daylight and sunlight report - north · pdf file8 rpsgroup.com 4 method of assessment general...
Post on 11-Mar-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
rpsgroup.com
19 December 2013
DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REPORT
BOTLEY DISTRICT CENTRE
PROPOSED MIXED-USE REDEVELOPMENT
Our Ref: N9064 RPS Cathedral Buildings
Dean Street
Newcastle upon Tyne
Tyne & Wear
NE1 1PJ
Tel: 0191 232 6306 Fax: 0191 232 5359 Email: rpsgnw@rpsgroup.com
rpsgroup.com
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Prepared by: J Bainbridge
Authorised by: S Long
Date: 19th
December 2013
Project Number/Document Reference:
N9064
COPYRIGHT © RPS
The material presented in this report is confidential. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of [Doric Properties and shall
not be distributed or made available to any other company or person without the knowledge and written consent of RPS.
rpsgroup.com
CONTENTS
1 PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 5
3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7
4 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................. 8
General .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Detailed guidance for daylight ................................................................................................................. 9
Detailed guidance on sunlight ............................................................................................................... 10
5 SITE ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
6 MODEL .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Model Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 15
7 DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 16
8 SUNLIGHT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 18
9 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Daylight .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Sun-path ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Final Comment ...................................................................................................................................... 19
10 APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY CHECK DIAGRAMS ......................................................................... 20
11 APPENDIX B – VSC RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 21
12 APPENDIX C – APSH RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 29
13 APPENDIX D– SUNLIGHT DIAGRAMS .............................................................................................. 33
14 APPENDIX D – SUN-PATH DIAGRAMS ............................................................................................. 37
4 rpsgroup.com
1 PREFACE
NON-DISCLOSURE This document contains confidential information. In consideration of RPS disclosing such
confidential information this document should be held and maintained in confidence and should
only be disclosed to:
1. Professional advisors to the client
2. The Local Authority for the site location
3. The Environment Agency
4. Clients permitted assignees established by written assignment; and
5. Professional advisors of permitted assignees
This document is issued only to the organisations stated above and on the understanding that this
practice is not held responsible for the action of others who obtain any unauthorised disclosures of
its contents or place any reliance on any part of its findings, fact or opinions, be they specifically
stated or implied.
The confidential information in this document shall only be used for the intended purpose.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Copies of this document may come into the possession of organisations designated under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Organisations designated in the ‘Act’ are requested to respect
the above statements relating to confidentiality and copyright.
ENQUIRIES
Any enquiries regarding this document shall be directed to RPS:-
Telephone No: 0191 232 6306
E-Mail: rpsnew@rpsgroup.com
5 rpsgroup.com
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RPS have been commissioned by Doric Properties to evaluate the access to daylight and sunlight
to the surrounding buildings, that will be affected by the new proposed development at Botley,
Oxford.
In considering the development potential and the quality of amenity for the surrounding properties
once the scheme has been implemented, an analysis of daylight and sunlight was carried out in
accordance with the ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a Guide to Good Practice’, by
BRE 2011.
The BRE Guide is intended for designers, clients, consultants and planning officials. The advice
here is not mandatory and this document should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy.
It was determined that most of the surrounding buildings receive a VSC (Vertical Sky Component)
of less than 27% recommended by the BRE Guide. Therefore the existing view is compared
against the view with the new proposed extension.
If the comparison shows that the reduction of light to the surrounding buildings is less than 20% or
0.8 times its former value then this is deemed as being in accordance with the recommendations
set out in the BRE Guide.
In most of the cases analysed on West Way there is no significant reduction in light to the windows
of the buildings. In the houses opposite the tallest residential section of the development (No 62 –
68) there is a reduction in daylight to the surrounding residential properties to slightly below the
standards set out in the BRE guide meaning that the occupants of these properties may notice the
reduction in daylight from the ground floor windows. It must be noted however that a significant
proportion of these residential properties have large trees in their front garden that already restrict
the amount of daylight/sunlight reaching the properties therefore the effect of the proposed
development would be less noticeable.
When analysing the sunlight available to all of the residential properties analysed on West Way the
results prove that they have adequate provision throughout the year according to the
recommendations of the guide.
