Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd PROPOSED STUDENT ... · PDF fileResearch Establishment’s...

Clifton Heights, Triangle West, Bristol BS8 1EJ

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

LONDON | BIRMINGHAM | BRISTOL | EDINBURGH | HUNTINGDON | MANCHESTER

Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study for

Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd

PROPOSED STUDENT ACCOMMODATION DEVELOPMENT AT

JOCKEY STREET SWANSEA

WALES SA1 1NS

Date: September 2017

Our Ref: 17-02955

1 Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study Report

Version 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 Ty Gwenllian ................................................................................. 9 7 Bethesda Court ............................................................................... 10 8 Conclusions ................................................................................... 11

Appendices

Appendix 1 Identification Drawings

Appendix 2 Daylight & Sunlight VSC & APSH Results

Appendix 3 Daylight Distribution Results

Appendix 4 Daylight Distribution Contour Drawings


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 We have been instructed to compile a Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study with regard to the

proposed student accommodation scheme on Jockey Street, Swansea.

1.2 We undertook a site inspection to review the proposal in context and to gain a greater

understanding of the interrelationship between the various buildings.

1.3 We then reviewed the Local Authority’s planning policy in respect of Daylight & Sunlight.

There was no direct reference to Daylight & Sunlight although there is regular reference to

safeguarding neighbouring residential amenity.

1.4 On the basis of the above, we set about conducting an analysis in accordance with Building

Research Establishment’s Report 209 “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A

Guide to Good Practice” (2011 2nd Edition). This guidance is regarded as industry standard

and we regularly prepare such studies for local authorities throughout the UK.

1.5 We identified two neighbouring residential properties within a reasonable proximity to the

development and warranting inclusion within the study.

1.6 We organised a laser scan of the site and the surrounding buildings. This is a highly accurate

process which enables a 3D AutoCAD model to be compiled, into which we have

incorporated the architects proposal.

1.7 The analysis has involved utilising specialist software applied on the AutoCAD model.

1.8 The results from the analysis confirm that satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity

should continue to be received within both of the neighbouring properties following the

construction of the proposed development.

1.9 We therefore conclude that the development works well in respecting its neighbours and its

affect in terms of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity is deemed satisfactory and acceptable.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

2 INTRODUCTION

INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 We received instructions from Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd c/o Boyes Rees Architects to

prepare a Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study in respect of the proposed student

accommodation development on Jockey Street, Swansea SA1 1NS.

2.2 A copy of our terms of engagement are held on file.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

with Rapleys, in connection with Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd. We further confirm that

Professional Indemnity Insurance on a per claim basis is available in respect of this report.

DISCLOSURE

2.4 This report is specifically for the addressee stated above.

SIGNATURE

2.5 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 Balvinder Sagoo BSc (Hons) MRICS

[email protected]

Signature

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF RAPLEYS LLP

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dan Tapscott (Sep 25, 2017)Dan Tapscott

Balvinder Sagoo (Sep 25, 2017)Balvinder Sagoo

https://rapleys.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAAkVbZXi99ig5nS6s43oD1JhnLmodiBTtt

https://rapleys.na1.echosign.com/verifier?tx=CBJCHBCAABAAkVbZXi99ig5nS6s43oD1JhnLmodiBTtt


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

3 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSALS

3.1 The proposals comprise the demolition of a two storey building and the construction of a

450 bedroom student accommodation scheme. The development is to extend up to circa 12

storeys at its highest point and five at its lowest.

3.2 The proposals which we have analysed are those which were provided electronically by the

project architect in a 3D model, received via email on 19 September 2017. An initial set of

indicative proposals were forwarded to us prior to this to assist our understanding of the

proposals in general, for the purposes of our site inspection.

SITE INSPECTION

3.3 The site and the surrounding properties were inspected externally on 13 September 2017 by

Dan Tapscott BSc (Hons) MRICS. During the inspection Dan was unaccompanied.

3.4 Where possible, high level vantage points were used to view the neighbouring properties

externally. The purpose of the inspection was to review the site in context, to identify the

surrounding properties considered to be within a reasonable distance and which should be

included within the scope of a 3D analysis.

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

proximity where there may be a Daylight & Sunlight Amenity issue, we used 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.

