopment of this site will reduce daylight and sunlight levels when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. However, the daylight and sunlight levels in the proposed condition are good levels of light.

2.2

The overshadowing assessment has demonstrated that all but one of the neighbouring gardens and all the proposed amenity areas pass or exceed the BRE Guidelines, ensuring good levels of sunlight will be retained with the proposed development in place. The one rear garden that falls below the BRE guideline is mostly overshadowed by the assumed 1.8m high solid fence. If the fence were not 1.8m high and of solid construction then the garden would pass the BRE guidelines.

2.3

The internal daylight assessments to the proposed habitable rooms have demonstrated that a good level of compliance will be achieved with the proposed development being in place. In the context of the 435 habitable rooms being provided in this

development only 0.46% fall below the recommended ADF for their use. We consider this is a small proportion in the context of what is being provided and it is not uncommon to have some rooms below the BRE Guideline recommendations for high density developments. 2.4 The design of the proposed buildings have allowed light to permeate through so as to limit the effects of daylight and sunlight on the neighbouring properties, whilst ensuring that future occupants within the development obtain good daylight and sunlight.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles

3.
3.1

Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles

The Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice is the document referred to by most local authorities and the second edition has been produced dated 2011. The BRE Guide covers amenity requirements for sunlight and daylight to buildings around any development site.

3.2

The introduction to the guidelines state: "The guide is intended for building designers and their clients, consultants and planning officials. The advice given here is not mandatory and this document should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy; Its aim is to help rather than constrain the developer. Although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of the many factors in site layout design."

Daylighting
3.3 The requirements governing daylighting to existing residential buildings around a development site are set out in Part 2.2 of the guidelines. The amount of light available to any window depends upon the amount of unobstructed sky that can be seen from the centre of the window under consideration. The amount of visible sky and consequently the amount of available skylight is assessed by calculating the vertical sky component at the centre of the window. The guidelines advise that bathrooms, toilets, storerooms, circulation areas and garages need not be analysed. The guidelines also suggest that distribution of daylight within rooms is reviewed although bedrooms are considered to be less important. 3.4 The vertical sky component can be calculated by using the skylight indicator provided as part of the guidelines, by mathematical methods using what is known as a waldram diagram or by 3D CAD modelling.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles

3.5

The guidelines states the following:"If this vertical sky component is greater than 27% then enough skylight should still be reaching the window of the existing building. Any reduction below this level should be kept to a minimum. If the vertical sky component with the new development in place, is both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value, then occupants of the existing building will notice the reduction in the amount of skylight."

3.6

It must be interpreted from this criterion that a 27% vertical sky component (VSC) constitutes adequacy, but where this value cannot be achieved a reduction of up to 0.8 times its the former value (this is the same as saying a 20% reduction when compared against the existing condition) would not be noticeable and would not therefore be considered material.

3.7

The VSC calculation only measures light reaching the outside plane of the window under consideration, so this is potential light rather than actual. Depending upon the room and window size, the room may still be adequately lit with a lesser VSC value than the target values referred to above.

3.8

Appendix C of the BRE guidelines sets out various more detailed tests that assess the interior daylight conditions of rooms. These include the calculation of the average daylight factors (ADF) and no sky-lines. The ADF value determines the level of interior illumination that can be compared with the British Standard, BS 8206: Part 2. This recommends a minimum of 2% for kitchens, 1.5% for living rooms and 1% for bedrooms.

3.9

The no sky-line, or daylight distribution contour shows the extent of light penetration into the room at working plane level, 850mm above floor level. If a substantial part of the room falls behind the no sky-line contour, the distribution of light within the room may look poor.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles

Sunlighting
3.10 Requirements for protection of sunlighting to existing residential buildings around a development site are set out in Part 3.2 of the BRE guidelines. There is a requirement to assess windows of surrounding properties where the main windows face within 90 degrees of due south. The calculations are taken at the window reference point at the centre of each window on the plane of the inside surface of the wall. The guidelines further state that kitchens and bedrooms are less important in the context of considering sunlight, although care should be taken not to block too much sun. The guidelines sets the following standard:"If this window reference point can receive more than one quarter of APSH (annual probable sunlight hours), including at least 5% of APSH in the winter months of 21 September and 21 March, then the room should still receive enough sunlight. The sunlight availability indicator in Appendix A can be used to check this. Any reduction in sunlight access below this level should be kept to a minimum. If the available sunlight hours are both less than the amount given and less than 0.8 times their former value, either over the whole year or just during the winter months then the occupants of the existing building will notice the loss of sunlight." 3.11 To summarize the above, a good level of sunlight to a window is 25% annual probable sunlight hours, of which 5% should be in winter months. Where sunlight levels fall below the suggested level, a comparison with the existing condition is reviewed and if the ratio reduction is within 0.8 (the same as saying a 20% reduction) its former value then the sunlight loss will not be noticeable. Sunlight reduction that fall below 0.8, i.e. 0.7 (greater than 20%) then the sunlight losses will be noticed by the occupants.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Daylight/Sunlight Planning Principles

