5-9 Chippenham Gardens, Kilburn Park Post Offi ce, 4-26...
Transcript of 5-9 Chippenham Gardens, Kilburn Park Post Offi ce, 4-26...
5-9 Chippenham Gardens, Kilburn Park Post Offi ce, 4-26 Stuart Road (even numbers only) together defi ned as
‘Land north of Chippenham Gardens’
Daylight, Sunlight &Overshadowing Assessment
SUSTAINABILITY
prp-co.uk
ArchitectureUrban DesignMasterplanningLandscapeSustainabilityProject ServicesPlanningTransport PlanningInteriorsResearch
PRP Job ReferenceAE4486
Project LeadCarolina Caneva
Report AuthorEvgenia Budanova
Version2.0 Final Issue
Issue Date 07 March 2016
ContentsExecutive Summary 1
Overview 1
Daylight 1
Impact on Surrounding Buildings 1
Impact on Surrounding Buildings 2
Sunlight criteria for Open Spaces 2
Overshadowing 2
Guidelines and Policy 3
Guidelines for Daylight and Sunlight 3
Regional Planning Policy 3
Sensitive Receptors 4
Relevant Defi nitions 4
Assessment Criteria - Daylight 5
Assessment Criteria - Sunlight 7
Project Background 11
Brief 11
The Site 11
Extent of the Study Area 12
Modelling Assumptions 12
Analysis and Calculations 12
Preliminary 25-degree line analysis 12
Daylight Results
Surrounding properties 13
Property 3 13
Property 4 13
Property 5 14
Property 6 14
Summary of Results 14
Daylight Results
Proposed development 16
Analysis assumptions 16
Average Daylight Factor (ADF) results 16
Sunlight Results 17
Surrounding properties 17
Property 4 17
Property 5 18
Summary of Results 19
Sunlight Results
Proposed development 20
Sunlight analysis 20
Summary of Results 20
Overshadowing Results 21
Open Spaces 21
Sunlight criteria for Open Spaces 22
Conclusion 23
Appendix A - Window numbering 25
Appendix B - Tabulated results 29
SUSTAINABILITY
1
The Sustainability team at PRP has been commissioned by Brent Council to undertake a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment with respect to the Land North of Chippenham Gardens development, located in the London Borough of Brent.
Executive Summary
Overview1.1 The aim of the study is to investigate the potential
impact of the proposed scheme on daylight and sunlight access compared to what is currently being experienced by the surrounding adjacent properties, as well as the internal daylight and sunlight levels within the proposed habitable rooms.
1.2 The methodology used in this study is based on the guidance provided in the 2nd edition of Building Research Establishment (BRE) entitled: “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a good practice guide” by PJ Littlefair (2011).
DaylightImpact on Surrounding Buildings1.3 The results of the assessment show that a majority of
the windows analysed in the surrounding properties will experience negligible impacts on their daylight access as a result of the proposed development.
1.4 A total of 2 nos.windows in Property 4, 3nos.windows in Property 5 and 3 nos.windows in Property 6 will receive minor adverse impacts, as a result of the proposed development. The results are discussed in detail in the daylight section of this report (Tables 4.2-4.4) and the windows identifi ed and illustrated in the images provided in Appendix A.
Proposed development1.5 The proposed development comprises 16 diff erent
unit types. A sample set of units which represent the worst case scenario across each unit type were chosen on the ground, fi rst and third fl oors and tested for their daylight availability.
1.6 A majority of the rooms tested within the proposed development (74%) receive daylight levels in compliance with the BRE requirements. The remaining 44 out of total 169 rooms tested, receive daylight levels that are below the minimum BRE threshold. This is mostly seen in the kitchens which have a higher threshold for daylight.
1.7 As the majority of the rooms meet the BRE recommended criteria, the daylight levels within the proposed development are considered acceptable, considering the dense urban context of the site.
2
SunlightImpact on Surrounding Buildings1.8 The results of the assessment show that a majority of
the windows that face the proposed development achieve good levels of sunlight access as a result of the proposed development, during the whole year and winter months.
1.9 A few windows located on Property 6 (209-223 Kilburn Park Road- odd numbers only), receive minor -moderate impacts. However, all rooms served by these windows have 1-2 other additional windows that are orientated away from the proposed development. Therefore, the rooms should continue to receive adequate levels of sunlight.
Proposed development1.10 The proposed development has 52 main living rooms,
most of the rooms have windows facing due south. They were all analysed in terms of Probable Sunlight Hours.
1.11 A majority of the living rooms tested (90.3%) fully comply with the minimum BRE threshold for annual and winter probable sunlight hours. A small proportion (9.6%) of the living rooms (5 rooms) do not meet the BRE requirements for the Probable Sunlight Hours.
1.12 Limited levels of sunlight is mainly recorded in the living rooms that are located along the courtyard elevations.
1.13 Sunlight availability to the most of the rooms of the proposed development is in accordance with BRE’s criterion for sunlight.
Sunlight criteria for Open SpacesOvershadowing1.14 An overshadowing analysis was carried out on 7 open
spaces. These are identifi ed and described below:
• Open Space 1SR: Rear garden of No. 1 Stuart Road Open Space 3SR: Rear garden of No.3 Stuart Road Open Space 5SR: Rear garden of No.5 Stuart Road
• Open Space 7SR: Rear garden of No.7 Stuart Road
• Open Space 9SR: Rear garden of No.9 Stuart Road Open Space 1AH: Open Space of Argo House
• Adjacent Public Highway: Existing open space adjacent to the development
1.15 The BRE Guide suggests that an open space will be considered to adequately sunlit throughout the year if it receives at-least 2 hours of direct sun on at least 50% of its total area on the 21st of March (Equinox).
1.16 The results of the analysis show that most of the open spaces and gardens associated with the neighbouring properties comply with the BRE Guidelines for solar access (Tables 6.1-6.3). One open space which is associated with the garden of 7 Stuart Road has a marginal impact from the proposed development. However, the loss of sunlight to this garden can be considered minor as the values are less than 1% outside the requirements.
SUSTAINABILITY
3
This analysis has been based on the BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight report, which considers the potential impact on and quality of daylight and sunlight for surrounding properties as well as for new buildings.
Guidelines and Policy
Guidelines for Daylight and Sunlight 2.1 The BRE guideline document provides the criteria and
methodology for calculations pertaining to daylight and sunlight on both existing and proposed developments, and is the primary reference for this matter. Alongside this document, the BS 8206-02: Lighting for buildings - Part 2: Code of practice for daylight (2008), is also used as a guideline.
2.2 The BRE Guide is widely used to establish the extent to which the development meets current best practice guidelines, although it is not an offi cial instrument of planning policy and there are no legal or statutory requirements to meet these guidelines.
2.3 There are no National Planning Policy guidelines for sunlight and daylight. However, most Local Authorities recognise these guidelines as the most appropriate method for carrying out daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessments.
2.4 The methods given in the document are widely used in the industry, and are technically robust, however some level of fl exibility should be applied where appropriate, particularly on sites with higher development densities, as these guidelines were primarily developed for characterising the nature of daylight and sunlight impact in general terms, which would include a range of rural, suburban and densely urban contexts.
Regional Planning Policy2.5 The statutory development plan covering the
proposal site is informed by the London Plan (2011) and any Local Development Framework (LDF) core strategies, Unitary Development Plans, and Supplementary Planning Documents relevant to the London Borough of Brent.
2.6 We have consulted with these documents to ensure that we meet any additional requirements set out by the Local Authority that are not covered by the BRE guidance.
The London Plan
2.7 The London Plan addresses the potential eff ects of a development in Policy 7.6 (Architecture), where it states that the proposed development must:
“not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to privacy, overshadowing, wind and micro-climate”.
2.8 “Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions”, (2008): The main purpose is that good standards of daylight and sunlight should be achieved for new buildings and extensions.
2.9 The guidance in these documents accounts for material considerations whilst submitting planning applications and have been consulted for this assessment.
4
Sensitive Receptors2.10 In order to undertake the assessment, key sensitive
receptors around the site need to be identifi ed fi rst. These include habitable rooms in domestic and non-domestic buildings facing the site where occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight or sunlight. According to the BRE Guide these include:
• Living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms in domestic buildings.
• Other rooms in schools, hospitals, hotels and hostels, small workshops and offi ces.
• Open spaces such as gardens, parks, playgrounds, swimming and paddling pools, sitting areas and focal points for views.
2.11 Rooms and spaces which will not be permanently occupied such as bathrooms, toilets, storerooms, circulation areas, garages, public footpaths, small front gardens and car parks do not need to be analysed.
Relevant Defi nitions2.12 “Natural light” refers to both daylight and sunlight.
