crosslane student developments uk limited for the · pdf file1.2 we have undertaken a site...

Clifton Heights, Triangle West, Bristol BS8 1EJ

0370 777 6292 | [email protected] | rapleys.com

LONDON | BIRMINGHAM | BRISTOL | EDINBURGH | HUNTINGDON | MANCHESTER

Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study prepared on behalf of

Crosslane Student Developments UK Limited

For the proposed development at

HOWARD GARDENS ADAMSDOWN

CARDIFF CF24 0EF

August 2017

Our Ref: 17-02832

1 RAPLEYS LLP

Contents

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................... 2 2 Introduction .................................................................................. 3 3 Basis of Assessment ......................................................................... 4 4 Daylight & Sunlight Amenity ............................................................... 6 5 Findings of the Analysis .................................................................... 8 6 Property 1: 1 Howard Gardens ............................................................ 9 7 Property 2: 3 Howard Gardens ............................................................ 10 8 Property 3: 5 Howard Gardens ............................................................ 11 9 Property 4: 7 Howard Gardens ............................................................ 12 10 Property 5: 9 Howard Gardens ............................................................ 13 11 Property 6: 11-15 Howard Gardens ....................................................... 14 12 Property 7: 1 Howard Terrace ............................................................ 15 13 Property 8: 17 Howard Gardens ........................................................... 16 14 Property 9: 19 Howard Gardens ........................................................... 17 15 Property 10: 21 Howard Gardens ......................................................... 18 16 Property 11: 5-6 Moira Terrace ........................................................... 19 17 Property 12: 16 Windsor Court ............................................................ 20 18 Property 13: 12-15 Windsor Court ........................................................ 21 19 Property 14: 11 Windsor Court ............................................................ 22 20 Property 15: 5-9 Windsor Court ........................................................... 23 21 Property 16: 1-4 Windsor Court ........................................................... 24 22 Property 17: Eclipse Fusion Students, Howard Gardens .............................. 25 23 Conclusions ................................................................................... 26

Appendices

Appendix 1 Identification Drawings

Appendix 2 Daylight & Sunlight VSC & APSH Results

2 RAPLEYS LLP

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 We have been instructed to undertake a review of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity of the surrounding properties to the proposed student accommodation development at Howard Gardens, Adamsdown, Cardiff.

1.2 We have undertaken a site inspection and have carried out an analysis utilising specialist software applied to a 3D AutoCAD model. This has been based on a highly accurate laser survey of the site and the surrounding properties.

1.3 The analysis has considered 17 no. neighbouring buildings and has confirmed that 8 no. properties (47%) will continue to receive satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity, 3 no. properties (18%) are likely to experience a minor adverse impact as a consequence of the proposed development and 6 no. properties (35%) are likely to be adversely impacted by the proposals.

1.4 We have highlighted various considerations to balance against the results including:

1) The context of the city centre location with various tall buildings surrounding and in close proximity to the site;

2) Exercising a degree of flexibility when considering the results of the analysis – the methods of assessment within the BRE Report are not mandatory instruments of statutory planning policy;

3) A number of the neighbouring properties are constructed upon their boundaries thereby throwing the onus on the development site to take more than its fair share of responsibility in safeguarding the Daylight & Sunlight Amenity of the neighbouring properties; and

4) A significant proportion of the windows analysed are thought to belong to rooms containing student accommodation or guesthouse facilities. If confirmed as student lets, by their very nature, these occupiers would be considered as transient in nature and therefore the need to safeguard levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity is not regarded as being as important compared with traditional residential use.

1.5 We therefore conclude that although the proposals are likely to result in some adverse impact upon a proportion of the neighbouring properties, we believe there are sufficient mitigation considerations to accept the levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity which are likely to be experienced as a result of the proposals.

3 RAPLEYS LLP

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 INSTRUCTIONS

We received instructions from Crosslane Student Developments UK Limited to prepare a

Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study in respect of the proposals at Howard Gardens,

Adamsdown, Cardiff CF24 0EF.

2.2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We confirm that, as far as we are aware, no conflict of interest exists either personally or

with Rapleys, in connection with Crosslane Student Developments UK Limited. We would

further confirm that Professional Indemnity Insurance on a per claim basis is available in

respect of this report.