RELEVANT NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

3.6 Arising from our site inspection and further to a review of the Local Authority’s Planning

guidance (as discussed in detail under section 4.1), the following properties were identified

as warranting inclusion in this study:

Ty Gwenllian, a three storey building containing residential flats, probably constructed

in the 1990s, situated to the northwest of the development site at the junction

between High Street and Bethesda Street.

Bethesda Court, a four storey development containing residential flats, probably

constructed around 10 years ago, situated to the west of the development site. It’s

rear elevation overlooks John Street and the development site.

3.7 In total, 77 windows and 64 rooms have been the subject of our analysis.

BACKGROUND TO THE ANALYSIS

3.8 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 our site inspection.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

3.9 Internal room layout information has been obtained by the laser scan and is based upon the

experience of our design analysts.

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

model.

3.11 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.

3.12 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.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

4 DAYLIGHT & SUNLIGHT AMENITY

PLANNING GUIDANCE

4.1 The Local Development Plan identified as being relevant to our review is Swansea Local

Development Plan 2010-2025: Deposit Plan July 2016.

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

mention of ‘amenity’ in general and we have noted the following clauses that are

considered relevant:

PS 2: PLACEMAKING AND PLACE MANAGEMENT

Development must enhance the quality of places and spaces, and respond positively to

aspects of local context and character that contribute towards a sense of place.

The design, layout and orientation of proposed buildings, and the spaces between

them, must provide for an attractive, legible and safe environment, and ensure that

no significant adverse impacts would be caused to people’s amenity.

2.2.7 Poor design not only detracts from the character and appearance of an area, but

can harm neighbours’ quality of life. Potential impacts on people’s amenity will be

assessed by considering elements such as visual impact, loss of light, overlooking,

privacy, disturbance and likely traffic movements. Internal floor dimensions of living

spaces are also considered an important element of maintaining appropriate amenity

standards and providing for healthy and attractive environments.

2.2.11 Good design precludes cramped and/or over intensive development, including

inappropriate tandem development or ribbon development. In some instances infill or

backland development will not be appropriate within settlements, for example where

it is detrimental to the amenity of occupiers in surrounding properties and/or the

character of an area, such as an area characterised by its openness and/or relatively

large gaps between dwellings.

4.3 In our opinion the main emphasis towards safeguarding amenity focussed on residential

properties, which led to those being identified in section 3.3, as warranting inclusion in this

study.

4.4 No specific guidance on the levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity are provided by the Local

Authority. However, we have experience in producing studies utilising the guidance set out

within Building Research Establishment’s Report 209 “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and

Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice” (2011 2nd Edition) [the BRE Report]. This is widely

recognised as the most appropriate way of undertaking a study such as this.

ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

4.5 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.

4.6 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”.

4.7 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.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

VERTICAL SKY COMPONENT (VSC)

4.8 The VSC is a measure of the amount of light falling on a window, 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.

4.9 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, the BRE

numerical guidelines will not be satisfied.

4.10 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.

4.11 We find it useful to consider the Reduction Factor of 0.8, as a percentage equal to 80%, or

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

Report.

ANNUAL PROBABLE SUNLIGHT HOURS (APSH)

4.12 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. 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).

4.13 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). This includes 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.

DAYLIGHT DISTRIBUTION (DD)

4.14 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.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

5 FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSIS

RESULTS

5.1 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.

5.2 It should be noted that where some results have been ‘greyed out’ this is due to our

findings on site, where we have noted frosted glazing indicating bathroom / WC

accommodation and according to the BRE Report, these need not be assessed. However, as

the room uses are not 100% confirmed, the results for these rooms have been included for

transparency.

5.3 In the sections which follow is commentary on the results from the analysis.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

6 TY GWENLLIAN

VSC RESULTS

6.1 There VSC results for this property are satisfactory and good levels of daylight should

continue to be received to its windows.

DD RESULTS

6.2 The DD results are also regarded as satisfactory and meet the guidelines in every instance.

Good levels of daylight will therefore be received within this property following the

construction of the proposed development.

APSH RESULTS

6.3 The results confirm that satisfactory levels of sunlight amenity will be experienced in every

instance following the construction of the development.

CONCLUSION

6.4 We conclude that the levels of Daylight & Sunlight to this property will not be detrimentally

impacted upon in terms of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity as a result of the proposed

development.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

7 BETHESDA COURT

VSC RESULTS

7.1 The VSC results for this property are generally regarded as positive. There is one ground

floor room that is believed to be a bedroom, where the levels of daylight received to two

windows do not meet the guidelines by 8% at their worst.