6 rpsgroup.com
The church in the centre of the development would not receive the recommended amount of
Daylight & Sunlight as stated by the BRE Guide and the reduction in light is more than the
recommended 20% so will be noticed by the occupants.
7 rpsgroup.com
3 INTRODUCTION
The new proposed development at Botley, Oxford has been assessed in accordance with the ‘Site
Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a Guide to Good Practice’, by BRE 2011.
RPS was commissioned by Doric Properties to assess the impact of the new proposed
development upon the access to daylight and sunlight to the windows of the surrounding buildings.
The new proposed development is a multi-use community space including supermarket, car park,
cinema, restaurants and shops and student accommodation.
The method used to assess the impact of the new proposed development is outlined in this report
together with the results and conclusions. All buildings have been considered where they are
deemed to affect the results of the calculation.
In relation to sunlight, the criteria given calculates the annual probable sunlight hours (APSH)
which considers the amount of sun available in both the summer and winter for each given window
which faces the proposed new development. Summer is considered to be the six months between
March 21st and September 21st and winter the remaining months.
A selection of residential properties situated on West Way have been selected for this analysis
which have windows where their Daylight or Sunlight could be affected by the new proposed
development.
8 rpsgroup.com
4 METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
General
BRE Report 209, “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice” is
intended for building designers, clients, consultants and planning officials and provides guidance
on site layout to provide good natural lighting within a new development; safeguarding of daylight
and sunlight within existing buildings nearby; and the protection of day-lighting of adjoining land for
future development.
It is important to note that the advice given in the BRE report is not mandatory. Specifically, in the
introduction to the report, it states that: “The guide is intended for building designers and their
clients, consultants and planning officials. The advice given is not mandatory and the guide should
not be seen as an instrument of planning policy; its aim is to help rather than constrain the
designer. Although it gives numerical guidelines, these should be interpreted flexibly since natural
lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design. In special circumstances the developer or
planning authority may wish to use different target values. For example, in a historic city centre, or
in an area with modern high rise buildings, a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable if
new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing buildings.”
The BRE guide states that the guidelines are to be used for adjoining/adjacent dwellings where
daylight is required including living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms. Windows to bathrooms, toilets,
store rooms and circulation spaces and garages need not be analysed. Non-domestic buildings
where the occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight should also be considered,
although these are usually less sensitive than dwellings
The BRE guide sets out criteria against which an assessment may be made of the levels of
daylight / sunlight and the impact that development may cause.
9 rpsgroup.com
Detailed guidance for daylight
The BRE guidelines provide three main methods of calculation for daylight/sunlight. It should be
noted that the report emphasises that the numerical values given are purely advisory.
Preliminary Check 1 – The guide provides preliminary guidance and looks at the distance
between the new development and the existing buildings being analysed and addresses whether
the existing building still receives enough skylight. If the distance between the buildings is 3 times
the height difference between the ground floor window and the top of the new development then
the loss of light need not be analysed as the loss of light will be small. If the distance is less than 3
times the height difference a modified form of the procedure is adopted.
Preliminary Check 2 - A section is drawn of the existing buildings and proposed development and
a line is drawn perpendicular from the ground floor window centre, and another drawn from the
window to the top of the development. If this exceeds the recommended value of 25º from the
centre of the window being assessed then the window is deemed to be at risk of losing light. If this
is the conclusion then the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) then has to be calculated.
VSC - The BRE Guide criteria states “if the calculated Vertical Sky Component is greater than
27% then enough skylight should still be reaching the window of the existing building. Any
reduction below this should be kept to a minimum. If the VSC with the new development in place is
both less than 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value occupants of the existing building will
notice the reduction in the amount of skylight. The area lit by the window is likely to appear more
gloomy and electric lighting will be needed more of the time”.
DD - The Daylight Distribution is also referred to as ‘no sky-line’ method and takes the analysis a
step further in looking at where in the room daylight is received at the working plane, for example
desk or kitchen worktop height. After a development is complete, the area of a room with visible
sky should, ideally be 0.8 times or more of the former area on the working plane prior to the
development. There is no absolute minimum area given by the BRE report. This is to be carried out
if the room layouts are known.