2.3 DISCLOSURE

This Report is specifically for the addressee stated above.

2.4 SIGNATURE

We confirm that the undersigned is an appropriately qualified and experienced Chartered

Surveyor experienced in the commercial property sector.

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHIN THE QUALITY SYSTEM OPERATED

AT RAPLEYS LLP ACCORDING TO BRITISH STANDARD ISO 9001 : 2008

Created By Dan Tapscott BSc (Hons) MRICS

[email protected]

Signature

Checked by Simon Harbour BSc (Hons) MRICS IMaPS

[email protected]

Signature

Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study Report Template

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF RAPLEYS LLP

AUGUST 2017

Dan Tapscott (Aug 25, 2017)Dan Tapscott

Simon Harbour (Aug 25, 2017)Simon Harbour

https://rapleys.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAA5qh5wiciE_NMxLn6evVUTa439CYQxjw0

https://rapleys.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAA5qh5wiciE_NMxLn6evVUTa439CYQxjw0

4 RAPLEYS LLP

3 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

3.1 DETAILS OF THE PROPOSALS

The proposals comprise the construction of a student accommodation development that is

to be arranged over several storeys, extending to 10 no. storeys at its highest point.

The proposals which have been analysed are those which were provided to us electronically

on 17 August 2017.

3.2 SITE INSPECTION

The site and the various surrounding properties were inspected externally on 22 August 2017

by Dan Tapscott BSc (Hons) MRICS. We were unaccompanied and did not access any of the

surrounding properties during the inspection.

The purpose of the inspection was to review the site in context and to identify the

surrounding properties considered to be within a reasonable distance to be within the scope

of a 3D analysis.

In order to identify the neighbouring properties considered as being within a reasonable

proximity where there may be a Daylight & Sunlight Amenity issue, we use the approach

outlined within BRE Report 209: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – a guide to

good practice (2nd edition 2011). This states:

Loss of light to existing windows 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. In these

cases the loss of light will be small. Thus if the new development were

10m tall, and a typical existing ground floor window would be 1.5m above

the ground, the effect on existing buildings more than 3 x (10 – 1.5) =

25.5m away need not be analysed.

3.3 RELEVANT NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

The following properties were identified as being relevant and have been included within

this study:

1) 1 Howard Gardens – an end of terrace three storey Victorian residential property

situated to the northeast of the development site.

2) 3 Howard Gardens - a terraced three storey Victorian residential property situated

to the northeast of the development site.







6) 11-15 Howard Gardens - a terraced three storey Victorian residential property

situated to the northeast of the development site.

7) 1 Howard Terrace – a detached three storey Victorian residential property situated


8) 17 Howard Gardens - an end of terrace three storey Victorian residential property

situated to the east of the development site.

5 RAPLEYS LLP


to the east of the development site.


to the east of the development site.

11) 5-6 Moira Terrace – a modern end of terrace three storey residential property

situated to the south of the development site.

12) 16 Windsor Court - a terraced residential three storey property situated to the south

of the development site.

13) 12-15 Windsor Court - a terraced residential three storey property situated to the

south of the development site.

14) 11 Windsor Court - a terraced residential three storey property situated to the south

of the development site.

15) 5-9 Windsor Court - a terraced residential three storey property situated to the

south of the development site.

16) 1-4 Windsor Court – an end of terrace residential three storey property situated to

the south of the development site.

17) Eclipse – Fusion Students, Howard Gardens Campus – a development of student

accommodation currently under construction, situated to the west of the

development site. This development is arranged over several storeys and extends to

eight storeys at its highest.

A total of 327 no. windows across these 17 no. properties have been the subject of this

review. The findings for each property are discussed under separate headings in section 6 of

this report.

3.4 BACKGROUND TO THE ANALYSIS

In order to undertake the analysis a 3D computer model was drawn in AutoCAD for the

development site and the surrounding properties. This was based upon a 3D laser scan

which is widely accepted by the industry as the most accurate method of gathering

information for this purpose. The 3D laser scan was undertaken by a specialist sub-

consultant and the survey area for their scan was determined following the site inspection.

