’s nest, cork -...

Report for: McCullough Mulvin Architects

Our ref: 13621

UCC Crow’s Nest, Cork

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Study

Document created by:

Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited

International Sustainability Consulting Developers of the IES <Virtual Environment>

Issued For: Prepared by: Checked by:

Comment Kiran Tati

Project Consultant

Bruce Elrick

Consultancy Operations Manager

Version: Date: Revision Details: Approved by:

0 14/08/2017 Draft Issue for Comment John Gleeson

1 06/09/2017 Clients comments update John Gleeson

2 20/11/2017 Clients comments update John Gleeson

P a g e | 1

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4

2 Proposed Scenario ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Orientation .................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Proposed models ......................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Model Geometry ......................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Potential sensitive receptors ....................................................................................... 8

3 BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2nd edition) .................................. 9

3.1 Room type discussion .................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Impact classification discussion ................................................................................ 10

4 Shadow Analysis ............................................................................................................... 11

4.1 21st March – 3D View ............................................................................................... 12

4.2 21st March – Plan View ............................................................................................. 13

4.3 21st June – 3D View .................................................................................................. 14

4.4 21st June – Plan View ................................................................................................ 15

4.5 21st December – 3D View ......................................................................................... 16

4.6 21st December – Plan View ...................................................................................... 17

4.7 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 18

o The Village .......................................................................................................... 18

o Victoria Cross (rear elevations) .......................................................................... 18

o Carrigrohane Road (front elevations) ................................................................ 18

5 Daylight / Skylight ............................................................................................................ 19

5.1 View 1a – The Village – East Block (east elevation) .................................................. 20

5.2 View 1b – The Village – East Block (east elevation) .................................................. 22

5.3 View 02 – The Village – North Block (east elevation) ............................................... 27

5.4 View 03 – Victoria Cross (rear elevations) ................................................................ 30

5.5 View 04 – Carrigrohane Road (front elevations)....................................................... 33

5.6 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 37

o The Village - View 1a and View 1b – East Block (East Elevation) ....................... 37

o Victoria Cross – View 03 .................................................................................... 38

o Carrigrohane Road - View 04 ............................................................................. 38

6 Sunlight to existing amenity spaces ................................................................................. 39

6.1 Victoria Cross - Garden Spaces.................................................................................. 40

o Existing Scenario ................................................................................................ 41

o Proposed Development ..................................................................................... 42

6.2 Carrigrohane Road - Garden Spaces ......................................................................... 43

o Existing Scenario ................................................................................................ 44

o Proposed Development ..................................................................................... 45

P a g e | 2

6.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 46

7 Sunlight to proposed amenity spaces .............................................................................. 47

7.1 Amenity Solar Exposure March 21st ......................................................................... 48

7.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 50

8 Average Daylight Factors ................................................................................................. 51

8.1 Average Daylight Factor Criteria ............................................................................... 52

o Area of Interest .................................................................................................. 53

o Area of Interest configuration ........................................................................... 53

o Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 54

o Daylight Factor Analysis ..................................................................................... 54

8.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... 55

o Blocks ................................................................................................................. 55

o Block A ................................................................................................................ 56

o Block B ................................................................................................................ 57

o Block C ................................................................................................................ 58

o Block D ............................................................................................................... 59

o Courtyards .......................................................................................................... 60

o Courtyard 01 ...................................................................................................... 61

o Courtyard 02 ...................................................................................................... 61

8.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 62

9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63

9.1 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 64

P a g e | 3

Executive Summary

Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) have been commissioned by McCullough Mulvin

Architects to undertake a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing impact study of the proposed

Crow’s Nest development on neighbouring buildings.

It should be noted that the guidance in 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide

to good practice' is not mandatory and the Report itself states ‘although it gives numerical

guidelines these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of many

factors in site layout design.

Whilst the results shown relate to the criteria as laid out in the BRE guidance targets it is

important to note that the BRE targets have been drafted primarily for use in low density

suburban development and should therefore be used with flexibility and caution when

dealing other types of sites. Despite this, the site performs well in relation to the metrics

considered in this report.

The overall impact may need to be considered alongside the other social, economic and

environmental benefits of the development.

Based on this study the proposed development is broadly in line with the recommendations

in the BRE ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ guide, sometimes referred to as

BRE Digest 209.

Therefore, there is no significant basis for a refusal on issues relating to shadow/daylight

impact based on the results as demonstrated in this report.