2.13 For the purposes of this assessment, we have to distinguish between “daylight” and “sunlight” as the physical properties and therefore the perceived benefi ts for each type of light are diff erent.
2.14 Daylight is used to describe diff use light from the sky under overcast conditions. Daylight is orientation-independent and directly aff ects ambient light levels in internal spaces and the visual comfort related to the carrying out of day to day tasks.
2.15 Daylight for existing buildings is typically measured using Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and No-Sky Line (NSL), while daylight in proposed buildings are typically measured using Average Daylight Factor (ADF).
2.16 Sunlight is used to describe light coming directly from the sun. Sunlight is highly dependent on the site location, orientation and the time of day, and directly aff ects factors such as solar gain, perceptions of warmth and health issues such as the access to Vitamin D. Direct sunlight is desirable in winter, and not only yields psychological benefi t but also helps facilitate energy effi ciency by reducing the need for heating, however excessive levels of sunlight without solar protection could also lead to summertime overheating.
2.17 Sunlight is typically measured using Probable Sunlight Hours (PSH) for both existing and new buildings. Sunlight availability on open spaces is measured using overshadowing criterion, which requires at least half of the open amenity area to receive at least two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March.
2.18 In order to characterise the magnitude of impact on existing properties, we model these criteria fi rst with the existing buildings on site, to establish a baseline condition. The analysis results are then compared with the results when the proposed building is put in place. These “ratio-of-impact” calculations then form the basis for whether the development has a negligible, minor, moderate or signifi cant adverse/benefi cial impact on the daylight and sunlight amenity of the surrounding properties.
2.19 The BRE and BS8206 guidelines provide three main methods for assessing daylight availability. The basic principle behind these guidelines is that the ground fl oor windows (and above) of a new or existing building should have an adequate view of the sky.
2.20 We have developed some visual illustrations to describe the various calculations and criteria that go into a typical daylight and sunlight assessment. These are presented on the following pages.
References• BRE Site Layout and Planning for Daylight and
Sunlight: a guide to good practice. Second Edition. P. J. Littlefair (2011)
• BS8206-02 Lighting for buildings - Part 2: Code of practice for daylight (2008)
• Greater London Authority London Plan (2011)
• Lighting Guide 10 (LG10): Daylight - A guide for designers (2014). CIBSE
SUSTAINABILITY
5
PASS
START
25° LINEDoes the proposed development fall beneath a 25° angle taken from the lowest window?
VSCIs the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of the window at least 27%?
No Sky LineIs the area within the No Sky Line depth at least 80% of its former value?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
IF ROOM LAYOUTS ARE KNOWN
Daylightnot required
No Sky Line
NSL After>80% <80%
rteAft rteAftL AL ASLSLNN
NSL AfterNSL Before
100%
No Sky Line
Ratio ofImpactIs the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) at least 80% of its former value? 0
20
40
60
80
100
VSC Before VSC AfterVSC After
80%
If the DSO Assessment is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment report, Ratio of Impact can be further characterised as follows:
Impact-o-meter
< 20% reductionnegligible negative impactexpected; compliant with BRE guideline criteria
< 20 - 30% reductionminor adverse impact expected
< 30 - 50% reductionmoderate adverse impactsexpected
>50% reductionsubstantial adverse impactsexpected
0
20
40
60
80
100
*Are balconies the problem?If the VSC ratio of impact is at least 80% of its former value without the balconies on the existing neighboring propety, then the presence of the balcony is the main factor contributing to the relative loss of sunlight.
Is the room a habitable room?
IF ROOM LAYOUTS ARE KNOWN
FAIL If the development fails based on the preceding criteria, there is now an option to set alternative targets if these conditions are met:
Last chance!
Existing planning permission?If planning permission has been granted for the site but for a different massing design, the local authority may allow the VSC and APSH for the permitted scheme to be used as alternative benchmarks. The values of the proposed scheme should either meet or improve on these benchmark values.
Too close for comfort? Use mirror images!Neighbouring buildings sitting too close to the site boundary can be a problem in terms of daylight and sunlight, especially if you’re building on an empty site. In cases like these, VSC and APSH targets for existing buildings can be set using a ‘mirror-image’ building of the same height and size, an equal distance away on the other side of the boundary.
SETTING ALTERNATIVE
TARGETS
EXISTING BUILDINGSAssessment Criteria - Daylight
25 degree line
2.21 In the fi rst instance, if a proposed development falls beneath a 25° angle
plane taken from the centre point of the lowest window, along the extent of the window wall, then no further analysis is required as it is unlikely to have a substantial impact on natural light availability.
Vertical Sky Component
2.22 The second method tests the quantity of daylight. This is done through the Vertical Sky Component
(VSC) percentage calculated in the centre of the window. The VSC takes into consideration any obstruction to the visible sky to calculate the possible daylight reduction.
2.23 The BRE Guide sets out the guidelines for the VSC:
• If the VSC at the centre of the existing window exceeds 27% with the new development in place, then enough sky light should still be reaching the existing window.
• If the VSC with the new development in place is both less than 27% and less than 80% its former value, then the reduction in light to the window is likely to be noticeable.
• If the VSC is less than 27% but the sky light reduction is not lower than 80% its former value, then the impact would be considered negligible.
2.24 It is important to note that VSC does not quantify the actual daylight levels inside a room, just the potential for receiving daylight. A more detailed assessment such as the Average Daylight Factor is better equipped to assess this, however for existing buildings the information for the calculation is not always available.
DAYLIGHT
6
Yes
LimitingRoomDepth
Limiting Room DepthIs the depth of the room less than the limiting room depth value?
FAIL
PASS
ADF
No
No
No
MINIMUM ADF
Kitchens
2.0%
MINIMUM ADF
Bedrooms
1.0%MINIMUM ADF
Living/DiningRooms
1.5%
Calculate VSCVSC is an essential parameter for calculating ADF. The VSC-meter on the right gives an indication of how the visible sky angle θ relates to VSC and what the values mean in terms of design.
Does the Average Daylight Factor meet the minimum criteria?
VSC-meter
θ < 25° θ = 25-45° θ = 4
5-6
5° θ
> 6
5°
θ < 25°Impossible to achieve reasonable daylightVSC < 5%
θ
θ = 25-45°very difficult to provideadequate daylightVSC 5-15%
θ = 45-65°special measures neededto provide adequate daylight(need larger windows,changes to room layout)VSC 15-27%
θ > 65°conventional window designis usually enough to provideadequate daylightVSC >27%
START
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTAverage Daylight Factor
2.25 For new developments the daylight quantity is calculated using the Average Daylight Factor (ADF). This test takes into consideration not only the VSC (Θ angle equivalent) but also the room and window dimensions, the refl ectance of internal surfaces and the visible light transmitted by the glass.
2.26 The VSC is a simplifi ed approach to assess the loss of daylight when no internal room information is known, as is usually the case for neighbouring properties. ADF provides better information as it measures the overall daylight in a space, but is usually used in new buildings where plans are known and the infl uencing factors are within designer’s control.
2.27 The ADF is the average illuminance on the working plane, divided by the illuminance on an unobstructed horizontal surface outdoors under CIE overcast sky conditions and is usually expressed as a percentage.
2.28 The calculated ADF is compared with the minimum values recommended in the BS 8206-2 from where the need for mitigation measures can be established.
2.29 The BS 8206-2 recommends an ADF of 5% or more for a predominantly daylit appearance and 2% for a for a partially lit one. An ADF below 2% will require supplementary electric lighting. For domestic buildings the BS 8206-2 recommends that the minimum ADF values are 1% in bedrooms, 1.5% in living rooms and dining rooms, and 2% in kitchens.
2.30 The CIBSE Guide LG10 defi nes the Average Daylight Factor as:
“…the measure of the amount of skylight in a room. If the room is not too deep or obstructed, an ADF >5% will ensure that an interior looks substantially daylit, except early in the morning, late in the afternoon or on exceptionally dull days. An ADF< 2% generally makes a room look dull; electric lighting is likely to be in frequent use”
No Sky Line and Limiting Room Depth
2.31 The third and fi nal method is used to evaluate the distribution of daylight using the No Sky Line (NSL)
and Room Depth Criteria. The no sky line divides areas of the working plane which can and cannot see the sky. Areas beyond the no sky line and the recommended maximum depth are usually darker as they receive no direct light.
2.32 The ADF and the Room Depth criteria are design tools that contribute to a suffi cient uniformity of illuminance between the front and the back of the room. The limiting depth criterion is based on the ratio between the ADF in the front and the rear half of the room.
2.33 The NSL analysis is undertaken at working plane height (0.85 m for dwellings and 0.7 for offi ces), its approach is similar to the VSC one in the sense that, if the area of the existing room beyond the no sky line is reduced less than 0.8 times its former value, then the reduction of light may be noticeable. In new buildings if a signifi cant area of the working plane (normally more than 20%) is beyond the no sky line, then daylight will be poorly distributed.