Details of the proposals forwarded by the design team were incorporated into a 3D AutoCAD

model.

Thereafter, industry standard Daylight & Sunlight analysis software was applied to the

model. This produced the results which have been presented and commented upon within

this report.

Images taken from the 3D model showing the development site as existing and as proposed,

together with the relevant surrounding properties are within Appendix 1.

6 RAPLEYS LLP

4 DAYLIGHT & SUNLIGHT AMENITY

4.1 PLANNING GUIDANCE

The Local Plan identified as being relevant to our review is the Cardiff Local Development

Plan 2006-2026 which was adopted in January 2016.

This document makes no specific reference to Daylight & Sunlight. However, there is

mention of ‘amenity’ in general and noted below are the clauses that are considered to be

relevant:

KP5: Good Quality and Sustainable Design

To help support the development of Cardiff as a world-class European

Capital City, all new development will be required to be of a high quality,

sustainable design and make a positive contribution to the creation of

distinctive communities, places and spaces by:

(x). Ensuring no undue effect on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers

and connecting positively to surrounding communities;

Elsewhere there are regular references to safeguarding residential amenity. This certainly

appears to be regarded as more important than for other building types.

No specific guidance as to how levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity are provided by the

Local Authority. In our experience the way in which the property industry considers this

subject is via using the Building Research Establishment’s Report 209 “Site Layout Planning

for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice” (2011 2nd Edition) [the BRE Report].

The BRE Report is widely recognised as the most appropriate way of undertaking a study

such as this and we have extensive experience in doing so for various Local Authorities.

4.2 ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

The BRE Report provides guidance to designers, clients, consultants and planning officials

on laying out proposed development sites to minimise impact on surrounding buildings and

open spaces. This document is widely used in the construction industry.

The BRE Report states that living rooms, dining rooms and kitchens within dwellings should

be assessed. Bedrooms should also be checked although it is acknowledged that they are

less important. Non-domestic buildings where the occupants have a reasonable expectation

of daylight should also be considered, although these are usually less sensitive than

dwellings. Also, garages, hallways, storage, circulation areas and bathrooms “need not be

assessed”.

The BRE Report sets out criteria against which an assessment may be made of the levels of

Daylight & Sunlight and the impact that development may cause.

4.3 VERTICAL SKY COMPONENT (VSC)

The VSC is a measure of the amount of light falling on a window and it is quantified as a

ratio of the direct sky illuminance falling on the surface at a specific reference point

against the horizontal illuminance under an unobstructed sky. The maximum possible ratio

is just under 40% for a completely unobstructed vertical wall. The VSC values attained by

windows of a building will not vary with the compass orientation of that building, therefore

orientation does not give an appreciation of the interior daylighting.

The target value recommended is 27% but this is not to be strictly applied. This is because if

the VSC for a window is less than 27% and is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the

BRE numerical guidelines will not be satisfied.

7 RAPLEYS LLP

Alternatively, if the Vertical Sky Component is less than 27%, but more than 0.8 times its

former value then daylight levels might still be adequate to the neighbouring property.

We find it useful to consider the Reduction Factor of 0.8 as a percentage, in other words

80% or put another way, a 20% reduction is recommended as the guideline figure within the

BRE Report.

4.4 ANNUAL PROBABLE SUNLIGHT HOURS (APSH)

With regard to assessing Sunlight, the BRE Report gives recommendations for the assessment

of the effect on sunlight enjoyed by individual windows. When considering sunlight, in the

northern hemisphere, it is only those windows that face within 90 degrees of due south that

will enjoy significant amounts of Sunlight and the BRE Report limits the extent of

assessments required to only these windows. Sunlight Amenity is measured in terms of

Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH).

The assessment analyses a point in each window which receives at least a quarter of Annual

Probable Sunlight Hours (represented as 25% in the results tables), including at least 5% of

Annual Probable Sunlight Hours during the winter months, between 21 September and 21

March. Again, a Reduction Factor of 0.8 is also applied to the results.

4.5 DAYLIGHT DISTRIBUTION (DD)

The DD is otherwise known as the ‘no sky-line’ method and takes the VSC analysis a step

further in looking at where in the room Daylight is received at the working plane (roughly

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.