7.2 Given the degree of flexibility the BRE Report recommends is exercised when interpreting

the results, we believe the results to this room should be considered acceptable. This is due

to:

1. The results are close to meeting the guideline reduction factor of 0.8.

2. The property is situated within a dense urban area on the outskirts of a city; it is

notoriously difficult to meet the guidelines in locations such as this compared with the

low rise suburban illustrations contained within the BRE Report.

3. The room use is thought to be a bedroom rather than a kitchen or living room and it is

commonly accepted that the importance of daylight within bedrooms is not as high as

in the other examples.

4. This neighbouring property has been constructed fairly recently and there would have

been a reasonable expectation by the occupier that a derelict single site behind would

have been redeveloped in the future and to a greater scale than the current building.

DD RESULTS

7.3 The DD results are satisfactory, including the bedroom which did not meet the guideline

figure for the VSC test.

APSH RESULTS

7.4 A large proportion of the windows which overlook the development site face within 90

degrees and therefore do not need to be assessed.

7.5 Out of the 12 windows which warrant an analysis, all meet the guideline figures for the

level of annual sunlight. There are two windows which do not meet the winter sunlight

hours guideline; a ground floor and first floor bedroom. In both instances the results are

within 5% of meeting the guideline. Neither of these rooms are the one with the VSC result

which did not meet the guideline. However, for the same reasons as the VSC window, we

believe there are sufficient grounds of mitigation to regard the sunlight results for this

property as being satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

7.6 We conclude that this property should receive satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight

Amenity following the construction of the proposed development.


Version 1

RAPLEYS LLP

8 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity received within Ty Gwenllian following the

construction of the proposed development will be satisfactory as the results meet the

guidelines in every instance.

8.2 The vast majority of the rooms and windows within Bethesda Court will continue to receive

satisfactory levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity following the construction of the proposed

development. In the rare occasions where this is not the case, the results are regarded as

being sufficiently close to doing so and combined with other mitigation factors, the results

are deemed acceptable.

8.3 We therefore conclude that the proposed development has been designed well. It respects

its neighbours who should continue to receive good levels of Daylight & Sunlight Amenity

following its construction.

Appendix 1

IDENTIFICATION DRAWINGS

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title

Kevin DemirciProperties Limited

Existing Site Plan

Scale Date DrawnRAKSEPTEMBER

2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY

Tel: 0870 777 6292 www.rapleys.com

17-02955-01-01

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.

Internal room layouts derived from pointcloud wherever possible.

All other room information is assumed or from plans.

Supplemented with site photography, Bing maps and Google

Streetmaps.

Plans:

79 Prince of Wales Road

2013_0774-PROPOSED_FLOOR_PLANS-82886.pdf

Proposed Model

Models derived from supplied 3d data, received 20.09.2017

Ref. 6019 Site Model 14 09 2017.skp.

Fitted using supplied 2d data, received 20.09.2017

Ref.1-4 floor plan.dwg & proposed section -.pdf.

John Street

Ty Gwenllian

Jockey Street,Swansea, SA1.

79

1

DanceStudio

BethesdaCourt

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

Jockey Street

High Street

Prin

ce o

f Wal

es R

oad

Bethesda Street

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title


Proposed Site Plan


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-02

01

002

Site Plan

NTS @A3

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





John Street

Ty Gwenllian


79

1

BethesdaCourt

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

Jockey Street

High Street

Prin

ce o

f Wal

es R

oad

Bethesda Street

DanceStudio

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title


Existing 3d ViewLooking Northwest.


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-03

01

003

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





Ty Gwenllian


79

1

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

Jockey Street

High Street

Prince of Wales Road

Bethesda Street

BethesdaCourt

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title


Proposed 3d ViewLooking Northwest.


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-04

01

004

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





Ty Gwenllian


79

1

BethesdaCourt

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

Jockey Street

High Street


Bethesda Street

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title


Existing 3d ViewLooking Southeast.


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-05

01

005

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





Ty Gwenllian


791

BethesdaCourt

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

High Street


Bethesda Street Dance Studio

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title


Proposed 3d ViewLooking Southeast.