Overshadowing
3.12 The BRE guideline provides recommendations for overshadowing to gardens and open spaces in Part 3.3 of the guidelines. 3.13 The guidelines recommend:It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. If as a result of new development an existing garden or amenity area does not meet the above, and the area which can receive two hours of sun on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of sunlight is likely to be noticeable. 3.14 Sunlight at an altitude of 10 or less does not count, because it is likely to be blocked by low level planting anyway. In working out the total area to be considered, driveways and hard standing for cars should be left out. Around housing, front gardens which are relatively small and visible from public footpaths should be omitted; only the main back garden should be analysed. Each individual garden for each dwelling in a block should be considered separatelyNormally, trees and shrubs need not be included, partly because their shapes are almost impossible to predict, and partly because the dappled shade of a tree is more pleasant than the deep shadow of a building (this applies especially to deciduous trees). . 3.15 To summarise, a garden or amenity space should receive at least 50% sunlight for at least two hours of the day during 21 March. Where this is not achieved in the existing condition, a ratio reduction review can be undertaken and if the ratio reduction is 0.8 or higher (this can also be expressed as 20% or less) then the occupants will not notice the sunlight reduction.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.
4.1

Assessment Results
We set out below the assessments of the neighbouring residential properties, the overshadowing effects and the internal daylight/sunlight assessments for the proposed habitable rooms.

4.2

At Appendix I of this report we have appended the tabled results, the no-skyline contour drawings and 3D views of the development site. At Appendix II we have

appended the overshadowing analysis. Below is a summary of these results:

11-77 Sherriff Road (Odd)

4.3 These properties are located to the south of the development site and we have had to rely on the 3D Z map model in order to model the adjacent properties. We have had to make assumptions on the location, height and room sizes of these properties as access to the rear is restricted. Also due to the distance across the railway line a visual inspection of the windows was inconclusive due to the trees and shrubs to the rear of each of the gardens. 4.4 Whilst inspecting the site we noted that the number of storeys for each collection of properties and attempted to emulate the number of storeys whilst adopting a rational window size and room size in order to give a fair and reasonable indication of the likely impact on these properties. We have used the eaves height of the Z map model as the control point, taking each storey from the eaves height at 2.8 metres with a window of 1.2m high and 1.0m wide. 4.5 For the purposes of the assessments we have ignored the trees which appear to be predominantly deciduous. We also note that for 33-77 Sherriff Road that the rear

extensions to these properties are most likely to be bathrooms or small kitchens. The Guidelines state bathrooms need not be analysed as they are not habitable rooms. However, for the purposes of this assessment we have assumed that there are habitable rooms facing towards the development site to the rear of all these properties, which should represent the worst case condition.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.6

We have assessed a selection of properties on Sherriff Street, these being 15a, 19, 27, 37 and 47 Sherriff Road. The contour results and location plan can be found on drawings BRE/14 and BRE/15 within Appendix 1.

4.7

The assessment results show that high levels of daylight will be retained in the proposed condition, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The design of the proposed buildings have allowed light to permeate through so that a good daylight distribution into each of the rooms is retained.

4.8

Sunlight need not be assessed to these properties as the windows are facing north.

1-12 Aerynn House (Referenced 8a Medley Road)

4.9 This is a relatively newly built property and we were not able to obtain access into the inner courtyard as the gates onto Medley Road were locked. We were however able to obtain access to drawings from the planning portal, drawing reference 10003-P07-13 from Libero Architects. We have used this information to model the south facing

windows of this property in order to assess the effects from the proposed development. 4.10 The first floor level contains the first full habitable floor and therefore this floor level was used to assess the worse case condition. Drawing BRE/21 shows the contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. 4.11 The VSC assessment results show two windows out of eights, these being windows W1/380 and W2/380 experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when compared against the existing condition. The other six windows exceed the suggested 27% VSC or have a reduction in daylight below the suggested 20%. 4.12 The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will greatly exceed the suggested BRE guidelines (bedrooms 1%, living rooms 1.5% and kitchens 2.0%) with ADF values ranging between 4.66% and 7.03%, which includes the rooms served by windows W1/380 and W2/380. 4.13 The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

10

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.14

The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will either meet or exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition.