DAYLIGHT
SUSTAINABILITY
7
SUNLIGHT
Probable Sunlight HoursDo the windows of the main living room and/or conservatory receive at least 25% PSH throughout the year, with at least 5% PSH being received during the winter period between 21 March and 21 September?
minimum 5% of APSH
required duringwinter period (WPSH)
minimum 25% of APSH
required duringannual period (APSH)
SUNLIGHTHOURS
PSH
PASS
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Bedrooms& Kitchenssunlightless essential
Living Rooms:sunlight
essential!
Room UseIs the room a living room or a conservatory?
NEW
DEVELOPMENT
New
dev
elopm
ent is with
in 90º due SOUTH of the existing window - CHECK SUN
LIGH
T AC
CE
SS
New
development is within 90º due NORTH of the existing window - NO NEED TO C
HECK
SU
NLI
GH
T A
CC
ES
S
OrientationDoes the window face within 90° of due south?
Yes
Yes
No
START
25° LINEDoes the proposed development fall beneath a 25° angle taken from the lowest window?
If the DSO Assessment is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment report, Ratio of Impact can be further characterised as follows:
Impact-o-meter
< 20% reductionnegligible negative impactexpected; compliant with BRE guideline criteria
< 20 - 30% reductionminor adverse impact expected
< 30 - 50% reductionmoderate adverse impactsexpected
>50% reductionsubstantial adverse impactsexpected
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ratio ofImpactIs the PSH value at least 80% of its former value?
0
20
40
60
80
100
PSH Before PSH AfterPSH After
80%
*Are balconies the problem?If the PSH ratio of impact is at least 80% of its former value without the balconies on the existing neighboring propety, then the presence of the balcony is the main factor contributing to the relative loss of sunlight.
FAILIf the development fails based on the preceding criteria, there is now an option to set alternative targets if these conditions are met:
Last chance!
Existing planning permission?If planning permission has been granted for the site but for a different massing design, the local authority may allow the VSC and APSH for the permitted scheme to be used as alternative benchmarks. The values of the proposed scheme should either meet or improve on these benchmark values.
Too close for comfort? Use mirror images!Neighbouring buildings sitting too close to the site boundary can be a problem in terms of daylight and sunlight, especially if you’re building on an empty site. In cases like these, VSC and APSH targets for existing buildings can be set using a ‘mirror-image’ building of the same height and size, an equal distance away on the other side of the boundary.
SETTING ALTERNATIVE
TARGETS
Sunlight unlikely
to be affected
EXISTING BUILDINGS
Assessment Criteria - Sunlight
SUNLIGHT
8
Probable Sunlight Hours
Do the windows of the main living room and/or conservatory receive at least 25% PSH throughout the year, with at least 5% PSH being received during the winter period between 21 March and 21 September?
FAIL
No
minimum 5% of APSH
required duringwinter period (WPSH)
minimum 25% of APSH
required duringannual period (APSH)
SUNLIGHTHOURS
PSH
Yes
Yes
Yes
NEW
DEVELOPMENT
New
dev
elopm
ent is with
in 90º due SOUTH of the existing window - CHECK SUN
LIGH
T A
CC
ES
S
New
development is within 90º due NORTH of the existing window - NO NEED TO C
HECK
SU
NLI
GH
T A
CC
ES
S
OrientationDoes the window face within 90° of due south?
Bedrooms& Kitchenssunlightless essential
Living Rooms:sunlight
essential!
No
Views Out
Does the living room have access to outstanding views or amenities that compensate for lack of sunlight?
FAIL
No
START
Room UseIs the room a living room or a conservatory?
No
Testing for sunlightNOT REQUIRED
Yes
PASS
Yes
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Probable Sunlight Hours
2.34 With regards to sunlight, the criteria is based on the Probable Sunlight Hours (PSH), which considers the amount of sun available through out the year and the winter months. For surrounding buildings this analysis is performed on all windows to habitable rooms and conservatories facing within 90° of due south, while for the proposed development any orientation apply, and only main (living rooms) are considered.
2.35 Similar to daylight calculations, the fi rst analysis prior to PSH is the 25º line test. This is explained in more detail in section “25 degree line”.
2.36 The BRE Guide and the BS8206-02 recommend the PSH to be calculated for the whole year (Annual Probable Sunlight Hours, or APSH), and for the winter months (Winter Probable Sunlight Hours, or WPSH).
2.37 Interiors receiving more than 25% of APSH and at least 5% of WPSH (defi ned for these purposes between 21st September and 21st March), receive enough sunlight and the impact will therefore be negligible.
2.38 However, if the available sunlight hours are both, less than the amount described above and less than 0.8 times their former value, either over the whole year or during the winter months, then the occupants of the existing building will notice the loss of sunlight.
SUNLIGHT
SUSTAINABILITY
9
START
Open Space?Does the open space fall under one of the following categories?
LocationIs all or part of the existing open space located on the north, east and/or west of the proposed development?
Sun ContourDoes at least 50% of the area of the open space receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on the 21st of March?
FAIL
PASS
Yes
Yes
Ratio of ImpactIs the area receiving at least two hours of sunlight on the 21st of March at least 80% of its former value?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Testing forsunlight
not required
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
60%
40%
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
50%
50%
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
40%
60%
garden park playground
outdoor swimming/
paddling pools
outdoor
seating areas
public squares monuments
playing field
fountains
0
20
40
60
80
100
Before
% Open Space Area receiving at least
2 hours of sunlight on the 21st of March
After After
80%
No
Sunlight is unlikely to be affected
No
NEW
DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING OPEN SPACES
PASS
Testing forsunlight
not required
No
NoSunlight is unlikely to be affected
START
Open Space?Does the open space fall under one of the following categories?
Sun ContourDoes at least 50% of the area of the open space receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on the 21st of March?
FAIL
Yes
No
Yes
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
60%
40%
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
50%
50%
<2 hours of sunlight
>2 hours of sunlight
40%
60%
garden park playground
outdoor swimming/
paddling pools
outdoor
seating areas
public squares monuments
playing field
fountains
PROPOSED OPEN SPACES
Sunlight criteria for Open Spaces
2.39 For open spaces, the BRE Guide suggests that at least half of the area should receive two (2) hours of direct sunlight on the Equinox (21st of March) with the proposed development in place (sunlight at an altitude of 10% or less is excluded).
2.40 If the area which can receive at least 2 hours of direct sunlight on the 21st of March is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value, as a result of a new development, then loss of sunlight is signifi cant.
2.41 This would normally include gardens (usually the main back garden of a house), allotments, parks and playing fi elds, children’s playgrounds, outdoor swimming pools and paddling pools, sitting out areas between non-domestic areas and public squares, and focal points for views.
2.42 Driveways and hard standing for cars, as well as small front gardens are excluded. Normally the shadows from trees and shrubs do not need to be included unless there is a dense belt or group of evergreens planned as a windbreak or for privacy purposes.
2.43 The shadows cast by walls or opaque fences less than 1.5 metres high can be excluded from the calculation.
SUNLIGHT - OVERSHADOWING
SUNLIGHT - OVERSHADOWING
SUSTAINABILITY
11
Project Background
Brief3.1 The Sustainability team at PRP has been commissioned
by Brent Council to undertake a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment with respect to the Land North of Chippenham Gardens development, located in the London Borough of Brent.
3.2 The aim of the study is to investigate the potential impact of the proposed scheme on daylight and sunlight access to the surrounding neighbouring properties and the daylight/sunlight levels in the proposed building itself.
3.3 The methodology used in this study is based on the numerical tests set out in the 2nd edition of “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a good practice guide” by PJ Littlefair of the BRE (2011).
The Site3.4 The project is located on a land north of Chippenham
Gardens, in South Kilburn in the London Borough of Brent.
3.5 The proposal is for Land North of Chippenham Gardens development that comprises 52 dwellings situated on a site bounded by streets on all orientations. The site for the proposed development is currently occupied by 5-9 Chippenham Gardens, Kilburn Post Offi ce and 4-26 Stuart Road (even numbers only).
3.6 The site is bounded by some 3storey houses and 4-5 storey fl ats on the North. On the East and West orientations, the site is surrounded by 3 storey terrace houses with commercial spaces at street level. On its southern orientation, the site is surrounded by a 9 storey residential tower.
3.7 The following properties have been identifi ed as potentially being aff ected by the proposed development in terms of daylight and sunlight, due to their proximity to the site:
• Property 1: 21-35 Malvern Road;
• Property 2: 2-8 Malvern Road;
• Property 3: John Ratcliff e House;
• Property 4: 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only);
• Property 5: Argo House; and
• Property 6: 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only).