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-06

01

006

3d View

NTS @A3

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





Ty Gwenllian


791

BethesdaCourt

PalaceTheatre

Ty Bryn Glas

FriendshipHouse

High Street


Bethesda Street Dance Studio

Appendix 2

DAYLIGHT & SUNLIGHT VSC & APSH RESULTS

Project Name: Jockey Street, Swansea

Project No.: 17-02955

Report Title: VSC & APSH Results

Date of Analysis: September 2017

Floor Ref. Room Ref. Property Type

Known /

Assumed Room

Use.

Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

CriteriaWinter Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Ground R1 Residential Living Room W1 Existing 25.19 0.96 YES 49 0.95 YES 13 0.84 YES

Proposed 24.33 47 11

R2 Residential Bedroom W2 Existing 27.70 0.96 YES 44 0.97 YES 15 0.93 YES


First R1 Residential Living Room W1 Existing 27.79 0.96 YES 55 0.96 YES 15 0.86 YES






Second R1 Residential Living Room W1 Existing 24.80 0.95 YES 28 0.92 YES 15 0.86 YES






Ground R1 Residential Bedroom W1 Existing 30.43 0.82 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 25.18

W2 Existing 29.34 0.81 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 24.05

R5 Residential WC W6 Existing 35.28 0.72 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 25.53

R6 Residential WC W7 Existing 35.58 0.72 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 25.73

R7 Residential Bedroom W8 Existing 35.55 0.72 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 25.84

W9 Existing 35.52 0.73 NO YES *North* *North*

Proposed 26.13

R8 Residential Bedroom W10 Existing 14.08 0.97 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 13.66


Proposed 9.55

R10 Residential WC W12 Existing 7.71 0.96 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 7.47


Proposed 5.74 10 0

Ty Gwenllian

Bethesda Court






Known /

Assumed Room

Use.

Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets BRE


Meets BRE

Criteria

R14 Residential Bedroom W19 Existing 13.16 0.85 YES 20 0.95 YES 4 0.75 NO

Proposed 11.29 19 3


Proposed 26.59


Proposed 25.92


Proposed 23.78

First R1 Residential Bedroom W1 Existing 32.21 0.85 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 27.56


Proposed 26.26


Proposed 28.89


Proposed 28.96


Proposed 27.68


Proposed 28.51


Proposed 28.73


Proposed 28.85


Proposed 29.12


Proposed 17.35


Proposed 13.53


Proposed 10.73


Proposed 6.53 8 0


Proposed 8.91 14 0

R18 Residential Bedroom W21 Existing 17.24 0.90 YES 31 0.96 YES 4 0.75 NO

Proposed 15.65 30 3


Proposed 29.83


Proposed 29.29






Known /

Assumed Room

Use.

Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets BRE


Meets BRE

Criteria


Proposed 27.11

Second R1 Residential Bedroom W1 Existing 34.01 1.00 YES 59 1.00 YES 23 1.00 YES



Proposed 29.97


Proposed 28.44


Proposed 31.00


Proposed 31.14


Proposed 30.32


Proposed 31.29


Proposed 31.46


Proposed 31.57


Proposed 31.80


Proposed 22.32


Proposed 20.29


Proposed 16.40


Proposed 8.84 11 3


Proposed 13.86 22 6




Proposed 32.90


Proposed 32.62


Proposed 30.99






Known /

Assumed Room

Use.

Window

Ref.VSC Pr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?Annual Pr/Ex

Meets BRE


Meets BRE

Criteria

Third R1 Residential Bedroom W1 Existing 35.66 0.90 YES *North* *North*

Proposed 32.42


Proposed 30.53


Proposed 27.39


Proposed 27.65


Proposed 27.84


Proposed 28.83


Proposed 30.17


Proposed 30.96


Proposed 31.02


Proposed 27.26


Proposed 23.11


Proposed 20.89


Proposed 11.41 9 5






Proposed 30.87


Proposed 30.88


Proposed 29.61

Appendix 3

DAYLIGHT DISTRIBUTION RESULTS



Report Title: DD Results


Floor Ref. Room Ref. Property TypeKnown / Assumed

Room Use.

Room

Area

Lit Area

Existing

Lit Area

ProposedPr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?