4.15

In summary the occupants of 1-12 Aerynn House will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not experience a

noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

8-12 Medley Road

4.16 These properties have an oblique view of the development site and we have modelled and calculated 8 and 9 Medley Road as these are the closest properties to the development site. Drawing BRE/20 shows the contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. The window sizes and locations to the rear of these properties have been estimated as access was restricted but we have sought to represent the worst case conditions, assuming habitable rooms at all floor levels. 4.17 The south facing elevation of 8 Medley Road does not appear to contain any habitable rooms, although there are rear extensions set back from the site boundary that appear to have windows facing the development site. 4.18 The VSC assessment results show 8 Medley Road will fully pass, obtaining VSC levels in excess of 27% or reduction less than 20%. The assessments for 9 Medley Road show three of the six windows falling below the 20% reduction test, these being W2/370, W2/371 and W2/372. 4.19 The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will obtain good levels of daylight in the proposed condition with ADF values ranging between 1.46% and 3.40%. The rooms served by windows W2/370, W2/371 and W2/372 obtain ADF values ranging between 1.5% to 1.91%, which meets or exceeds the ADF recommendations for bedrooms and living rooms. 4.20 The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. 4.21 The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

11

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.22

The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

1-7 Medley Road

4.23 These properties have windows that take an oblique view across the development site and we have assessed 7 Medley Road to demonstrate the likely daylight and sunlight effects. Drawing BRE/19 shows the contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. The window sizes and locations to the rear of this property has been estimated as access was restricted. 4.24 The south facing elevation of 7 Medley Road does not appear to contain any habitable rooms, although there is a rear extension set back from the site boundary that appear to have windows facing the development site. 4.25 The VSC assessment results for 7 Medley Road show two of the fifteen windows falling below the 20% reduction test, these being W5/350 and W6/350. All the other windows tested will achieve a VSC over 27% or have a reduction in daylight less than 20%. 4.26 The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will obtain good levels of daylight in the proposed condition with ADF values ranging between 1.52% and 3.95%. The room

served by windows W5/350 and W6/350 obtain an ADF value of 1.52%, which exceeds the ADF recommendations for bedrooms and living rooms. It is most probable that this room would not be this size and would be subdivided into smaller ancillary rooms, but for the purposes of this assessment we have sought to review a worst case condition. 4.27 The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. 4.28 The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition. 4.29 The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

November 2011 gva.co.uk

12

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

166-184 (Even) Iverson Road

4.30 These properties are located to the north of the development site with windows on the rear elevation facing towards the development site. Drawing BRE/18 shows the

contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. The window sizes and locations to the rear of these properties have been estimated. 4.31 The VSC assessment results for 178-180 Iverson Road show all the windows will achieve a VSC over 27% or have a reduction in daylight less than 20%. 4.32 The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will obtain good levels of daylight in the proposed condition with ADF values ranging between 1.65% and 2.68%. 4.33 The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. 4.34 The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition. 4.35 The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

188-190 Iverson Road

4.36 These collection of properties are commercial and therefore do not require assessment with regard to daylight/sunlight impacts, in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.

1-28 Rowntree Close

4.37 These are relatively newly built residential properties that have an indirect view of the development site. For 6, 14, 21 and 28 Rowntree Close these properties are closer to

November 2011 gva.co.uk

13

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

the development site and have blank south facing elevations with no windows facing towards the development site. 4.38 We have reviewed used the Z map model as a basis, counting brick courses in order to locate and position the windows. We have assessed the daylight and sunlight results to 6, 14, 21 and 28 Rowntree Close in order to evaluate the effects from the proposed development. These properties are closest to the development site and should

represent the worst case conditions. Drawing BRE/16 and 17 show the contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. 4.39 The VSC assessment results for 6, 14, 21 and 28 Rowntree Close show all the windows will achieve a VSC over 27% or have a reduction in daylight less than 20%. 4.40 The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will obtain good levels of daylight in the proposed condition with ADF values ranging between 1.07% and 7.48%. There is only one room that obtains an ADF lower than the 1.5% benchmark, this being R2/331 which obtains a value of 1.07%. This room is located at first floor level and therefore should serve a bedroom. The suggested ADF level for a bedroom is 1.0% so the ADF in the proposed condition exceeds this level, passing the BRE guidelines. 4.41 The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. 4.42 The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition. 4.43 The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

202-220 Iverson Road

4.44 These properties are located to the north of the development site with windows on the rear elevation facing towards the development site. Drawing BRE/18 shows the

contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. The window sizes and locations to the rear of these properties have been estimated.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

14

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.45

It is most likely that the small windows serve non habitable rooms such as bathrooms, which would not normally require assessment. However, in order to provide results we have modelled and run assessments, assuming room sizes.