P a g e | 4

1 Introduction

Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) have been commissioned by McCullough Mulvin

Architects to undertake a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing impact study of the proposed

building of Crow’s Nest, Cork on neighbouring buildings.

The BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2nd edition)

is used to consider the important factors.

The study will consider the existing and proposed situations brought about by the Proposed

Scenario with respect to:

• Shadow Analysis - a visual representation of any potential changes that may arise

from the Proposed Scenario.

• Daylight / Skylight - via consideration of Vertical sky component.

• Sunlight to existing Garden spaces - via consideration of BRE requirements for at

least half of a garden area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st

March.

• Sunlight to proposed amenity spaces - via consideration of BRE requirements for

at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight

on 21st March.

• Average Daylight Factors – across typical rooms in proposed development

Both existing scenario and proposed scenario models have been created to quantify the items

below and to understand shading impact to existing neighbouring buildings.

All analysis has been undertaken using the IES <Virtual Environment> software tool.

P a g e | 5

2 Proposed Scenario

2.1 Orientation

The model orientation has been taken from architectural information provided, and the

resulting angle shown below used in the analysis.

Orientation

P a g e | 6

2.2 Proposed models

The following images show the two scenarios modelled and used for this analysis.

• Existing Scenario

• Proposed Scenario

Existing Scenario

Proposed Scenario

P a g e | 7

2.3 Model Geometry

The models have been created using the Architects information / drawings provided as

detailed below;

P a g e | 8

2.4 Potential sensitive receptors

To help understand the potential impact to surrounding buildings potential sensitive receptors were

identified as illustrated below.

The Village – East Block (east elevations)

The Village – North Block (east elevations)

Victoria Cross (rear elevations)

Carrigrohane Road (front elevations)

P a g e | 9

3 BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2nd edition)

3.1 Room type discussion

The intention of this study is to consider surrounding buildings to determine any potential impact

resulting from the Proposed Scenario. As such the intention would be to consider all appropriate

elevations and windows of neighbouring buildings.

It should be noted that the BRE guide states the following with respect to light from sky:

“2.2 Existing Building

2.2.2 The guidelines given here are intended for use for rooms in adjoining dwellings when daylight is

required, including living rooms, kitchens and bedrooms. Windows to bathrooms, toilets, storerooms,

circulation areas and garages need not be analysed.”

It goes on to state

“2.2.8 ……bedrooms should be analysed although they are less important ”

Also with respect to sunlight, it states in:

“3.2.3 Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much

sun.”

P a g e | 10

3.2 Impact classification discussion

BRE guidance in Appendix I – Environmental Impact Assessment suggests classifications of

potential impacts with respect to criteria as follows;

Negligible to minor adverse impacts

Fully meets guidelines in BRE report

Negligible adverse impact

Loss of light well within guidelines, or

only a small number of windows or

limited area of open space losing light (within the guidelines)

1

Minor adverse impact (a)

Loss of light only just within guidelines, or

A large number of windows or

large areas of open space areas affected (within the guidelines)

Minor adverse impact (b)

only a small number of windows or limited open space areas are affected

the loss of light is only marginally outside the guidelines

an affected room has other sources of skylight or sunlight

the affected building or open spaces only have a low level requirement for skylight or sunlight

there are particular reason why an alternative, less stringent, guideline should be applied

2

3

Major adverse impact large number of windows or large open space areas are affected

the loss of light is only substantially outside the guidelines

all the windows in a particular property are affected

the affected indoor or outdoor spaces have a particularly strong requirement for skylight or sunlight (living rooms / playground)

Criteria that apply as a results of the study are highlighted above in bold.

P a g e | 11

4 Shadow Analysis

This section will consider the shadows cast for both the existing scheme and proposed scheme for the

following dates:

• Solar shading images - 21st March

• Solar shading images - 21st June

• Solar shading images - 21st December

Aerial views/images of the shadows cast from any sun position, defined by date, time, orientation and

site location are provided on a bi-hourly basis from 10am to 4pm for March, June and December.

This provides a visual representation of any potential changes that may arise from the Proposed

Scenario with comment offered with respect to the potential sensitive receptors identified above.