10 rpsgroup.com
Detailed guidance on sunlight
The BRE guide advises that in residential properties the main requirement for sunlight is in the
living room and is values at all times of the day. Conservatories are also deemed to require
sunlight, Bedrooms and kitchens are viewed as less important. Winter sunlight is also considered
due to the warming affect it can have on properties and therefore reduces space heating loads. In
new developments care should be taken to safeguard the sunlight to existing properties as people
may notice the loss of sunlight to their homes and if extensive it will usually be resented.
With regard to assessing the levels of sunlight, the BRE report gives recommendations that it is
only those windows that face within 90 degrees of due South that will enjoy significant amounts of
sunlight therefore assessments are required for these windows only. Sunlight is measured in terms
of Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). The assessment calculates the APSH for a point in the
centre of each window. Their recommendations state that at least a quarter of annual probable
sunlight hours (represented as 25% in the results tables) should be received annually, including at
least 5% of annual probable sunlight hours during the winter months, between 21 September and
21 March. Any reduction in APSH (annual or winter) should be kept to a minimum and not less
than 0.8 its former value or the occupants will notice the loss of sunlight. If the reduction is less
than 4% annually the room may appear colder and less cheerful and pleasant.
The garden spaces of the residential properties have not been assessed.
11 rpsgroup.com
5 SITE
5.1 Development
The site is located within Botley, a settlement comprised of areas within both North Hinksey Parish
Council and Cumnor Parish Council’s administrative areas. Botley effectively forms the western
arm of Oxford.
The site is located wholly within North Hinksey Parish Council.
Figure 5.1 Current site
Figure 5.2 Proposed development
12 rpsgroup.com
5.2 Affected residence
The buildings that could be affected by the new proposed development are located to the North of
the development and have windows that would face the proposed building. They are all residential
properties of varying type and size.
13 rpsgroup.com
Figure 5.3 Typical residential properties on West Way
There is a church in the centre of the site that the development wraps around that has a stained glass
window that is to be analysed.
Figure 5.4 Church
14 rpsgroup.com
6 MODEL
To analyse the potentially effected buildings a three dimensional model is constructed to represent
the new proposed development and the affected buildings. Each window of the potentially effected
buildings is analysed to measure the existing Daylight and Sunlight potential and the proposed
Daylight & Sunlight potential.
Fig 6.1 Model of existing
Figure 6.2 Model of proposed
15 rpsgroup.com
Model Sources
• The model has been created from the sketch up 3D model received 5th December 2013.
• Window positioning has been taken from internet map images. Please note RPS will not
accept any potential liabilities created by any inaccuracies arising from the use of
approximate/inaccurate information provided to us by a third party or where requisite
information is missing.
Figure 6.3 – The image above shows window references for No 62 and 64 West Way which
are referenced in the VSC and APSH results tables.
16 rpsgroup.com
7 DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS
Preliminary Check 1
“Loss of daylight to existing widows need not be analysed if the distance of each part of the
new development from the existing window is three or more times its height above the
centre of the existing window.”
When considering the preliminary review suggested by BRE we can conclude the following.
There is 16.48m height difference between the ground floor window in the Property at the north
east of the development (numbers 62-70) and the top of the proposed development. 3 times this is
49.4m. The actual horizontal separation is 32.48m therefore further analysis is required.
Diagrams are shown in Appendix A
Preliminary Check 2
“If the angle drawn from the ground floor window to the uppermost part of the proposed
building is less than 25o, the loss of daylight will be small.”
When considering the preliminary review suggested by BRE we can conclude the following.
The property closest to the tallest section of the building are only very slightly in excess of the 25o
guidance stated by BRE therefore the reduction in daylight should be small.
Diagrams are shown in Appendix A
To provide a better understanding of the effect that the proposed building has on the existing
residential properties, further analysis has been carried out.
17 rpsgroup.com
Vertical Sky Component (VSC)
Using the model it is possible to produce a series of Waldram Diagrams that assist in calculating
the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and the Available Sunlight Hours for both the existing model
and the proposed model.