3.8 We will look at these properties in more detail as part of our assessment. Any other properties are unlikely to be aff ected by the proposed development.
Figure 3.1 Project site and the surrounding properties.
The proposal is for Land North of Chippenham Gardens development that comprises 52 dwellings located on a site that forms part of the wider South Kilburn regeneration programme. Redevelopment will involve the demolition of 5-9 Chippenham Gardens, Kilburn Post Offi ce and 4-26 Stuart Road (even numbers only).
Property 4
Property 2Property 3
Proposed building
Chippenham Gardens
Property 5
Property
1
Property 6
Stuart Rd
Kilb
urn
Park
Roa
d
Mal
vern
Roa
d
12
Extent of the Study Area3.9 The study area modelled for this analysis includes the
site and all the immediate surrounding buildings.
3.10 All windows facing the proposed development that were likely to be habitable rooms were considered to be sensitive receptors and therefore have been included in the study (Figure 3.1).
3.11 Facades that did not have windows to habitable rooms, or had windows that did not face the site are not included in the study.
3.12 All other surrounding buildings were excluded from the analysis based on our experience of similar work, as they are far enough from the development to avoid signifi cant negative impacts.
Modelling Assumptions3.13 Access to nearby properties has not been sought or
obtained, however we have made reasonable assumptions as to the geometry of these buildings based on OS map data and aerial photographs for nearby properties. This is normal practice where access to nearby properties is limited.
3.14 Site photographs from Google Street View imagery have been used to establish indicative windows sizes and positions.
3.15 Trees and fences lower than 1.5m have been excluded from the model as per the BRE Guide paragraph 3.3.9 and 3.3.10:
‘trees may be ignored unless they form dense continuous belts...Normally, 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’.
3.16 Site drawings and OS map data have been provided by PRP Architects LLP.
Analysis and Calculations3.17 The calculations have been undertaken using the
computer program Ecotect Analysis 2011, in which a three dimensional model based on the architectural drawings and the 3D model provided was created.
Preliminary 25-degree line analysis3.18 The identifi ed sensitive receptors were initially
analysed using 25-degree line analysis, which identifi es the façades that are obstructed by the proposed development.
3.19 The results of the analysis showed that the following receptors will not encounter any obstruction from the proposed design and therefore will retain adequate levels of daylight and sunlight even after the proposed development has been put in place, and do not require further analysis:
• Property 1: 21-35 Malvern Road;
• Property 2: 2-8 Malvern Road;
3.20 The following properties encountered obstructions from the proposed development and will be tested further in accordance with BRE guidelines:
• Property 3: John Ratcliff e House;
• Property 4: 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only);
• Property 5: Argo House; and
• Property 6: 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only).
SUSTAINABILITY
13
Daylight Results Surrounding properties
Property 34.1 Property 3 - John Ratcliff e House, has 2 windows
identifi ed as potentially obstructed by the proposed development (windows FF1 and FF2). They were analysed using Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and Ratio of Impact tests.
4.2 Table 4.1 details results of the analysis. All of the windows analysed in this property will retain good levels of daylight after proposed development is in place.
The results of the analysis show that the surrounding properties experience negligible or minor adverse impacts on daylight access, as a result of the proposed development.
Table 4.1. VSC and ratio of impact results for Property 3.Ratio of
ImpactCompliance Effect
Before After Difference
% % %
FF1 37.8% 29.8% 0.79 PASS Negligible
FF2 37.8% 29.6% 0.78 PASS Negligible
Property 3, John Ratcliffe House
Window
Reference
Vertical Sky
Component
Pass / FailNegligible / Minor /
Moderate / Substantial
Table 4.2. VSC and ratio of impact results for Property 4.Ratio of
ImpactCompliance Effect
Before After Difference
% % %
GF1 31.8% 27.3% 0.86 PASS Negligible
FF1 33.6% 29.9% 0.89 PASS Negligible
SF1 35.5% 32.5% 0.92 PASS Negligible
GF3 26.9% 22.6% 0.84 PASS Negligible
FF3 28.3% 24.9% 0.88 PASS Negligible
SF3 30.8% 28.1% 0.91 PASS Negligible
GF5 31.4% 24.4% 0.78 FAIL Minor
FF5 33.3% 27.5% 0.83 PASS Negligible
SF5 35.1% 30.5% 0.87 PASS Negligible
GF7 30.5% 23.0% 0.76 FAIL Minor
FF7 32.7% 26.2% 0.80 PASS Negligible
SF7 34.6% 29.6% 0.85 PASS Negligible
Property 4, Nos 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only)
No.3 Stuart Road
No.5 Stuart Road
No.7 Stuart Road
Vertical Sky
Component
Pass / FailNegligible / Minor /
Moderate / Substantial
No. 1 Stuart Road
Window
Reference
Property 44.3 Property 4 - 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only),
has 12 windows identifi ed as potentially obstructed by the proposed development. These windows are located on the ground, fi rst and second fl oors of house numbers 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only). Daylight levels at these windows was analysed using Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and Ratio of Impact tests.
4.4 Out of the 12 windows analysed, 10 windows will retain adequate levels of daylight after the proposed building is in place. The results are detailed in Table 4.2.
4.5 Only two windows have VSCs’ and ratio of impact below BRE criteria. These two windows are located on the ground fl oor of house No.5 & No.7 Stuart Road. Both windows GF5 and GF7 experience minor adverse impact. As no access was gained to these houses no further analysis was undertaken and the impact is based on the ratio of the VSC results. The number of these windows is referenced in Figure A.1 in Appendix A.
14
Property 54.6 There are 8 windows in Property 5 - Argo House that
face the proposed development. They were tested for VSC levels in existing and proposed conditions. Table 4.3 details results of the analysis.
4.7 Out of the 8 windows analysed, 5 windows will retain adequate levels of daylight after proposed building is in place.
4.8 Windows FF1 to FF3 experience minor adverse impact. These windows are located on the fi rst fl oor of this property. As this property is under construction the drawings submitted as part of the planning application were checked, this in order to understand the use of these windows. From the fi rst fl oor plan is clearly marked that these windows are specifi ed to be obscured glass, due to overlooking issues. All these three windows are secondary windows to a room that is served by a main window with a diff erent orientation and not facing the proposed development. As these windows are secondary windows we consider that the rooms served by these windows will maintain adequate levels of daylight, even with the proposed development in place. The number of these windows is referenced in Figure A.2 in Appendix A.
4.9 All the rooms served by the windows analysed in this property will retain good levels of daylight after proposed development is in place.
Table 4.3. VSC and ratio of impact results for Property 5.Ratio of
ImpactCompliance Effect
Before After Difference
% % %
F1 32.5% 23.5% 0.72 FAIL
F2 33.1% 23.6% 0.71 FAIL
F3 33.6% 26.6% 0.79 FAIL Minor
F1 36.1% 28.2% 0.78
F2 36.4% 28.5% 0.78
F3 36.6% 31.0% 0.85 PASS Negligible
F1 38.1% 33.3% 0.87 PASS Negligible
F2 38.1% 34.9% 0.92 PASS Negligible
Property 5, Argo House
Window
Reference
Vertical Sky
Component
Pass / FailNegligible / Minor /
Moderate / Substantial
Minor
Minor
PASS
PASS
Negligible
Negligible
Property 64.10 There are 64 windows serving 32 rooms in the houses
named as Property 6 - 209-223 Kilburn Park Road
(odd numbers only) that are facing the proposed development. They were tested for VSC levels in existing and proposed conditions. Table 4.4 details the results of the analysis.
4.11 Out of the 32 rooms analysed, 31 rooms (61 windows)will retain adequate levels of daylight after proposed building is in place.
4.12 The ground fl oor room in 219 Kilburn Park Road, which is served by windows GF1 to GF3 experience minor adverse impact. This represent a small percentage (only 3% of the rooms analysed), which is consider acceptable, due to the minor impact caused.
4.13 The vast majority of the rooms served by the windows analysed in this property will retain good levels of daylight after proposed development is in place.
Summary of Results4.14 The results of the assessment show that a majority of
the windows analysed in the surrounding properties will experience negligible impacts on their daylight access as a result of the proposed development.
4.15 A total of 2 nos.windows in Property 4, 3nos.windows in Property 5 and 3 nos.windows in Property 6 will receive minor adverse impacts, as a result of the proposed development. The aff ected windows are identifi ed and illustrated in the images provided in Appendix A.
SUSTAINABILITY
15
Table 4.4. VSC and ratio of impact results for Property 6.