P a g e | 12

4.1 21st March – 3D View

Existing - 10h00

Proposed - 10h00

Shading shown on The Village – North and East Block

Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00

No visible impact on receptors highlighted at this time

Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00

Shading shown on Carrigrohane Road (front elevation)

Existing - 16h00

Proposed - 16h00


P a g e | 13

4.2 21st March – Plan View

Existing - 10h00

Proposed - 10h00


Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00


Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00


Existing - 16h00

Proposed - 16h00


P a g e | 14

4.3 21st June – 3D View

Existing - 10h00

Proposed - 10h00


Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00


Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00


Existing - 16h00

Proposed - 16h00


P a g e | 15

4.4 21st June – Plan View

Existing - 10h00

Proposed - 10h00


Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00


Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00


Existing - 16h00

Proposed - 16h00


P a g e | 16

4.5 21st December – 3D View

Existing - 10h00 Proposed - 10h00


Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00


Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00


P a g e | 17

4.6 21st December – Plan View

Existing - 10h00 Proposed - 10h00


Existing - 12h00

Proposed - 12h00


Existing - 14h00

Proposed - 14h00


P a g e | 18

4.7 Discussion

The images illustrate the potential impact with respect to shading, commentary was provided

under each image and this is summarised below:

o The Village

Additional shadows are shown across the adjacent student accommodation building located

west of the proposed development.

Some additional shading is shown on The Village – North and East blocks during the morning

(10h00) however beyond this it is generally unaffected with respect to direct shading by the

proposed development.

o Victoria Cross (rear elevations)

This sits to the South of the proposed development and is therefore unaffected with respect

to direct shading by the proposed development.

o Carrigrohane Road (front elevations)

Additional shadows are shown across these buildings located North- East of the proposed

development.

Some additional shading is shown during periods of low sun (Spring/ Autumn), shown on

March 21st in the afternoon (14h00) however until this time it is generally unaffected with

respect to direct shading by the proposed development.

P a g e | 19

5 Daylight / Skylight

The impact on neighbouring buildings will be considered by comparing vertical sky

component (VSC). Vertical Sky Component is the ratio of direct sky illuminance falling on a

vertical wall/window at a reference point (usually the centre of the window), to the

simultaneous horizontal illuminance under an unobstructed sky (%).

This is tested in the Radiance software module of the <Virtual Environment>.

BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight which states

the following in Section 2.2.7;

BRE’s 2011 guidance state in its in Introduction that “Although the BRE guide 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.”

P a g e | 20

5.1 View 1a – The Village – East Block (east elevation)

The following image indicates the Vertical Sky Component on 21st Sept with a CIE Overcast

sky for Existing and Proposed Situations

• denotes

Eye position of VSC view

• denotes

Focus position of VSC view

P a g e | 21

The following images show the VSC values for different test points on the adjacent buildings

Existing Scenario

Proposed Scheme

P a g e | 22

5.2 View 1b – The Village – East Block (east elevation)



• denotes


• denotes


P a g e | 23


Existing Scenario

Proposed Scheme

P a g e | 24

The following result can be seen based on the analysis above

View_1a

VSC Points Floor Room Type Existing VSC Proposed VSC Result

1 Third Floor Bedroom 30.4 9.3 3






7 Second Floor Bedroom 34.3 11.0 3




11 First Floor Bedroom 25.0 9.6 3




15 Ground Floor Bedroom 17.7 9.1 3




View 1b

























P a g e | 25











































P a g e | 26

The following conclusions can be made

1

All points have a VSC values greater 0.8 times their former value meaning that there is no

reduction greater than 20% reduction in line with BRE guidelines.

3

These areas would be deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with Appendix 1 of the BRE

2011 Guide.

The BRE guide differentiates between the impacts on different room types. The guide notes

states that Kitchen and Bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to

block too much sun. See Section 3 of this report which explains the classification of impacts

further.

Furthermore, in the context of the proposed site, given its inner urban location (developed

pre1920’s), and the objective to ensure a sustainable and efficient use of scarce urban land, it

is to be expected that any new development may have minor adverse impacts on adjoining

buildings.

The impacts therefore should be assessed holistically alongside the other criteria noted in

this report and the urban, social, economic and environmental benefits of the development

as a whole.

P a g e | 27

5.3 View 02 – The Village – North Block (east elevation)



• denotes


• denotes


P a g e | 28


Existing Scenario

Proposed Scheme

P a g e | 29


View_02 Point Level Type Existing VSC Proposed VSC Result






3


2011 Guide.




further.




buildings.

The impacts therefore should be assessed holistically alongside the other criteria noted in this

report and the urban, social, economic and environmental benefits of the development as a

whole.