This level of study has not been conducted at this time and should be undertaken as the

proposals develop.

8 RAPLEYS LLP

5 FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSIS

5.1 RESULTS

The VSC and APSH results are shown in the tables contained within appendix 2. Similarly the

DD results are within Appendix 3. The contour drawings showing the outcome of the DD

analysis pictorially are contained within Appendix 4.

Over the following sections are a summary of the findings in respect of each neighbouring

property.

5.2 INTERPRETATION

It is worth noting that in the introduction of the BRE Report, the author reminds the reader

to exercise a degree of flexibility when interpreting the results:

“The guide is intended for building designers and their clients, consultants

and planning officials. The advice given here 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.”

Given the context of the city centre location and the density of a large number of

surrounding buildings it follows that exercising flexibility is warranted in this instance.

Of further note within the BRE Report is the following which we refer to as “the good

neighbour principle”:

“Another important issue is whether the existing building is itself a good

neighbour, standing a reasonable distance from the boundary and taking

no more than its fair share of light.”

There are several surrounding properties, including some which have not been analysed in

detail for this study but have been included in terms of surrounding massing, which will

have a bearing on the levels of natural light received. Therefore, whilst the proposed

development will have to work hard to ensure it safeguards the levels of amenity to its

neighbours, it must be recognised that to start with this will be a challenge to achieve.

Within the analysis we have therefore considered whether the results are within 10% of the

guideline figures although the Local Authority may consider that a greater level of tolerance

is acceptable in comparison with similar schemes within the area.

9 RAPLEYS LLP

6 PROPERTY 1: 1 HOWARD GARDENS

6.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 13 no. windows analysed over 3 no. storeys, 5 no. windows meet the guidelines.

When considering the 10% level of flexibility, a further 6 no. windows are considered

satisfactory which totals all but one of the results.

6.2 APSH RESULTS

The results confirm that all but 2 no. windows meet the guidelines.

6.3 CONCLUSION

There is likely to be some minor adverse impact upon this neighbouring property as a

consequence of the proposed development.

It must be remembered that the use of the rooms affected is presently unknown.

10 RAPLEYS LLP


7.1 VSC RESULTS



satisfactory which totals 9 no. windows (69%).

7.2 APSH RESULTS

The results confirm that all but 2 no. windows meet the guidelines.

7.3 CONCLUSION

There is likely to be some adverse impact upon this neighbouring property as a consequence

of the proposed development. This is in particular relation to the Daylight Amenity.


11 RAPLEYS LLP


8.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 12 no. windows analysed over 3 no. storeys, 1 no. window meets the guidelines.



8.2 APSH RESULTS

The results confirm that all but 1 no. window meets the guidelines.

8.3 CONCLUSION




12 RAPLEYS LLP


9.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 12 no. windows analysed over 3 no. storeys, none of the windows meet the

guidelines. When considering the 10% level of flexibility, 8 no. windows are considered

satisfactory (67%).

9.2 APSH RESULTS


9.3 CONCLUSION


of the proposed development. This is particularly notable within the VSC (Daylight) results

but significantly less so in the APSH (Sunlight) results.


13 RAPLEYS LLP


10.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 12 no. windows analysed over 3 no. storeys, none of the windows meet the

guidelines. When considering the 10% level of flexibility, 8 no. windows are considered

satisfactory (67%).

10.2 APSH RESULTS


10.3 CONCLUSION


of the proposed development. This is particularly notable within the VSC (Daylight) results

but significantly less so in the APSH (Sunlight) results.


14 RAPLEYS LLP

11 PROPERTY 6: 11-15 HOWARD GARDENS

11.1 VSC RESULTS




11.2 APSH RESULTS


11.3 CONCLUSION




15 RAPLEYS LLP

12 PROPERTY 7: 1 HOWARD TERRACE

12.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 9 no. windows analysed over 3 no. storeys, all of the windows meet the

guidelines.

12.2 APSH RESULTS

The results confirm that all of the windows meet the guidelines.

12.3 CONCLUSION

Satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity will be received within this neighbouring

property following the construction of the proposed development.