Ratio of
ImpactCompliance Effect
Before After Difference
% % %
GF1 28.2% 27.0% 0.96 PASS Negligible
GF2 30.6% 27.3% 0.89 PASS Negligible
GF3 27.7% 23.5% 0.85 PASS Negligible
FF1 30.3% 29.2% 0.96 PASS Negligible
FF2 32.6% 29.6% 0.91 PASS Negligible
FF3 29.8% 26.1% 0.88 PASS Negligible
SF1 34.6% 32.3% 0.93 PASS Negligible
SF2 34.8% 32.3% 0.93 PASS Negligible
GF1 27.4% 25.6% 0.93 PASS Negligible
GF2 31.0% 26.9% 0.87 PASS Negligible
GF3 28.4% 23.4% 0.83 PASS Negligible
FF1 30.0% 28.4% 0.95 PASS Negligible
FF2 32.9% 29.3% 0.89 PASS Negligible
FF3 30.1% 25.7% 0.85 PASS Negligible
SF1 34.9% 31.9% 0.91 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.0% 31.7% 0.91 PASS Negligible
GF1 28.8% 25.8% 0.90 PASS Negligible
GF2 31.4% 25.6% 0.82 PASS Negligible
GF3 27.8% 21.6% 0.78 FAIL Minor
FF1 30.9% 28.2% 0.91 PASS Negligible
FF2 33.2% 28.0% 0.84 PASS Negligible
FF3 29.7% 24.2% 0.81 PASS Negligible
SF1 35.1% 31.0% 0.88 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.2% 30.7% 0.87 PASS Negligible
GF1 28.4% 24.1% 0.85 PASS Negligible
GF2 31.6% 24.5% 0.78 FAIL Minor
GF3 28.3% 21.4% 0.76 FAIL Minor
FF1 30.6% 26.8% 0.88 PASS Negligible
FF2 33.4% 27.0% 0.81 PASS Negligible
FF3 30.0% 23.8% 0.80 FAIL Minor
SF1 35.2% 29.9% 0.85 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.3% 29.6% 0.84 PASS Negligible
GF1 29.5% 23.5% 0.80 PASS Negligible
GF2 31.7% 23.5% 0.74 FAIL Minor
GF3 27.5% 20.5% 0.75 FAIL Minor
FF1 31.5% 26.0% 0.83 PASS Negligible
FF2 33.4% 26.0% 0.78 FAIL Minor
FF3 29.4% 23.0% 0.78 FAIL Minor
SF1 35.3% 29.0% 0.82 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.2% 28.8% 0.82 PASS Negligible
Property 6, Nos 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only)
Nos 209 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 211 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 213 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 215 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 217 Kilburn Park Road
Vertical Sky
ComponentWindow
ReferenceNegligible / Minor /
Moderate / SubstantialPass / Fail
GF1 29.0% 22.2% 0.77 FAIL Minor
GF2 31.7% 23.3% 0.74 FAIL Minor
GF3 28.0% 21.7% 0.78 FAIL Minor
FF1 31.2% 25.0% 0.80 PASS Negligible
FF2 33.4% 25.7% 0.77 FAIL Minor
FF3 29.7% 23.8% 0.80 PASS Negligible
SF1 35.2% 28.6% 0.81 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.2% 28.7% 0.81 PASS Negligible
GF1 30.2% 23.2% 0.77 FAIL Minor
GF2 31.7% 24.2% 0.76 FAIL Minor
GF3 27.1% 22.1% 0.82 PASS Negligible
FF1 31.9% 25.5% 0.80 PASS Negligible
FF2 33.3% 26.3% 0.79 FAIL Minor
FF3 29.1% 24.5% 0.84 PASS Negligible
SF1 35.1% 28.9% 0.83 PASS Negligible
SF2 35.0% 29.0% 0.83 PASS Negligible
GF1 29.5% 22.5% 0.76 FAIL Minor
GF2 31.5% 24.4% 0.77 FAIL Minor
GF3 27.6% 23.3% 0.84 PASS Negligible
FF1 31.6% 25.0% 0.79 FAIL Minor
FF2 33.1% 26.5% 0.80 PASS Negligible
FF3 29.2% 25.2% 0.86 PASS Negligible
SF1 34.8% 29.0% 0.83 PASS Negligible
SF2 34.6% 29.0% 0.84 PASS Negligible
Nos 219 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 221 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 223 Kilburn Park Road
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
FAIL
PASSPASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
PASS
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Minor
NegligibleNegligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
16
Daylight ResultsProposed development
Analysis assumptions4.16 Where a room is served by more than one window,
Average Daylight Factor (ADF) calculations are made in relation to each window and the individual results added together to provide the true ADF for that room.
4.17 With regard to the ADF calculations for the proposed accommodation, the following assumptions have been made with regard to the various elements that together are computed to produce the ADF value;
• Glazing transmittance - 0.68 for the double glazing (BRE default reading);
• Interior surface refl ectance: Walls - 0.6, Ceiling - 0.8 and Floor - 0.4;
• Refl ectance beneath reference working plane (0.85m) - 0.4 (refl ectance of the fl oor)
Average Daylight Factor (ADF) results4.18 The proposed development comprises 16 diff erent
unit types. A sample set of units which represent the worst case scenario across each unit type were chosen on the ground, fi rst and third fl oors and tested for their daylight availability.
4.19 ADF results are summarised in Table 4.5. Detailed tables for the ADF analysis are located in Appendix B. of this report.
4.20 The results show that rooms failing the ADF analysis are mainly kitchens. Based on our experience of similar work this is due to the window to fl oor ratio rather than low Vertical Sky Components (VSC) values. Therefore, the rooms that are failing in the worst case scenario will continue failing on the top fl oors as well.
4.21 According to the results of the analysis of worst case scenario of each type, we conclude that there are 26% of the rooms (44 out of total 169 rooms), that will have ADF values below the minimum BRE threshold. The rest 74% of the rooms will fully comply with BRE requirements.
4.22 As the majority of the rooms will achieve good levels of daylight this is considered acceptable due to the increased density and urban context of the site.
The results of the analysis show that the majority of the rooms analysed in the proposed development will experience good levels of daylight, in excess to the BRE requirements.
Table 4.5. ADF results summary for the proposed development.
GF FF 2F 3F 4F 5F
24 33 33 33 30 16
Pass 15 25 25 25 23 12
Fail 9 8 8 8 7 4
Total number of rooms
FLOOR
Compliance
ADF analysis results
SUSTAINABILITY
17
Sunlight ResultsSurrounding properties
Property 45.1 Property 4, 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only),
has 12 south-facing windows that face the proposed development. There windows were analysed for Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH and WPSH) and results are detailed in Tables 5.1. All the windows analysed in the surrounding Property 4 receive good levels of sunlight with the proposed development in place.
The results of the analysis show that most of the surrounding properties assessed experience negligible impacts on sunlight access, as a result of the proposed development.
Table 5.1. PSH results for the Property 4.
APSH
Before
APSH
After
APSH
Difference
WPSH
Before
WPSH
After
WPSH
DifferenceCompliance
% % % % % % Pass / Fail
GF1 76.9% 66.8% 86.9% 30.9% 21.2% 68.4% PASS
FF1 81.3% 72.6% 89.3% 34.5% 25.9% 75.0% PASS
SF1 89.7% 81.7% 91.1% 38.2% 30.2% 79.1% PASS
GF3 63.4% 54.8% 86.3% 26.9% 18.3% 68.0% PASS
FF3 66.3% 58.9% 88.9% 29.8% 22.4% 75.2% PASS
SF3 73.3% 66.6% 90.8% 32.6% 25.8% 79.2% PASS
GF5 81.6% 68.8% 84.4% 28.6% 16.7% 58.3% PASS
FF5 87.2% 75.1% 86.2% 33.4% 21.6% 64.6% PASS
SF5 92.3% 80.8% 87.6% 38.3% 26.9% 70.1% PASS
GF7 79.4% 65.5% 82.6% 26.8% 14.0% 52.1% PASS
FF7 85.6% 72.4% 84.6% 32.1% 18.9% 59.0% PASS
SF7 91.4% 78.8% 86.2% 37.4% 24.8% 66.4% PASS
Window
Reference
Property 4, Nos 1-7 Stuart Road (odd numbers only)
No. 1 Stuart Road
No.3 Stuart Road
No.5 Stuart Road
No.7 Stuart Road
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible /
Minor /
Moderate /
Substantial
18
Property 55.2 Property 5, Argo House has 8 south-facing windows
facing the proposed development. Windows to this property were analysed for Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH and WPSH) and results are detailed in Tables 5.2. Most of the windows analysed in Property 5 receive good levels of sunlight after the proposed development is in place.
5.3 Only 1 window located on the ground fl oor is impacted by the proposed development. However, the loss of sunlight to this property can be considered minor as the values are less than 1% outside the requirements.