P a g e | 30

5.4 View 03 – Victoria Cross (rear elevations)



• denotes


• denotes


P a g e | 31


Existing Scenario

Proposed Scheme

P a g e | 32


View_03 Point

Type Existing VSC Proposed VSC Result

1 First Floor Bedroom* 33.1 9.8 3




5 Ground Floor Kitchen / Dining * 23.6 4.7 3




* assumed room type


3


2011 Guide.




further.




buildings.



whole.

P a g e | 33

5.5 View 04 – Carrigrohane Road (front elevations)

• denotes


• denotes


P a g e | 34

The following images show the VSC values for different test points on the adjacent buildings.

Existing Scenario

Proposed Scheme

1 .

2 .

3 4 5

. .

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 . . 6 7 .

P a g e | 35


View_04 Point Level Type Existing VSC Proposed VSC Result









9 Ground Floor Living* 28.8 18.2 2





* Assumed Room type


1

All points have a VSC values greater 0.8 times their former value meaning that there is no

reduction greater than 20% reduction in line with BRE guidelines.

2


2011 Guide as only a small number of windows are affected in the neighbourhood.




buildings.



whole.

P a g e | 36

3


2011 Guide.




further.

P a g e | 37

5.6 Discussion

The images above illustrate the potential impact with respect to shading

o The Village - View 1a and View 1b – East Block (East Elevation)

The rooms on both elevations considered are all bedrooms, based on our

understanding of the internal layouts.

Ground Floor Layout

Overall the following observations can be made:

VSC points considered

View 1a 18

View 1b 79

Total along East elevation 97

%

VSC values greater 0.8 times their former value in line with BRE guidelines

61.86%

Minor adverse impact 38.14%

P a g e | 38

Two thirds of this East elevation remain unaffected and/or in line with BRE guidelines

with the other having a minor adverse impact.

o Victoria Cross – View 03

These areas affected would be deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with

Appendix 1 of the BRE 2011 Guide.

o Carrigrohane Road - View 04

These areas affected would be deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with


As stated above any areas affected would be deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with





further.

A small number of living spaces will be affected on Carrigrohane Road, these areas would be

deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with Appendix 1 of the BRE 2011 Guide as only a

small number of windows are affected.


pre1920’s), and the objective to ensure a sustainable and efficient use of scarce urban land,

it is to be expected that any new development may have minor adverse impacts on adjoining

buildings.



whole.

P a g e | 39

6 Sunlight to existing amenity spaces

BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states in Section

3.3.17 that for a space to, appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a

garden or amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March.

From BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight

P a g e | 40

6.1 Victoria Cross - Garden Spaces

The following images illustrate the amenity areas considered for both existing scenario and


Residential Garden Spaces

1

4

5

2

3

P a g e | 41

o Existing Scenario

The following images shows the results for the amenity areas highlighted above. The areas

shown below are split in 1m2 cells.

Image shows all cells coloured dependant on the number of hours they receive on 21st March

Images shows cell coloured if they receive more than 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March

P a g e | 42

o Proposed Development





P a g e | 43

6.2 Carrigrohane Road - Garden Spaces

The following images illustrate the amenity areas considered for both existing scenario and


Sheltered Accommodation – Amenity Spaces

1

2

3

P a g e | 44

o Existing Scenario





P a g e | 45

o Proposed Development





P a g e | 46

6.3 Discussion

The results can be summarised as follows

Area Considered Existing Proposed BRE recommendations

Victoria Cross - 1 ex pro 1





Carrigrophane Road - 1 ex pro 1



Legend ex Existing Scenario meeting BRE Guidelines

ex Existing Scenario not meeting BRE Guidelines

pro Proposed situation meeting BRE Guidelines

pro Proposed situation not meeting BRE Guidelines

The following conclusions can be made:

1 These spaces can be described as adequately sunlit throughout the year, with at least half

of a garden or amenity area receiving at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March in line with

BRE recommendations.

P a g e | 47

7 Sunlight to proposed amenity spaces

The study considers the predicted sunlight to the amenity spaces on Cork’s Nest development. The

Suncast module of IES VE software was used to quantify the metrics describe below.

BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states in Section 3.3.7

that for a space to, appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or amenity

area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March.


P a g e | 48

7.1 Amenity Solar Exposure March 21st

The images below show amenity space on March 21st– with cells coloured red above 2 hours.