4.46

The VSC assessment results for 206-208 Iverson Road show all the windows will achieve a VSC over 27%.

4.47

The ADF assessment shows low levels of daylight due to the small window sizes. However, the existing condition is also very low and the reduction in daylight is not noticeable with reductions ranging between 3.17% to 5.23%.

4.48

The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions.

4.49

The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition.

4.50

The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a good level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

Hampstead West 224 Iverson Road

4.51 This is a collection of commercial properties located to the north of the development site. As these properties are commercial use, daylight and sunlight assessments are not required.

1-10 Redcroft 226 Iverson Road

4.52 These properties are located on the corner of Iverson Road and West End Lane. The south facing elevation does not appear to contain any residential use or windows that need assessing. 4.53 It is the west facing elevation that is likely to contain residential use, with an oblique view of the development site. We have assessed the windows closest to the

development site in order to evaluate the effects from the proposed development.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

15

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

Drawing BRE/16 shows the contour results and location plan at Appendix 1. window sizes and locations to the rear of these properties have been estimated. 4.54

The

The VSC assessment results for 1-10 Redcroft show all the windows will achieve a VSC over 27%.

4.55

The ADF assessment shows all the rooms will obtain good levels of daylight in the proposed condition with ADF values ranging between 2.36% and 2.58%.

4.56

The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of all the rooms will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions.

4.57

The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition.

4.58

The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place.

124-136 West End Lane

4.59 At first floor level and above we consider there is residential use and as these windows face towards the development site, daylight and sunlight assessments were undertaken. 4.60 We have had to estimate the window sizes by counting brick courses and estimating the room layouts and uses. We have modelled and tested 130 West End Road with the results shown on drawing BRE/16. 4.61 The VSC assessment results for 130 West End Road show all the windows will achieve a VSC over 27%. 4.62 The ADF assessment shows the room will obtain a good level of daylight in the proposed condition with an ADF value of 2.77%.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

16

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

4.63

The No Skyline assessment demonstrates that the occupants of the room will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions.

4.64

The sunlight assessments demonstrate that all the windows will greatly exceed the BRE Guidelines in the proposed condition.

4.65

The daylight and sunlight results show that the proposed development will retain a high level of daylight and sunlight, in excess of the BRE Guidelines. The occupants will not

experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight with the proposed development in place. --------------------------------

Internal Daylight Assessment for the Proposed Habitable Rooms

4.66 The internal daylight assessments have been undertaken for the lowest habitable rooms at lower ground, podium, mezzanine and first floor level. These assessments have been undertaken for each building with the tabled results and contour drawings on BRE/0113 at Appendix 1. 4.67 The Average Daylight Factor tests have assumed a window transmittance value of 0.55 which is a greater transmittance value than a standard double glazed unit. This is due to the requirement for noise attenuation as the site is next to the railway line. We have used an average internal reflectance value for mid range walls, ceilings and floors. For living/dining/kitchen areas we consider the ADF level of 1.5% or higher is a good level of daylight to be achieved. 4.68 The proposed internal assessments have reviewed the Average Daylight Factor, No skyline and Annual Probable Sunlight Hours. We consider for new developments that the Average Daylight Factor test is best qualitative assessment for adequacy and summarize the results for each building below:

November 2011 gva.co.uk

17

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

Building A
4.69 The results to Building A demonstrate that all the rooms pass the Average Daylight Factor test, obtaining an ADF higher than the suggested value for its use.

Building B
4.70 The results to Building B demonstrate that one room out of eleven tested falls below the Average Daylight Factor test, achieving an ADF of 1.05% rather than 1.5% for a living room. Of the 75 habitable rooms within Building B only having one room falling below the recommended ADF value only equates to 1.33%, with 98.67% compliant.

Building C
4.71 The results to Building C demonstrate that all the rooms pass the Average Daylight Factor test, obtaining an ADF higher than the suggested value for its use.

Building D
4.72 The results to Building D demonstrate that all the rooms pass the Average Daylight Factor test, obtaining an ADF higher than the suggested value for its use.

Building E
4.73 The results to Block E demonstrate that one room out of thirty one tested fall below the Average Daylight Factor, achieving an ADF of 0.66% rather than 2.0% for a kitchen. Of the 91 habitable rooms within Building E only having one room fall below the recommended ADF value only equates to 1.10%, with 98.90% compliant.