“If a window has a VSC of 27% or greater it is deemed that the window should be receiving
enough sky-light. If the VSC value is below the 27% then this value should be calculated
against the previous daylight potential. If the difference is no less than 0.8 times its former
value, or 80%, then it is deemed that occupants of the existing buildings will not notice the
reduction in light.”
The VSC results show that there is a reduction due to the proposed development, however the
resultant figures are either above the recommended 27% or are within 5% of this figure for the
majority of residential properties. The ground floor windows in numbers 62, 64, 66 and 68 West
Way have a VSC 7% lower than the limit set out in the BRE Guide and the figures are 0.73 times
the original. Therefore the ground floor windows of these properties may notice a slight reduction in
daylight.
See Appendix B for the Waldram Diagrams for a selection of the properties on West Way.
We therefore conclude that in all instances the proposed development does not significantly
impact on the daylight amenity to the residential properties surrounding the site.
18 rpsgroup.com
8 SUNLIGHT ANALYSIS
BS 8206-2 Code of practice for day-lighting recommends that at least 25% of APSH (Annual
Probable Sunlight Hours) be available in the summer moths including at least 5% during the winter.
See Appendix C for the APSH results with Sunlight Diagrams.
The results show that all properties pass the BRE criteria. The annual APSH for all properties is
above 25% before and after the introduction of the proposed development. The winter APSH’s
before and after the proposed development are above 5%.
We therefore conclude that in all instances the proposed development does not impact on the
sunlight availability to the residential properties surrounding the site.
19 rpsgroup.com
9 CONCLUSION
Daylight
The results show that when the new proposed development all of the windows analysed receive a
VSC in excess of the 27% recommended by the BRE Guide (or within 7% of this figure).
Sunlight
The models produced have been used to produce available sunlight hour figures. This uses a
similar method as the Waldram diagram method, however it plots the sun path across the sky and
measures how much of the sunlight is available given the obstructions and size and shape of the
windows assessed.
All of the windows assessed have an adequate amount of sunlight available to them according to
BS 8206-2.
Sun-path
Sun-path diagrams can be produced for all properties analysed and show the suns path as seen
from each window during the summer, spring and winter solstice. The houses opposite the
development have reduced sunlight in the winter and some in the spring mornings with the
summer being unaffected.
An example is shown in Appendix D
Final Comment
We would conclude that the daylight and sunlight levels would not be significantly affected in any
the windows of the residential properties on West Way. Most of the properties on the street pass
the criteria set out in the BRE guide and therefore the residents of these properties are unlikely to
notice any difference in the daylight and sunlight to their properties.
20 rpsgroup.com
10 APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY CHECK DIAGRAMS
Typical cross section of residential properties and proposed development
Figure 10.1: 25 degree angle check
21 rpsgroup.com
11 APPENDIX B – VSC RESULTS
The Waldram Diagram is an alternative method to the skylight indictor, which can be used to
assess complex scenarios where the obstruction is complex in shape or the results provide an
insufficient conclusion.
The shape of the building is projected onto a template diagram. After plotting all structures visible
from the position being assessed, the area of remaining sky is used to calculate the Vertical Sky
Component.