P a g e | 49




P a g e | 50

7.2 Discussion

The results can be summarised as follows

Area Considered Proposed BRE recommendations

Proposed building Amenity Space pro 1

Legend ex Existing Scenario meeting BRE Guidelines

ex Existing Scenario not meeting BRE Guidelines

pro Proposed situation meeting BRE Guidelines

pro Proposed situation not meeting BRE Guidelines

The following conclusions can be made:

1 These spaces can be described as adequately sunlit throughout the year, with at least half

of a garden or amenity area receiving at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March in line with

BRE recommendations.

P a g e | 51

8 Average Daylight Factors

The study considers the predicted average daylight factor for the Cork’s Nest development using the

Radiance module of IES VE software to quantify the metrics describe below.

Daylight is constantly changing, so its level at a point in a building is usually defined as an average

daylight factor. This is the ratio of the indoor illuminance at the point in question to the outdoor

unobstructed horizontal illuminance.

Daylight Factor = e/E (often expressed as a percentage)

Both illuminances are measured under the same standard sky, a CIE overcast sky. Since the sun is in a

particular position for only a short period each day, direct sunlight is excluded. Instead diffuse sunlight

is used for average daylight calculations. Diffuse sunlight describes the sunlight that has been

scattered by molecules and particles in the atmosphere but has still made it down to surface of the

earth.

For average daylight factor there are three possible paths along which diffuse light can get into a room

through glazed windows.

a) Light from the patch of sky visible at the point considered, is expressed as the sky

component.

b) Light reflected from opposing exterior surfaces and then reaches the point, is expressed as

the externally reflected component.

c) Light entering through the window but reaching the point only after reflection from internal

surfaces, is expressed as the internally reflected component.

Daylight Factor Methodology

E = illuminance on unobstructed plane e = illuminance at point in interior

SC – Sky Component

ERC – Externally Reflected Component

IRC – Internally Reflected Component

P a g e | 52

8.1 Average Daylight Factor Criteria

BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states the following in

Appendix C with respect to Average Daylight Factors (ADF);


This study will consider the predicted average daylight factor for Bedrooms and Living

Rooms/Kitchens areas. As the Living Rooms and Kitchen are within the one room, with the

Kitchen being the secondary space, the 1.5% value will be used for Living rooms / Kitchens.

Therefore minimum recommended average daylight factors are;

Bedrooms – 1.00 %

Living Rooms/Kitchen - 1.50 %

There are no such minimum recommended for non domestic room however the following

would be described as good practice;

Consulting Room – 2.0%

Treatment/Nursing Rooms – 2.0%

P a g e | 53

o Area of Interest

In Radiance when an image is created for an Average Daylight Factor for a room individual values are

created for multiple points across the room. For each room we are able to define a specific area within

an image and only generate statistics on this region. This is defined as the “Area of Interest” (AoI)

within the image. This can be any shape, as shown below;

Typically, the Area of Interest is set-up to include a ‘margin’ from the zone boundaries where

illuminance data is not to be calculated or included in summary results.

Also this follows CIBSE Light design conventions and can be used to help avoid inclusion of potentially

misleading illuminance data close to rear walls and windows where tasks may not be undertaken due

to furniture, etc.

A typical margin recommended by CIBSE is 0.5m and this is what is used in our calculations.

o Area of Interest configuration

In some instances, dependant on the layout and function of a room, the Area of Interest may be

further reduced beyond the 0.5m margin.

The following images detail where how this may be typically amended as part of the analysis to ensure

the occupied space is considered.

0.5m Boundary Ammended based on function

P a g e | 54

o Assumptions

The following assumptions are to be used in the study

Sky Conditions: Standard CIE overcast sky

Time (24hr): 12:00

Date: 21 September

Working Plane: 0.70m

The following Surface Reflectance's are to be used in the study:

Material Surface Reflectance

External Wall 0.50

Internal Partition 0.50

Roof 0.20

Ground 0.20

Floor/Ceiling (Floor) 0.20

Floor/Ceiling (Ceiling) 0.70

The following Glazing Transmittance values are to be used in the study:

Light Transmittance: 70%

Assumed Window Frame thickness: 100 mm

o Daylight Factor Analysis

The following areas have been considered with resulting Average Daylight factors overlaid on the floor

plans below for

Bedrooms – 1.00 %

Living Rooms/Kitchen - 1.50 %

Consulting Room – 2.0%

Treatment/Nursing Rooms – 2.0%

P a g e | 55

8.2 Results

o Blocks

P a g e | 56

o Block A

First Floor

Room Name Average Daylight

Factor > minimum recommended

ADF

L01: Block A Common Room 003 2.60 Yes

L01: Block A Bedroom 004 3.42 Yes


Second Floor



ADF


L02: Block A Bedroom 005 3.26 Yes

2.13

2.60

3.42

3.26

3.34

P a g e | 57

o Block B

Second Floor



ADF

L02: Block B Bedroom 012 1.28 Yes

L02: Block B Common Room 018 1.92 Yes

1.28

1.92

P a g e | 58

o Block C

First Floor



ADF

L01: Block C Bedroom 017 2.99 Yes

L01: Block C Common Room 019 3.07 Yes


Second Floor



ADF

L02: Block C Common Room 027 2.45 Yes


2.99 3.07

2.72

2.45

1.80

P a g e | 59

o Block D

First Floor


Factor

> minimum recommended ADF

L01: Block D Common Room 023 1.75 Yes

L01: Block D Bedroom 026 2.97 Yes

L01: Block D Common Room 029 1.75 Yes

Block D



ADF

L02: Block D Bedroom 035 1.87 Yes

1.75

1.75

2.97

1.87

P a g e | 60

o Courtyards

100 % glass was assumed on elevation to these rooms based on drawings provided

P a g e | 61

o Courtyard 01

Room Name Average Daylight Factor > Good practice

L00: Nursing Room 037 5.59 Yes

L00: Psychiatric Room 038 5.69 Yes

o Courtyard 02

Room Name Average Daylight Factor > Good practice

L00: Meeting Room 004 5.08 Yes

L00: Bedroom 006 5.78 Yes

L00: Bedroom 008 6.97 Yes

L00: Meeting Room 018 4.48 Yes

5.59 5.69

4.48

6.97 5.78

5.08

P a g e | 62

8.3 Discussion

For the areas considered the resulting Average Daylight factors are above the minimum

recommend average daylight factors or suggested good practice:

• Bedrooms – 1.00 %

• Living Rooms/Kitchen - 1.50 %

• Consulting Room – 2.0%

• Treatment/Nursing Rooms – 2.0%

P a g e | 63

9 Conclusion

Based on the analysis undertaken, the following can be concluded:

Shadow Analysis

The Village

Additional shadows are shown across the adjacent student accommodation building located

west of the proposed development. Some additional shading is shown on The Village – North

and East blocks during the morning (10h00) however beyond this it is generally unaffected

with respect to direct shading by the proposed development.

Victoria Cross (rear elevations)

This sits to the South of the proposed development and it therefore unaffected with respect

to direct shading by the proposed development

Daylight/Skylight Analysis

Any areas affected would be deemed as a minor adverse impact in line with Appendix 1 of

the BRE 2011 Guide.




further.

Furthermore in the context of the proposed site as an inner urban areas (developed pre

1920’s) and the imperative to propose a sustainable use of urban land, it is understandable

that the development may have a minor adverse impact on adjoining buildings.



whole.

Solar Exposure Hours to existing garden spaces

The spaces considered can be described as adequately sunlit throughout the year, with at

least half of a garden or amenity area receiving at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March in

line with BRE recommendations.

Solar Exposure Hours to proposed development amenity Area

The amenity spaces within the proposed building spaces can be described as adequately sunlit

throughout the year, with at least half of a garden or amenity area receiving at least 2 hours

of sunlight on 21st March in line with BRE recommendations.

P a g e | 64

Average Daylight Factor

For the areas considered the resulting Average Daylight factors are above the minimum

recommend average daylight factors or suggested good practice.

9.1 Recommendations

It should be noted that the guidance in 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide

to good practice' is not mandatory and the Report itself states ‘although it gives numerical

guidelines these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of many

factors in site layout design.

Whilst the results shown relate to the criteria as laid out in the BRE guidance targets it is

important to note that the BRE targets have been drafted primarily for use in low density

suburban development and should therefore be used with flexibility and caution when

dealing other types of sites. Despite this, the site performs well in relation to the metrics

considered in this report.

The overall impact may need to be considered alongside the other social, economic and

environmental benefits of the development.

Based on this study the proposed development is broadly in line with the recommendations

in the BRE ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ guide, sometimes referred to as

BRE Digest 209.

Therefore, there is no significant basis for a refusal on issues relating to shadow/daylight

impact based on the results, or existing precedent nearby, as demonstrated in this report.

P a g e | 65

g value.

’s nest, cork -...

Documents