Building F
4.74 The results to Building F demonstrate that all the rooms pass the Average Daylight Factor test, obtaining an ADF higher than the suggested value for its use.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

18

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

Summary of Internal Daylight Assessment

4.75 The assessments to each block has demonstrated a good level of compliance is obtained and that at the upper floor level total compliance with the ADF test will be achieved. In the context of the 435 habitable rooms being provided within this

development only having two rooms below the BRE Guideline recommendations only equates to 0.46%, which also equates to 99.54% of the habitable rooms passing the BRE Guideline recommendations. --------------------------------

Overshadowing Assessment
4.76 The permanent overshadowing assessment results are shown on drawing BRE/22 at Appendix ii. The transient overshadowing images have also been appended to this report, showing the sunlight tracking within the assessment month of March. 4.77 The assessment of the individual gardens is shown on drawing BRE/22, together with a reference that correlates to the table below. The assessments to the gardens have included a 1.8m high solid fence as from site inspection this appeared to be the case for the majority of the gardens. The rear gardens of the Medley Road properties were not able to be seen due to restricted access.
Proposed % in Sun 48.98 65.79 55.88 54.08 41.48 50.40 49.67 Existing % in Sun 49.98 67.43 58.25 58.04 50.29 50.40 49.67 Proposed % in Sun 49.30 60.96 54.94 54.03 34.38 40.35 34.98 Existing % in Sun 49.30 61.05 58.84 59.00 64.23 40.35 34.98

Area Assessed

Area Assessed

1 3 5 7 9 11 13

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

November 2011 gva.co.uk

19

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

40.99 37.09 39.49 40.18 43.71 62.89 51.85 54.28 62.18 42.66 37.25 30.13

40.99 37.09 39.49 40.18 43.71 62.89 51.85 54.28 62.18 42.66 37.25 30.13

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

52.44 38.92 40.08 40.43 46.94 53.69 52.49 49.91 41.81 41.21 28.55 50.57

52.44 38.92 40.08 40.43 46.94 53.69 52.49 49.91 41.81 41.21 28.55 50.57

4.78

The overshadowing assessment to the neighbouring gardens demonstrates that only areas 3-10 will experience any diminution in permanent overshadowing. Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 will have reductions in sunlight that will not be noticeable as they are within the 20% reduction when comparing the existing and proposed conditions.

4.79

Area 10 has a reduction in sunlight below the 20%, when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. The majority of the sunlight obstruction is due to the 1.8m high fence and if the fences were lower or has a lattice effect the sunlight penetration would pass the BRE guidelines in the proposed condition.

4.80

We consider the effects of the proposed development would not render the garden uninhabitable and high levels of sunlight will be obtained at 11am and noon. It is noted that the effects of the proposed development is no different to the effect from 1 Medley Road on the gardens to 176-168 Iverson Road.

4.81

The transient overshadowing images demonstrate that the proposed podium levels and play ground areas will obtain sunlight throughout the day, obtaining no permanent overshadowing effects.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

20

Ballymore Properties Group and Network Rail

Assessment Summary

5.
5.1

Summary
The daylight and sunlight assessments to the neighbouring residential properties have demonstrated that there will be a good level of daylight and sunlight retained in the proposed condition. The development site currently has low level small buildings and therefore a comprehensive redevelopment of this site will reduce some daylight and sunlight when comparing the existing and proposed conditions. The daylight and

sunlight assessments to the neighbouring properties have demonstrated that the occupants will not experience a noticeable reduction in daylight or sunlight. 5.2 The overshadowing assessment has demonstrated that all but one of the neighbouring gardens and all the proposed amenity areas pass or exceed the BRE Guidelines, ensuring good levels of sunlight will be retained with the proposed development in place. The one rear garden that falls below the BRE guideline is mostly overshadowed by the assumed 1.8m high solid fence. If the fence were not 1.8m high and of solid construction then the garden will pass the BRE guidelines. 5.3 The internal daylight assessments to the proposed habitable rooms have demonstrated that a good level of compliance will be achieved with the proposed development being in place. In the context of the 435 habitable rooms being provided in this

development only 0.46% fall below the recommended ADF for their use. We consider this is a small proportion in the context of what is being provided and it is not uncommon to have some rooms below the BRE Guideline recommendations for high density developments. 5.4 The design of the proposed buildings have allowed light to permeate through so as to limit the effects of daylight and sunlight on the neighbouring properties, whilst ensuring that future occupants within the development obtain good daylight and sunlight.

November 2011 gva.co.uk

21

Report

Appendices

Report
Appendix I

Report
Appendix II

March 21 8am

March 21 9am

March 21 10am

March 21 11am

March 21 12pm

March 21 1pm

March 21 2pm

March 21 3pm

March 21 4pm

March 21 5pm

March 21 6pm