16 RAPLEYS LLP


13.1 VSC RESULTS


When considering the 10% level of flexibility, a further window is considered satisfactory

which totals 9 no. windows (82%).

13.2 APSH RESULTS


13.3 CONCLUSION

There is likely to be some minor adverse impact upon this neighbouring property in terms of

the daylight received, although the levels of Sunlight will be satisfactory following the

completion of the proposed development.


17 RAPLEYS LLP


14.1 VSC RESULTS


When considering the 10% level of flexibility, a further window is considered satisfactory

which totals 10 no. windows (91%).

14.2 APSH RESULTS


14.3 CONCLUSION

There is likely to be some minor adverse impact upon this neighbouring property in terms of

the daylight received, although the levels of Sunlight will be satisfactory following the

completion of the proposed development.


18 RAPLEYS LLP


15.1 VSC RESULTS

The VSC results for this property meet the guidelines in every instance.

15.2 APSH RESULTS

The results meet the guidelines in all but one of the windows analysed. However, when

applying the 10% level of flexibility, all the windows achieve what are regarded as

acceptable and satisfactory results.

15.3 CONCLUSION

We consider that satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight will be received within this

neighbouring property following the construction of the proposed development.

19 RAPLEYS LLP

16 PROPERTY 11: 5-6 MOIRA TERRACE

16.1 VSC RESULTS


16.2 APSH RESULTS

All of the windows within this property face due north and therefore no assessment is

deemed necessary.

16.3 CONCLUSION

The results from the analysis meet the guidelines and the levels of Daylight & Sunlight

Amenity within this property will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development.

20 RAPLEYS LLP

17 PROPERTY 12: 16 WINDSOR COURT

17.1 VSC RESULTS


17.2 APSH RESULTS


deemed necessary.

17.3 CONCLUSION



21 RAPLEYS LLP

18 PROPERTY 13: 12-15 WINDSOR COURT

18.1 VSC RESULTS


18.2 APSH RESULTS


deemed necessary.

18.3 CONCLUSION



22 RAPLEYS LLP

19 PROPERTY 14: 11 WINDSOR COURT

19.1 VSC RESULTS


19.2 APSH RESULTS


deemed necessary.

19.3 CONCLUSION



23 RAPLEYS LLP


20.1 VSC RESULTS


20.2 APSH RESULTS


deemed necessary.

20.3 CONCLUSION



24 RAPLEYS LLP


21.1 VSC RESULTS


21.2 APSH RESULTS


deemed necessary.

21.3 CONCLUSION



25 RAPLEYS LLP

22 PROPERTY 17: ECLIPSE FUSION STUDENTS, HOWARD GARDENS

22.1 VSC RESULTS

Out of the 154 no. windows analysed over 7 no. storeys, 42 no. windows meet the

guidelines. When considering the 10% level of flexibility, a further 14 no. windows are

considered satisfactory giving a total of 56 no. windows (36%).

22.2 APSH RESULTS

The analysis shows that out of the windows analysed, only 12 no. are not facing within 90

degrees of due north. The results confirm that all of the windows assessed meet the

guidelines.

22.3 CONCLUSION

The daylight within this neighbouring property will be adversely impacted following the

construction of the proposal. However, the levels of Sunlight will be satisfactory.

As discussed in the section which follows, consideration of the arrangement and use of this

property together with the context of its location result in mitigation factors in respect of

the daylight results that are worthy of consideration.

26 RAPLEYS LLP

23 CONCLUSIONS

23.1 RESULTS SUMMARY

17 no. surrounding properties have been the subject of this analysis. The results have shown

that 8 no. properties (47%) will continue to receive satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight

Amenity, 3 no. properties (18%) are likely to experience a minor adverse impact as a

consequence of the proposed development and 6 no. properties (35%) are likely to be

adversely impacted by the proposals.

The properties considered as experiencing a minor adverse impact are as follows:

1 Howard Gardens

17 Howard Gardens

19 Howard Gardens

The properties considered as being adversely impacted are as follows:

3 Howard Gardens

5 Howard Gardens

7 Howard Gardens

9 Howard Gardens

11-15 Howard Gardens

Eclipse – Fusion Students, Howard Gardens Campus

23.2 AREAS OF CONSIDERATION

The context of the city centre location with various tall buildings within a reasonable

proximity of the development site should not be overlooked.