Floor Ref. Window
Ref. Scenario VSC Difference Pass/Fail
Within 5%
of VSC
No
60
Ground W1 Existing 35.44 0.74 FAIL PASS
Proposed 26.29
Ground W2 Existing 35.65 0.75 FAIL PASS
Proposed 26.63
Ground W3 Existing 35.9 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.05
First W1 Existing 36.48 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.73
First W2 Existing 36.69 0.76 PASS
Proposed 28.04
First W3 Existing 36.82 0.77 PASS
Proposed 28.33
No
62
Ground W1 Existing 34.95 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.48
Ground W2 Existing 34.99 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.51
Ground W3 Existing 35.03 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.51
First W1 Existing 36.04 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.14
First W2 Existing 36.11 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.16
No
64
Ground W1 Existing 34.95 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.38
Ground W2 Existing 34.92 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.33
Ground W3 Existing 34.98 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.45
First W1 Existing 36.13 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.18
First W2 Existing 36.07 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.15
Fig 11.1: VSC results for No. 60-64 West Way
22 rpsgroup.com
Floor Ref. Window
Ref. Scenario VSC Difference Pass/Fail
Within 5%
of VSC
No
66
Ground W1 Existing 34.94 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.49
First W1 Existing 36.06 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.22
No
68
Ground W1 Existing 34.9 0.73 FAIL FAIL
Proposed 25.5
First W1 Existing 35.89 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.1
No
70
Ground W1 Existing 35 0.73 FAIL PASS
Proposed 25.65
First W1 Existing 36.18 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.43
First W2 Existing 36 0.75 PASS
Proposed 27.16
No
72
Ground W1 Existing 35.11 0.73 FAIL PASS
Proposed 25.77
First W1 Existing 36.19 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.42
First W2 Existing 36.28 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.56
No
74
Ground W1 Existing 35.31 0.74 FAIL PASS
Proposed 26.05
Ground W2 Existing 35.03 0.74 FAIL PASS
Proposed 25.78
First W1 Existing 36.51 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.9
First W2 Existing 36.03 0.76 PASS
Proposed 27.35
No
76
Ground W1 Existing 35.65 0.75 FAIL PASS
Proposed 26.72
Ground W2 Existing 35.46 0.74 FAIL PASS
Proposed 26.34
First W1 Existing 36.65 0.77 PASS
Proposed 28.29
First W2 Existing 36.59 0.77 PASS
Proposed 28.11
No
80
Ground W1 Existing 35.26 0.91 PASS
Proposed 32.06
First W1 Existing 36.91 0.92 PASS
Proposed 33.99
No
82
Ground W1 Existing 35.37 0.91 PASS
Proposed 32.36
First W1 Existing 36.89 0.93 PASS
Proposed 34.14
Fig 11.2: VSC results for No. 66-82 West Way
23 rpsgroup.com
Floor Ref. Window
Ref. Scenario VSC Difference Pass/Fail
No
84
Ground W1 Existing 35.71 0.90 PASS
Proposed 32.08
First W1 Existing 36.89 0.91 PASS
Proposed 33.5
First W2 Existing 36.48 0.92 PASS
Proposed 33.5
No
86
Ground W1 Existing 35.76 0.89 PASS
Proposed 31.71
First W1 Existing 36.73 0.88 PASS
Proposed 32.43
First W2 Existing 36.92 0.90 PASS
Proposed 33.16
No
88
Ground W1 Existing 35.93 0.86 PASS
Proposed 30.79
First W1 Existing 37.11 0.87 PASS
Proposed 32.35
First W2 Existing 34.11 0.89 PASS
Proposed 30.51
No
90
Ground W1 Existing 36.2 0.86 PASS
Proposed 30.98
First W1 Existing 37.34 0.88 PASS
Proposed 32.85
First W2 Existing 37.35 0.88 PASS
Proposed 32.74
First W3 Existing 37.34 0.87 PASS
Proposed 32.67
First W4 Existing 37.16 0.88 PASS
Proposed 32.55
No
92
Ground W1 Existing 34.03 0.90 PASS
Proposed 30.47
Ground W2 Existing 35.96 0.88 PASS
Proposed 31.68
No
94
Ground W1 Existing 35.16 0.95 PASS
Proposed 33.36
First W1 Existing 37.76 0.94 PASS
Proposed 35.53
First W2 Existing 37.61 0.92 PASS
Proposed 34.72
Fig 11.3: VSC results for No. 84-94 West Way
24 rpsgroup.com
The Church stained glass windows have been analysed.
Figure 11.4: Image of church stained glass windows used in analysis
Floor Ref. Window
Ref. Scenario VSC Difference Pass/Fail
Ch
urch
Ground W1 Existing 33.1 0.24 FAIL
Proposed 8.07
Ground W2 Existing 33 0.25
FAIL
Proposed 8.22
Ground W3 Existing 32.24 0.27
FAIL
Proposed 8.71
Fig 11.5: VSC results for Church stained glass windows
25 rpsgroup.com
No.60 West Way
Fig 11.6: Waldram diagram for No. 60 West Way
The diagram above is for one of the ground floor windows of number 60 West Way.
Green depicts the existing and blue is the proposed development.
The VSC from the window of this property is 26.63 which is within 2% of the required 27%.
26 rpsgroup.com
No.66 West Way
Fig 11.7: Waldram diagram for No. 66 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor window.