Table 5.2. PSH results for the Property 5.
APSH
Before
APSH
After
APSH
Difference
WPSH
Before
WPSH
After
WPSH
DifferenceCompliance
% % % % % % Pass / Fail
GF1 82.7% 65.8% 79.6% 30.9% 15.8% 51.2% FAIL
GF2 83.3% 66.8% 80.2% 31.5% 17.4% 55.1% PASS
GF3 83.6% 71.4% 85.4% 31.9% 23.7% 74.3% PASS
FF1 90.9% 75.4% 82.9% 38.6% 23.2% 60.2% PASS
FF2 90.7% 76.3% 84.0% 38.4% 24.2% 63.0% PASS
FF3 90.1% 80.2% 89.0% 37.7% 29.1% 77.2% PASS
SF1 94.7% 85.8% 90.6% 42.4% 33.5% 79.1% PASS
SF2 93.7% 87.3% 93.1% 41.3% 35.0% 84.8% PASS
Property 5, Argo House
Window
Reference
Minor
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible /
Minor /
Moderate /
Substantial
Property 6
5.4 Property 6, 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd
numbers only) has 16 south-east facing windows, distributed on the ground and fi rst fl oors of 8 terrace houses, facing the proposed development. Windows to these properties were analysed for Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH and WPSH) and results are detailed in Table 5.3.
5.5 All windows located both on the ground and fi rst fl oors of the 3 properties (219-223 Kilburn Park Road) receive adequate levels of sunlight with the proposed development in place.
SUSTAINABILITY
19
Table 5.3. PSH results for Property 6
APSH
Before
APSH
After
APSH
Difference
WPSH
Before
WPSH
After
WPSH
DifferenceCompliance
% % % % % % Pass / Fail
GF3 33.2% 30.1% 72.4% 7.3% 6.8% 92.0% FAIL
FF3 38.4% 23.4% 78.3% 8.8% 5.5% 62.8% FAIL
GF3 33.8% 24.4% 72.4% 8.1% 6.5% 79.4% FAIL
FF3 37.4% 29.3% 78.3% 9.6% 7.8% 81.4% PASS
GF3 30.4% 21.2% 69.8% 6.9% 6.1% 87.7% FAIL
FF3 34.5% 24.9% 72.1% 8.3% 7.4% 88.4% FAIL
GF3 32.6% 23.7% 72.8% 7.4% 7.0% 94.4% FAIL
FF3 35.8% 26.4% 73.7% 9.0% 8.5% 94.8% PASS
GF3 31.4% 22.7% 72.4% 6.2% 6.2% 100.0% FAIL
FF3 34.8% 25.8% 74.1% 7.6% 7.6% 100.4% PASS
GF3 33.2% 26.8% 80.6% 7.0% 7.0% 100.0% PASS
FF3 35.6% 28.7% 80.5% 8.4% 8.4% 100.3% PASS
GF3 32.2% 28.0% 87.0% 6.7% 6.7% 100.0% PASS
FF3 37.2% 33.0% 88.9% 8.0% 8.0% 100.0% PASS
GF3 35.6% 33.5% 94.1% 8.8% 8.8% 100.0% PASS
FF3 38.7% 36.4% 94.1% 9.7% 9.7% 100.0% PASS
Window
Reference
Nos 209 Kilburn Park Road
Property 6, Nos 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only)
Nos 211 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 213 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 215 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 217 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 219 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 221 Kilburn Park Road
Nos 223 Kilburn Park Road
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
Minor
Minor
Minor
Negligible
Minor
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible /
Minor /
Moderate /
Substantial
Table 5.4. PSH results for the surrounding properties
Number of
windows PASS
Negligible
impactMinor Impact
Moderate
impact
Property 4 12 12 0 -
Property 5 8 7 1 -
Property 6 16 9 6 1
Property name
Total number
of windows
analysed
Number of windows FAIL
5.6 Most of the windows located on the ground fl oors of 4 properties nos. 211- 217 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only) receive minor impacts on their ground fl oor windows from the proposed development in place. However, the loss of sunlight to this property can be considered minor as all rooms served by these windows have 1-2 other additional windows that are orientated away from the proposed development. Therefore, the rooms should continue to receive adequate levels of sunlight.
5.7 Similarly, the loss of sunlight to the ground and fi rst fl oor windows of property no. 209 Kilburn Park Road will not be adverse, as these rooms are served by additional windows that are orientated away from the proposed development.
Summary of Results5.8 The results of our analysis show that a majority of
the windows that face the proposed development analysed achieve good levels of sunlight access as a result of the proposed development, during the whole year and winter months.
5.9 Some of the windows located on the properties 209-223 Kilburn Park Road (odd numbers only) , receive minor -moderate impacts. However, all rooms served by these windows have 1-2 other additional windows that are orientated away from the proposed development. Therefore, the rooms should continue to receive adequate levels of sunlight.
20
Sunlight Results Proposed development
Sunlight analysis5.10 By reference to paragraph 3.1.7 of the BRE guide, the
guidance seeks to ensure that the majority of main (living) rooms should face due south for maximum sunlight access.
5.11 All the south, east, west facing windows within the proposed development were tested to meet the BRE criteria for sunlight, while north facing windows are not considered to meet the criteria. A summary of the sunlight performance of the proposed development (annual probable sunlight hours results)is shown in Table 5.5. Detailed tabulated results can be found in Appendix B of this report.
Majority of the units have the sunlight availability to the proposed accommodation in accordance with BRE’s criteria for sunlight.
Summary of Results5.12 The proposed development has 52 main living rooms,
most of the rooms have windows facing due south. They were all analysed in terms of Probable Sunlight Hours.
5.13 A majority of the living rooms tested (90.3%) fully comply with the minimum BRE threshold for annual and winter probable sunlight hours. A small proportion (9.6%) of the living rooms (5 rooms) do not meet the BRE requirements for the Probable Sunlight Hours.
5.14 Limited levels of sunlight is mainly recorded in the living rooms that are located along the courtyard elevations.
5.15 Sunlight availability to the most of the rooms of the proposed development is in accordance with BRE’s criterion for sunlight.
Table 5.5. PSH results for the Proposed development.
GF FF 2F 3F 4F 5F
7 11 11 10 8 5
Pass 6 9 9 10 8 5
Fail 1 2 2 0 0 0
FLOOR
Total number of main
Compliance
PSH analysis results
SUSTAINABILITY
21
Overshadowing Results
Open Spaces6.1 Some of the neighbouring properties identifi ed in the
report earlier House Nos.1-9 Stuart Road (odd numbers only) and Argo House have gardens and open spaces that are located within 90 degree due north of the proposed development, and will have to be analysed to assess any potential risks of overshadowing from the proposed development.
6.2 The assessment is also carried out on the public highway (open space) which exists adjacent to the proposed development. Open spaces to the south of the development and those too far away to be impacted have not been analysed.
The results of the analysis show that most of the open spaces and gardens associated with the neighbouring properties analysed will receive good levels sunlight. Only one garden of the eight tested spaces receives a minor impact from the proposed development.
6.3 Low fences (<1.5m), trees and small front gardens have not been included in the study as per the BRE methodology. However, any fences that are higher than 1.5m are included within the assessment.
6.4 An overshadowing analysis was carried out on 7 open spaces. These are identifi ed in Figure 6.1 and described below:
• Open Space 1SH: Rear garden of No. 1 Stuart Road
• Open Space 3SH: Rear garden of No.3 Stuart Road
• Open Space 5SH: Rear garden of No.5 Stuart Road
• Open Space 7SH: Rear garden of No.7 Stuart Road
• Open Space 9SH: Rear garden of No.9 Stuart Road
• Open Space 1AH: Open Space of Argo House
• Public Highway (open space): Existing open space adjacent to the development
Figure 6.1. Overshadowing map every 60 minutes (grey areas represent areas in shadow)
Public Highway
(open space)
1SR3SR 5SR
7SR
9SR
1AH
Stuart Road
Stuart Road
Argo House
Proposed
Courtyard
22
House
No. 1
(Existing)
House
No. 1
(Proposed)
House No.
3
(Existing)
House
No. 3
(Proposed)
House
No.5
(Existing)
House
No. 5
(Proposed)
House
No.7
(Existing)
House
No. 7
(Proposed)
House
No.9
(Existing)
House
No. 9
(Proposed)
<2 67.7% 67.7% 73.2% 89.2% 97.5% 99.9% 63.7% 80.6% 55.6% 55.6%
>2 32.3% 32.3% 26.8% 10.8% 2.5% 0.1% 36.3% 19.4% 44.4% 44.4%
Difference
Compliance
Hours
House Nos. 1-9 Stuart Road (odd numbers only)
PASS PASS PASS FAIL (Marginal) PASS
100% 82.1% 98% 79.1% 100%
Sunlight criteria for Open Spaces6.5 Figure 6.1 illustrates the overshadowing cast on the
open spaces in time steps of one hour during the Equinox. In this map, areas with good solar access are displayed in lighter colours while overshadowed areas are shown in darker tones.