The two largest neighbouring properties listed above are used by transient occupiers

(Eclipse Fusion Students, Nomad Backpackers at 11-15 Howard Gardens). We have also

noted that during our site inspection we noted 2 no. ‘to let’ signs and from research online

have concluded that some of the properties along Howard Gardens are likely to be student

lets. We are aware of planning precedent surrounding properties of this nature being

accepted as recieiving lower levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity in comparison with

traditional residential properties. Furthermore, the way in which student study bedrooms

are oriented is usually with a desk by a window and a bed towards the rear, making best use

of the layout of the room and the Daylight & Sunlight received.

The Eclipse development is constructed right along its boundary and therefore can either be

regarded as a ‘bad neighbour’ or one where the Local Authority has accepted it will take

more than its fair share of natural light over its neighbours, throwing the responsibility on

to subsequent development to absorb. At the time of writing, this development is still in

construction and as the contractor is making use of part of the development site to store

materials, it is reasonable to assume that the owners of Eclipse anticipated a neighbouring

development would be taking place alongside their property in the future.

23.3 CONCLUSION

The proposals are likely to result in some adverse impact upon a proportion of the

neighbouring properties. However, we believe there are various mitigation considerations

for this. With particular regard to the context of the location of the proposed development,

we believe the levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity as a result of a development of this

nature should be considered acceptable.

Appendix 1

IDENTIFICATION DRAWINGS

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane

Howard Gardens,Cardiff.

Existing Site Plan

Scale Date DrawnRAKAUGUST 2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY

Tel: 0870 777 6292 www.rapleys.com

17-02832-01-01

01

001

Site Plan

NTS @A3

Analysis

Produced using Waldram Tools

MBS Survey Software Ltd (www.surveymbs.com)

Existing Model & Surrounding Model

Models derived from 3d terrestrial laser scan survey pointcloud.

Supplemented with site photography, Bing maps and Google

Streetmaps.

Proposed Model

Model derived from supplied 3d data.

Ref: Howard Gardens 3D.DWG

Howard Gardens

1

Eclipse - Fusion StudentsHoward Gardens Campus

Howard Terra

ce

35

79

11-15

1

1719

21

Moir

a Terra

ce

AdamsdownPlay Centre

Windsor Court

1-45-9

1112-15

16

5-6

Howard Place

Newport Road Lane

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane


Proposed Site Plan


55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02832-01-02

02

001

Site Plan

NTS @A3

Analysis






Streetmaps.

Proposed Model



Howard Gardens

1


Howard Terra

ce

35

79

11-15

1

1719

21

Moir

a Terra

ce


Windsor Court

1-45-9

1112-15

16

5-6

Howard Place

Newport Road Lane

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane


Existing 3d ViewLooking Northeast.


55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02832-01-03

01

003

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis






Streetmaps.

Proposed Model



Howard Place

Howard Gardens

Howard Te

rrace



1 35 7

9

11-15

17 1921

1

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane


Proposed 3d ViewLooking Northeast.


55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02832-01-04

01

004

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis






Streetmaps.

Proposed Model



Howard Place

Howard Gardens

Howard Te

rrace



1 35 7

9

11-15

17 1921

1

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane


Existing 3d ViewLooking South.


55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02832-01-05

01

005

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis






Streetmaps.

Proposed Model



Moira Terra

ce


5-6

16

1-45-9

1112-15


Windsor Court

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Crosslane


Proposed 3d ViewLooking South.


55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02832-01-06

01

006

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis






Streetmaps.