The VSC is 25.49% which is within 6 % of the target figure. It can be seen that the tallest section of
the proposed development is causing the problem. Any reduction in this will increase the VSC.
27 rpsgroup.com
No.72 West Way
Fig 11.8: Waldram diagram for No. 72 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor window.
28 rpsgroup.com
No.80 West Way
Fig 11.9: Waldram diagram for No. 80 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor window.
29 rpsgroup.com
12 APPENDIX C – APSH RESULTS
Available Sunlight Hours
Floor Ref Window Ref Annual % Diff % Pass/Fail Winter % Diff % Pass/Fail
No
60
Ground W1 73 0.82 PASS
23 0.61 PASS
60 14
Ground W2 74 0.82 PASS
23 0.61 PASS
61 14
Ground W3 76 0.80 PASS
25 0.56 PASS
61 14
First W1 73 0.85 PASS
23 0.61 PASS
62 14
First W2 78 0.84 PASS
27 0.59 PASS
64 16
First W3 77 0.84 PASS
26 0.62 PASS
65 16
No
62
Ground W1 75 0.77 PASS
24 0.54 PASS
58 13
Ground W2 74 0.80 PASS
23 0.57 PASS
59 13
Ground W3 72 0.76 PASS
23 0.52 PASS
55 12
First W1 76 0.83 PASS
25 0.64 PASS
63 16
First W2 73 0.82 PASS
24 0.63 PASS
60 15
No
64
Ground W1 75 0.76 PASS 25 0.52 PASS
57 13
Ground W2 76 0.76 PASS 25 0.52 PASS
58 13
Ground W3 76 0.75 PASS 25 0.52 PASS
57 13
First W1 72 0.83 PASS 24 0.67 PASS
60 16
First W2 76 0.82 PASS 25 0.64 PASS
62 16
Fig 12.1: APSH results for No. 60-64 West Way
30 rpsgroup.com
Available Sunlight Hours
Floor Ref Window Ref. Annual %
Diff % Pass/Fail Winter% Diff% Pass/Fail
No
66
Ground W1 73 0.79 PASS
23 0.57 PASS
58 13
First W1 73 0.84 PASS
23 0.61 PASS
61 14
No
68
Ground W1 73 0.81 PASS
24 0.58 PASS
59 14
First W1 73 0.85 PASS
24 0.63 PASS
62 15
No
70
Ground W1 73 0.81 PASS
24 0.58 PASS
59 14
First W1 76 0.86 PASS
26 0.69 PASS
65 18
First W2 75 0.83 PASS
26 0.58 PASS
62 15
No
72
Ground W1 75 0.80 PASS
25 0.56 PASS
60 14
First W1 77 0.83 PASS
26 0.65 PASS
64 17
First W2 76 0.84 PASS
26 0.69 PASS
64 18
No
74
Ground W1 76 0.79 PASS
27 0.59 PASS
60 16
Ground W2 73 0.79 PASS
25 0.56 PASS
58 14
First W1 79 0.81 PASS
28 0.64 PASS
64 18
First W2 74 0.82 PASS
26 0.65 PASS
61 17
No
76
Ground W1 76 0.80 PASS
26 0.62 PASS
61 16
Ground W2 77 0.79 PASS
26 0.58 PASS
61 15
First W1 77 0.84 PASS
27 0.67 PASS
65 18
First W2 79 0.82 PASS
28 0.68 PASS
65 19
No
80
Ground W1 77 0.91 PASS
26 0.85 PASS
70 22
First W1 76 0.96 PASS
26 0.92 PASS
73 24
No
82
Ground W1 75 0.91 PASS
26 0.85 PASS
68 22
First W1 78 0.97 PASS
26 0.92 PASS
76 24
Fig 12.2: APSH results for No. 66-82 West Way
31 rpsgroup.com
Available Sunlight Hours
Floor Ref Window Ref. Annual %
Diff % Pass/Fail Winter % Diff % Pass/Fail
No
84
Ground W1 73 0.92 PASS
24 0.79 PASS
67 19
First W1 74 0.96 PASS
25 0.88 PASS
71 22
First W2 76 0.97 PASS
24 0.92 PASS
74 22
No
86
Ground W1 77 0.92 PASS
27 0.81 PASS
71 22
First W1 78 0.92 PASS
27 0.78 PASS
72 21
First W2 77 0.95 PASS
27 0.85 PASS
73 23
No
88
Ground W1 80 0.91 PASS
27 0.74 PASS
73 20
First W1 80 0.93 PASS
27 0.78 PASS
74 21
First W2 67 0.94 PASS
20 0.80 PASS
63 16
No
90
Ground W1 80 0.91 PASS
26 0.73 PASS
73 19
First W1 81 0.93 PASS
27 0.78 PASS
75 21
First W2 81 0.93 PASS
28 0.79 PASS
75 22
First W3 82 0.94 PASS
28 0.82 PASS
77 23