6.6 The BRE Guide suggests that all open spaces should have minimum 2 hours of sun on at least 50% of the site on the 21st of March (Equinox), to be considered adequately sunlight throughout the year.
6.7 The results of the analysis show that most of the open spaces and gardens associated with the neighbouring properties comply with the BRE Guidelines for solar access (Tables 6.1-6.3).
6.8 Table 6.1 shows the results of the open spaces associated with House Nos.1-9 located along Stuart Road (odd numbers only).
6.9 Most of these spaces are overshadowed in both the existing and proposed conditions, mainly due to the presence of a high fence along the boundary of the gardens. The reduction in sunlight levels within most of these gardens and open spaces due to the proposed development, are within the limits set by the BRE. One open space which is associated with the garden of House No. 7 along Stuart Road has a marginal impact from the proposed development.
6.10 However, the loss of sunlight to this garden can be considered minor as the values are less than 1% outside the requirements.
6.11 Table 6.2 shows the results of the open spaces associated with Argo House. Table 6.3 shows the results of the open spaces associated with the public highway (open space) located adjacent to the proposed development. Both these spaces receive adequate levels of sunlight with the proposed development in place.
HoursArgo House
(Existing)
Argo House
(Proposed)
<2 0.0% 38.3%
>2 100.0% 61.7%
Compliance PASS
HoursAdjacent public
highway (Existing)
Adjacent public
highway (proposed)
<2 3.1% 0.0%
>2 96.9% 100.0%
Compliance PASS
Table 6.1. Overshadowing results for surrounding amenities
Table 6.2. Overshadowing results for Argo House amenity
Table 6.3. Overshadowing results for adjacent public highway (open space)
SUSTAINABILITY
23
Conclusion7.1 The aim of the study is to investigate the potential
impact of the proposed scheme on daylight and sunlight access compared to what is currently being experienced by the surrounding adjacent properties.
7.2 The methodology used in this study is based on the guidance provided in the 2nd edition of Building Research Establishment (BRE) entitled: “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a good practice guide” by PJ Littlefair (2011).
7.3 The results of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment concludes that the proposed development will have a negligible- minor adverse impact on the surrounding properties and their associated amenity areas.
7.4 A majority of dwellings within the proposed development will receive adequate levels of daylight and sunlight in line with the recommendations provided by the BRE Guide.
SUSTAINABILITY
25
Appendix A - Window numbering Windows analysed in Surrounding Properties
Figure A.1. Property 4, 1-7 Stuart Road, Elevation facing the
application site
Figure A.3. Property 6, 209 -215 Killburn Park Road,
Elevation facing the application site
Figure A.2. Property 5, Argo House, Elevation facing the
application site
Figure A.4. Property 6, 217 - 223, Killburn Park Road,
Elevation facing the application site
FF1FF1FF2FF2
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
SF1SF1 SF1SF1 SF1SF1SF1SF1 SF1SF1 SF1SF1 SF1SF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF1GF1
FF1FF1
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
SF2SF2 SF2SF2 SF2SF2 SF2SF2SF2SF2 SF2SF2 SF2SF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF2GF2
FF2FF2
GF3GF3
FF3FF3
GF3GF3
FF3FF3
GF3GF3
FF3FF3
GF3GF3
FF3FF3
GF3GF3
FF3FF3
GF3GF3
FF3FF3FF3FF3
FF1FF1 FF2FF2FF3FF3
2F12F1 2F22F22F32F3
3F13F13F23F2
Figure A.5. Property 3, John Ratcliff e House, Elevation facing
the application site
GF1GF1 GF3GF3GF5GF5 GF7GF7
FF1FF1 FF3FF3FF5FF5 FF7FF7
SF1SF1 SF3SF3SF5SF5 SF7SF7
1 35 7
SF1SF1
GF3GF3
209 211 213 215 217 219 221 223
26
Windows and rooms analysed in Proposed building
Figure A.3. Proposed Ground fl oor plan
DR
BI
BUSSHELTER
Shared Entrance
Entrance
Individual Entrance
In
Individual Entrance
Individual Entrance Individual EntranceIndividual Entrance
Shared Entrance (Private)
Shared Entrance (Affordable)
98.72 m²Plot 0.1
Unit Type 13B6P
67.74 m²Plot 0.2
Unit Type 21B2P WCA
53.31 m²Ancillary
PlantHeat & Power
69.42 m²Plot 0.3
Unit Type 31B2P WCA
56.62 m²Plot 0.4
Unit Type 41B2P
61.36 m²Plot 0.5
Unit Type 51B2P WCA
111.06 m²Plot 0.6
Unit Type 63B5P WCA
111.06 m²Plot 0.7
Unit Type 63B5P WCA
22.39 m²Ancillary
StorageBikes
27.49 m²Ancillary
StorageBikes
25.29 m²Ancillary
StorageRefuse
15.31 m²Ancillary
StorageRefuse
rance (Private)
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3 Type 4
Type 5
Type 6Type 6a
12
11
09
18
10
1614 15 19 17
20
21
28
27
22
23
2425
2633
3031
32
29
34
35
01
07
08
020304
05
06
13
Figure A.6. Proposed Ground fl oor plan
SUSTAINABILITY
27
Figure A.3. Proposed Ground fl oor planDR
DR
BI
BUSSHELTER
98.72 m²Plot 1.1
Unit Type 73B6P
18.18 m²Plot 1.1
BalconyAmenity
54.65 m²Plot 1.2
Unit Type 81B2P
11.13 m²Plot 1.2
BalconyAmenity
29.29 m²Plot 1.3
BalconyAmenity
59.04 m²Plot 1.3
Unit Type 91B2P
73.03 m²Plot 1.4
Unit Type 102B4P
13.21 m²Plot 1.4
BalconyAmenity
83.61 m²Plot 1.5
Unit Type 112B4P
6.63 m²Plot 1.5
BalconyAmenity
33.02 m²Plot 1.6
BalconyAmenity
80.42 m²Plot 1.6
Unit Type 122B4P
77.96 m²Plot 1.7
Unit Type 132B4P
12.12 m²Plot 1.7
BalconyAmenity
50.30 m²Plot 1.8
Unit Type 14a1B2P
10.51 m²Plot 1.8
BalconyAmenity
51.34 m²Plot 1.9
Unit Type 15a1B2P
11.12 m²Plot 1.9
BalconyAmenity
22.48 m²Plot 1.1
BalconyAmenity
11.93 m²Plot 1.5
BalconyAmenity
50.30 m²Plot 1.11
Unit Type 14a1B2P
11.15 m²Plot 1.11
BalconyAmenity
51.34 m²Plot 1.10
Unit Type 15a1B2P
9.08 m²Plot 1.10
BalconyAmenity
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
Type 10
Type 14a
Type 14
Type 11
Type 12
Type 13
Type 15
Type 15a
16
15
13 17
28
14
19 20
21 22
18
23 29
25
24
2730 26
31
32
33
34
35
42
38
3940
4143
4445
46
47
37
36
01
02
09
08
030405
06
07
11
12
10
DR
.03 m²ot 3.4
Type 102B4P
80.42 m²Plot 3.6
Unit Type 122B4P
77.96 m²Plot 3.7
Unit Type 132B4P
50.30 m²Plot 3.8
Unit Type 14a1B2P
51.34 m²Plot 3.9
Unit Type 15a1B2P
103.74 m²Plot 3.10
Unit Type 163B6P
83.61 m²Plot 3.5
Unit Type 112B4P
Type 16
0702
03
04
01
05
06
Figure A.7. Proposed First fl oor plan
Figure A.7. Proposed Third fl oor plan
SUSTAINABILITY
29
Appendix B - Tabulated results Tabulated results of daylight and sunlight calculations for the worst case scenario proposed development.