Proposed Model



Moira Terra

ce


5-6

16

1-45-9

1112-15


Windsor Court

Appendix 2

DAYLIGHT & SUNLIGHT VSC & APSH RESULTS

Project Name: Howard Gardens, Cardiff

Project No.: 17-02832-01

Report Title: Daylight & Sunlight - Neighbour Analysis Test

Date of Analysis: August 2017

Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria

Winter Pr/ExMeets BRE

Criteria

Ground W1 Existing 17.67 0.86 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 15.30

W2 Existing 28.17 0.73 NO YES 58 0.75 YES 23 0.47 YES

Proposed 20.69 44 11



W4 Existing 6.20 0.20 NO 11 0.18 NO 6 0.00 NO

Proposed 1.26 2 0

W5 Existing 0.00 0.00 YES 0 0.00 YES 0 0.00 YES

Proposed 0.00 0 0


Proposed 3.41 8 2

First W1 Existing 19.18 0.88 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 16.89







Second W1 Existing 31.09 0.81 YES 64 0.85 YES 24 0.62 YES






Ground W1 Existing 6.45 0.24 NO 11 0.18 NO 6 0.00 NO

Proposed 1.59 2 0

W2 Existing 0.02 0.50 NO 0 0.00 YES 0 0.00 YES

Proposed 0.01 0 0


Proposed 3.28 8 2

W4 Existing 19.31 0.82 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 16.01





1 Howard Gardens

3 Howard Gardens


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria

First W1 Existing 29.81 0.76 NO YES 55 0.81 YES 19 0.57 YES



Proposed 18.08





Second W1 Existing 31.81 0.79 NO YES 64 0.85 YES 24 0.66 YES






Ground W1 Existing 20.14 0.77 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 15.60


Proposed 19.80 42 9


Proposed 18.98 37 8


Proposed 1.41 4 0


Proposed 0.00 0 0


Proposed 18.08













5 Howard Gardens


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria

Ground W1 Existing 7.29 0.19 NO 14 0.28 NO 3 0.00 NO

Proposed 1.39 4 0


Proposed 0.00 0 0

W3 Existing 22.27 0.72 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 16.15


Proposed 19.78 38 8


Proposed 18.23 37 9




Proposed 18.65












Proposed 15.97






Proposed 0.00 0 0


Proposed 1.85 4 0

First W1 Existing 24.54 0.77 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 18.96













9 Howard Gardens

7 Howard Gardens


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria

Ground W1 Existing 0.61 0.00 NO 0 0.00 YES 0 0.00 YES

Proposed 0.00 0 0


Proposed 1.81 6 0

W3 Existing 24.03 0.69 NO *North* *North*

Proposed 16.78






Proposed 16.04






Proposed 20.96 34 9


Proposed 20.37 31 8


Proposed 17.59








Proposed 19.70






Proposed 19.22










Proposed 20.99





11-15 Howard Gardens


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria























Ground W1 Existing 24.55 0.99 YES 45 1.00 YES 11 1.00 YES





Proposed 23.31 36 7


Proposed 16.79 21 1


Proposed 14.45

First W1 Existing 25.34 0.96 YES 41 0.97 YES 9 1.00 YES

Proposed 24.33 40 9


Proposed 17.77 26 4


Proposed 24.35

Second W1 Existing 29.12 0.98 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 28.82