First W4 81 0.94 PASS
27 0.81 PASS
76 22
No
92
Ground W1 74 0.91 PASS
23 0.74 PASS
67 17
Ground W2 81 0.91 PASS
27 0.74 PASS
74 20
No
94
Ground W1 75 0.95 PASS
27 0.89 PASS
71 24
First W1 83 0.95 PASS
28 0.89 PASS
79 25
First W2 82 0.93 PASS
28 0.82 PASS
76 23
Fig 12.3: APSH results for No. 84-94 West Way
32 rpsgroup.com
Available Sunlight Hours
Floor Ref Window Ref Annual % Diff % Pass/Fail Winter % Diff % Pass/Fail
Ch
urch
Ground W1 55 0.20 PASS
16 0.06 PASS
11 1
Ground W2 59 0.25 PASS
18 0.06 PASS
15 1
Ground W3 61 0.30 PASS
19 0.16 PASS
18 3
Fig 12.4: APSH results for Church stained glass windows
33 rpsgroup.com
13 APPENDIX D– SUNLIGHT DIAGRAMS
The Sunlight Diagram is the method used to assess the amount of sunlight hours available for the
assessed window. It is assessed by plotting the sunlight path across the sky with fixed known sun
points.
Any areas where a sun point is obstructed by a building or another object this sun point is not
counted and excluded from the calculation.
No.60 West Way
Fig 13.1: APSH diagrams for No. 60 West Way
34 rpsgroup.com
Green depicts the existing and blue is the proposed development
The blue dots represent the winter sun and the yellow dots depict summer sun.
No.66 West Way
Fig 13.2: APSH diagrams for No. 66 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor conservatory window.
35 rpsgroup.com
No.72 West Way
Fig 13.3: APSH diagrams for No. 72 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor window.
36 rpsgroup.com
No.80 West Way
Fig 13.4: APSH diagrams for No. 80 West Way
The diagram above is for the ground floor window.
37 rpsgroup.com
14 APPENDIX D – SUN-PATH DIAGRAMS
Sun-path diagrams show the suns path as seen by each window analysed.
The sun-paths below are shown for No.60 West Way.
Fig 14.1: Sunpath diagrams for No. 60 West Way
The green depicts the existing building, and the blue shows the proposed development as seen
from the ground floor window of No. 60. It clearly shows that the sun is blocked to the window in
the morning during the spring months from 8.30 – 11am.
During the winter months the ground floor windows will experience intermittent sunlight from 9am –
10am and after 12pm which will no longer be available.
With both the existing and proposed buildings in the summer months, the ground floor windows
achieves full sunlight throughout the day.
38 rpsgroup.com
The sun-paths below are shown for No.66 West Way.
Fig 14.2: Sunpath diagrams for No. 66 West Way
Looking at the sunlight available at the ground floor window of number 66 it can be seen that the
summer sun is not affected, the spring sunlight is only very slightly reduced I the mornings and the
winter sunlight is affected throughout the day.
39 rpsgroup.com
The sun-paths below are shown for No.72 West Way.
Fig 14.3: Sunpath diagrams for No. 72 West Way
40 rpsgroup.com
The sun-paths below are shown for No.80 West Way.
Fig 14.4: Sunpath diagrams for No. 80 West Way
As you go further down the street the effect of the proposed development is reduced. The spring
sun before 8am and the winter sun after 1pm is reduced but remains the same at all other times.
top related