Unit
Height (m)Depth
(m)Width (m) # Type
Height
(m)Width (m) Head 9m) Proposal Compliance APSH WPSH
Complianc
e
01 5 0.40 0.84 1.42 6.37
02 3 0.40 1.74 1.42 30.00
03 5 0.40 0.84 1.42 30.00
04 5 0.40 0.84 1.42 29.00
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 15.00
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 15.00
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 20.90
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 20.90
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 6.84
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 6.84
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 6.81
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 6.81
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.00
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.00
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 14.50
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 14.50
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 19.67
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 19.67
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.58
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.58
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.60
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.60
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 15.83
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 15.83
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 15.44
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 15.44
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 34.00
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 34.00
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.15
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.15
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 17.13
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 17.13
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 11.00
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 11.30
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.03
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.03
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 14.97
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 14.97
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 14.44
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 14.44
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 20.16
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 20.16
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 18.74
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 18.74
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 17.74
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 17.74
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 14.26
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 14.26
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.84
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.84
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 15.38
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 15.38
Type
GROUND FLOOR
25
26
27
28
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Room PSH
Name Type
Surface AreaCharacteristi
csDimensions
Room ADF Room Window
VSC
Proposal
(%)
0.59 FailGFK01 K 2.50 3.60 4.50
1.74 PassGFL02 L 2.50 3.60 4.80 37% 12% Pass
GFB03 B 2.50 3.65 3.30 2.07 Pass
GFB04 B 2.50 3.60 3.35 1.18 Pass
GFB05 B 2.50 3.60 3.35 0.57 Fail
GFK06 K 2.50 5.87 2.30 1.52 Fail
GFL07 L 2.50 5.00 3.31 4.20 Pass 56% 16% Pass
GFB08 B 2.50 3.20 4.30 1.74 Pass
GFK09 K 2.50 8.20 3.58 1.28 Fail 62% 24% Pass
GFB10 B 3.26 4.35 4.10 Pass
GFK11 K 2.50 6.04 5.34
2.50
59% 19% Pass2.30 Pass
GFB12 B 2.50 4.74 2.75 1.33 Pass
GFK13 K 2.50 7.51 3.39 1.05 Fail 47% 18% Pass
GFB14 B 2.50 4.92 2.99 0.69 Fail
GFK15 K 2.50 4.62 3.40 1.52 Fail
GFL16 L 2.50 4.36 3.61 4.11 Pass 43% 16% Pass
GFB17 B 2.50 3.55 2.40 0.99 Pass
GFB18 B 2.50 4.82 3.02 1.56 Pass
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
GFB19 B 2.50 4.84 3.03 0.71 Fail
Table A1. ADF and PSH results for the Ground fl oor of the proposed development.
30
Unit
Height (m)Depth
(m)Width (m) # Type
Height
(m)Width (m) Head 9m) Proposal Compliance APSH WPSH
Complianc
e
24 9 7 1
15 6
01 5 0.40 0.84 1.42 8.70
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 8.00
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 8.00
03 3 0.40 1.74 1.42 34.00
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 34.50
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 34.50
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 34.70
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 34.70
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 18.78
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 18.78
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 22.70
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 22.70
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.50
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.50
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 8.00
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 8.00
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 20.72
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 20.72
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 16.80
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 16.80
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.95
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.95
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.17
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.17
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.23
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.23
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 18.11
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 18.11
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 14.81
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 14.81
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 12.60
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 12.60
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 10.23
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 10.23
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 13.53
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 13.53
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 6.41
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 6.41
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.61
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.61
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.31
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.31
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 13.37
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 13.37
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 10.93
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 10.93
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 13.11
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 13.11
Type
FIRST FLOOR
21
22
23
24
25
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
FFB42 B 2.50 3.56 3.40 1.56 Pass
1.40 PassFFB41 B 2.50 3.28 3.78
55% 23% Pass
Type 10
Type 11
FFK40 K 2.50 7.60 4.48 1.13 Fail
FFB39 B 2.50 3.11 3.89 1.96 Pass
25% 9% Pass
FFB38 B 2.50 2.75 4.33 1.97 Pass
FFL37 L 2.50 3.24 4.65 1.53 Pass
Type 7
Type 8
Type 9
FFK36 K 2.50 2.83 4.22 1.43 Fail
FFB35 B 2.50 3.58 3.34 2.41 Pass
62% 21% Pass
FFK33 K 2.50 3.58 3.34 1.90 Fail
FFL34 L 2.50 4.51 3.57 3.68 Pass
29% 12% Pass
FFB32 B 2.50 4.32 2.91 1.86 Pass
FFL31 L 2.50 3.47 3.70 2.69 Pass
FFK30 K 2.50 3.56 3.02 2.23 Pass
FFB29 B 2.50 3.65 3.29 1.25 Pass
FFB28 B 2.50 3.58 3.34 1.99 Pass
41% 15% Pass
FFB27 B 2.50 3.58 3.34 2.20 Pass
FFL26 L 2.50 4.51 3.57 4.79 Pass
FFK25 K 2.50 4.20 3.38 0.89 Fail
Room PSH
Name Type
Surface AreaCharacteristi
csDimensions
Room ADF Room Window
VSC
Proposal
(%)
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 17.09
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 17.09
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 26.50
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 26.50
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 27.99
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 27.99
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 17.64
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 17.64
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 23.90
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 23.90
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 13.24
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 13.24
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 14.38
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 14.38
29
30
31
32
33
Type 6a
GFK20 K 2.50 4.62 3.40 1.68 Fail
GFL21 L 2.50 4.36 3.61 3.52 Pass 19% 1% Fail
GFB22 B 2.50 3.55 2.40 1.37 Pass
GFB23 B 2.50 4.82 3.02 1.36 Pass34
1.41 PassGFB24 B 2.50 4.84 3.03 35
Table A2. ADF and PSH results for the First fl oor of the proposed development.
SUSTAINABILITY
31
Unit
Height (m)Depth
(m)Width (m) # Type
Height
(m)Width (m) Head 9m) Proposal Compliance APSH WPSH
Complianc
e
33 8 11 2
25 9
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.66
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.66
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 36.87
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 36.87
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 37.41
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 37.41
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 20.40
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 20.40
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.72
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.72
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.10
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.10
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 35.68
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 35.68
Type
THIRD FLOOR
01
02
03
04Type 16
05
06
073FB62 B 2.50 3.76 3.42 2.94 Pass
3FB61 B 2.50 4.20 2.80 1.90 Pass
26% 5% Pass
3FB60 B 2.50 4.20 2.80 1.81 Pass
3FL59 L 2.50 3.76 4.93 3.73 Pass
3FK58 K 2.50 3.96 3.60 1.77 Fail
Room PSH
Name Type
Surface AreaCharacteristi
csDimensions
Room ADF Room Window
VSC
Proposal
(%)
Unit
Height (m)Depth
(m)Width (m) # Type
Height
(m)Width (m) Head 9m) Proposal Compliance APSH WPSH
Complianc
e
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 20.69
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 20.69
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 21.59
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 21.59
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 20.71
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 20.71
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 17.90
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 17.90
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.11
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.11
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 27.81
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 27.81
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 29.90
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 29.90
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 31.51
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 31.51
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.54
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.54
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.70
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.70
Room PSH
Name Type
Surface AreaCharacteristi
csDimensions
Room ADF Room Window
VSC
Proposal
(%)
1.79 Pass
FFK54 K 2.50 8.46 3.07 3.81 Pass
Type 15a
FFK56 K 2.50 8.46 3.07
Type 15
39
40
41
42
47% 17% Pass
FFB55 B 2.50 3.37 3.49
24% 1% Fail
FFB57 B 2.50 3.37 3.49 1.96 Pass
3.84 Pass
Type
43
44
45
46
47
38
Table A2. ADF and PSH results for the First fl oor of the proposed development. Continuation
Table A3. ADF and PSH results for the Third fl oor of the proposed development.
2 Up 1.63 0.84 2.48 10.10
2 Low 0.35 0.84 N/A 10.10
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 19.21
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 19.21
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 18.50
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 18.50
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 10.86
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 10.86
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 14.55
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 14.55
4 Up 1.63 2.71 2.48 13.37
4 Low 0.35 2.71 N/A 13.37
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 16.45
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 16.45
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 15.66
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 15.66
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 17.46
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 17.46
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 18.04
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 18.04
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 14.67
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 14.67
1 Up 1.63 1.74 2.48 13.87
1 Low 0.35 1.74 N/A 13.87
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
26
27
28
29
Type 14
Type 14a
1% Fail
FFB53 B 2.50 3.92 3.27 1.54 Pass
FFK52 K 2.50 7.60 3.24 0.95 Fail 24%
18% Pass
FFB51 B 2.50 3.92 3.27 1.80 Pass
FFK50 K 2.50 7.60 3.24
FFK47 K 2.50 7.62 3.73 49% 20% Pass1.28 Fail
Type 13
1.05 Fail 44%
FFB49 B 2.50 3.37 3.49 1.76 Pass
FFB48 B 2.50 4.35 2.28 1.98 Pass
Type 12
FFB46 B 2.50 4.65 3.89 1.24 Pass
FFB45 B 2.50 4.04 3.27 1.33 Pass
64% 23% Pass
FFK43 K 2.50 3.85 2.00 0.88 Fail
FFL44 L 2.50 5.17 4.10 3.28 Pass