1 Howard Terrace


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 21.46






Proposed 0.05 0 0


Proposed 1.59 4 3


Proposed 24.34











Ground W1 Existing 7.17 0.73 NO YES 13 0.84 YES 3 1.00 YES

Proposed 5.27 11 3


Proposed 0.11 0 0


Proposed 21.04





First W1 Existing 33.36 0.88 YES 51 0.92 YES 18 0.94 YES



Proposed 24.20









17 Howard Gardens

19 Howard Gardens


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 20.86






Proposed 0.62 0 0

W5 Existing 8.02 0.94 YES 15 0.86 YES 4 0.75 NO

Proposed 7.54 13 3


Proposed 23.40












Proposed 31.94


Proposed 33.36


Proposed 34.39


Proposed 17.78


Proposed 32.06


Proposed 33.46


Proposed 33.36


Proposed 60.41


Proposed 60.36

21 Howard Gardens

5-6 Moira Terrace

16 Windsor Court


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 5.35


Proposed 31.82


Proposed 33.24


Proposed 33.17


Proposed 60.30


Proposed 60.24


Proposed 7.64


Proposed 31.57


Proposed 33.09


Proposed 32.82


Proposed 60.20


Proposed 60.05


Proposed 7.21


Proposed 31.60


Proposed 33.03


Proposed 32.92


Proposed 61.13


Proposed 61.08

5-9 Windsor Court

12-15 Windsor Court

11 Windsor Court


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 31.55


Proposed 31.52


Proposed 32.87


Proposed 32.86


Proposed 61.03


Proposed 61.01

1-4 Windsor Court


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 25.65


Proposed 9.58


Proposed 5.08


Proposed 0.04


Proposed 0.75 2 2


Proposed 0.60


Proposed 2.78


Proposed 0.73


Proposed 7.86


Proposed 8.29


Proposed 8.96


Proposed 3.36


Proposed 11.86


Proposed 15.37


Proposed 19.24


Proposed 22.91


Proposed 26.51


Proposed 12.02 20 4


Proposed 32.45


Proposed 26.56


Proposed 25.02


Proposed 12.00 19 4


Proposed 27.72


Proposed 22.76


Proposed 23.48


Proposed 20.80

Eclipse - Fusion Students Howard Gardens Campus


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 17.94


Proposed 14.70


Proposed 20.47 42 8


Proposed 10.33


Proposed 9.90


Proposed 9.40


Proposed 8.95


Proposed 2.81


Proposed 8.69


Proposed 8.67


Proposed 8.79


Proposed 9.05


Proposed 9.48


Proposed 10.15


Proposed 3.93


Proposed 13.12


Proposed 16.74


Proposed 20.18


Proposed 23.91


Proposed 27.09


Proposed 13.40 23 4


Proposed 34.20


Proposed 28.07


Proposed 25.87


Proposed 13.33 22 4


Proposed 29.76


Proposed 24.50


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 25.20


Proposed 22.64


Proposed 20.34


Proposed 17.80




Proposed 12.54


Proposed 11.39


Proposed 10.71


Proposed 10.06


Proposed 3.65


Proposed 9.46


Proposed 9.34


Proposed 9.39


Proposed 9.61


Proposed 10.01


Proposed 10.67


Proposed 4.59


Proposed 13.70


Proposed 17.32


Proposed 21.40


Proposed 25.08

Third W1 Existing 28.68 0.99 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 28.66


Proposed 15.91 26 5


Proposed 35.98


Proposed 30.61


Proposed 27.83


Proposed 15.81 25 5


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 32.22


Proposed 27.37


Proposed 27.87


Proposed 25.48


Proposed 23.36


Proposed 21.72




Proposed 15.39


Proposed 13.97


Proposed 13.06


Proposed 12.09


Proposed 4.84


Proposed 11.09


Proposed 10.86


Proposed 10.82


Proposed 10.98


Proposed 11.34


Proposed 11.98


Proposed 5.47


Proposed 15.78


Proposed 19.01


Proposed 22.67


Proposed 26.14

Fourth W1 Existing 38.41 0.97 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 37.43


Proposed 35.63


Proposed 37.17


Proposed 34.16


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria


Proposed 36.13


Proposed 35.74


Proposed 33.87


Proposed 34.68


Proposed 32.57


Proposed 31.11


Proposed 29.06


Proposed 27.45


Proposed 26.73




Proposed 19.00


Proposed 17.28


Proposed 16.05


Proposed 14.67


Proposed 7.26


Proposed 13.16


Proposed 12.78


Proposed 12.64


Proposed 12.72


Proposed 13.03


Proposed 13.62


Proposed 7.05


Proposed 16.48


Proposed 19.89


Proposed 23.98


Proposed 26.90


Project No.: 17-02832-01



Floor Ref.Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets

BRE

Criteria


Criteria

Fifth W1 Existing 39.62 0.95 YES 78 0.93 YES 27 1.00 YES



Proposed 24.48


Proposed 22.67


Proposed 21.14


Proposed 19.21


Proposed 11.46


Proposed 16.96


Proposed 16.42


Proposed 16.15


Proposed 16.12


Proposed 16.30


Proposed 16.78


Proposed 9.38


Proposed 19.20


Proposed 21.99


Proposed 25.49


Proposed 27.66

Sixth W1 Existing 36.27 0.60 NO *North* *North*

Proposed 21.82


Proposed 24.60


Proposed 27.99


Proposed 29.04

crosslane student developments uk limited for the · pdf file1.2 we have undertaken a site...

Documents