Ground R1 Residential Living Room Area m2 13.21 12.22 12.22

% of room 93% 93% 0.99 YES

R2 Residential Bedroom Area m2 6.78 6.26 6.26

% of room 92% 92% 1.00 YES

First R1 Residential Living Room Area m2 13.21 12.40 12.40

% of room 94% 94% 0.99 YES


% of room 94% 94% 1.00 YES


% of room 67% 67% 1.00 YES

Second R1 Residential Living Room Area m2 13.21 12.34 12.34

% of room 93% 93% 0.99 YES


% of room 94% 94% 1.00 YES


% of room 75% 75% 1.00 YES

Ground R1 Residential Bedroom Area m2 16.79 14.60 14.57

% of room 87% 87% 0.99 YES

R5 Residential WC Area m2 5.69 5.50 4.08

% of room 97% 72% 0.74 NO YES


% of room 97% 70% 0.72 NO YES


% of room 98% 82% 0.83 YES


% of room 47% 47% 1.00 YES


% of room 29% 29% 1.00 YES


% of room 25% 25% 1.00 YES


% of room 16% 16% 0.99 YES


% of room 35% 35% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 85% 0.86 YES

R16 Residential Unknown Area m2 4.12 3.68 3.68

% of room 89% 89% 0.99 YES

First R1 Residential Bedroom Area m2 16.79 15.88 15.88

% of room 95% 95% 0.99 YES


% of room 93% 93% 1.00 YES


% of room 90% 90% 0.99 YES


% of room 81% 81% 0.99 YES


% of room 96% 92% 0.96 YES


% of room 96% 92% 0.95 YES


% of room 98% 98% 0.99 YES


% of room 61% 61% 1.00 YES

Ty Gwenllian

Bethesda Court






Room Use.

Room

Area

Lit Area

Existing

Lit Area

ProposedPr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?


% of room 54% 54% 1.00 YES


% of room 51% 51% 1.00 YES


% of room 22% 22% 0.99 YES


% of room 32% 32% 1.00 YES


% of room 60% 60% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 95% 0.96 YES


% of room 89% 89% 0.99 YES

Second R1 Residential Bedroom Area m2 25.69 25.53 25.19

% of room 99% 98% 0.98 YES


% of room 94% 94% 1.00 YES


% of room 90% 90% 1.00 YES


% of room 84% 84% 1.00 YES


% of room 96% 96% 0.99 YES


% of room 96% 96% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 98% 0.99 YES


% of room 88% 88% 1.00 YES


% of room 96% 96% 1.00 YES


% of room 85% 85% 1.00 YES


% of room 34% 34% 0.99 YES


% of room 62% 62% 1.00 YES


% of room 82% 82% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 98% 0.99 YES


% of room 91% 91% 1.00 YES

Third R1 Residential Bedroom Area m2 16.79 16.58 16.58

% of room 99% 99% 0.99 YES


% of room 92% 92% 1.00 YES


% of room 88% 88% 1.00 YES


% of room 84% 84% 1.00 YES


% of room 95% 95% 0.99 YES


% of room 95% 95% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 98% 0.99 YES


% of room 97% 97% 1.00 YES


% of room 96% 96% 1.00 YES


% of room 94% 94% 1.00 YES






Room Use.

Room

Area

Lit Area

Existing

Lit Area

ProposedPr/Ex

Meets BRE

Criteria

Within

10%?


% of room 47% 47% 1.00 YES


% of room 96% 96% 1.00 YES


% of room 86% 86% 0.99 YES


% of room 98% 98% 0.99 YES


% of room 89% 89% 1.00 YES

Appendix 4

DAYLIGHT DISTRIBUTION CONTOUR DRAWINGS

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title



Daylight DistributionContours


2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-07

01

007

Ground Floor

Ty Gwenllian

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





01

007

First Floor

Ty Gwenllian

KEY

Existing No Sky Area

Proposed No Sky Area

Area of Loss/Gain

Room Area (Assumed Layout)

Room Area (Measured Layout)

01

007

Second Floor

Ty Gwenllian

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title





2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-08

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





KEY



Area of Loss/Gain



01

008

Ground Floor

Bethesda Court

01

008

First Floor

Bethesda Court

01

008

Second Floor

Bethesda Court

Client

Job Title

Drawing Title





2017 NTS

55 Spring Gardens,

MANCHESTER M2 2BY


17-02955-01-09

Analysis








Streetmaps.

Plans:



Proposed Model





KEY



Area of Loss/Gain



01

009

Third Floor

Bethesda Court

Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd PROPOSED STUDENT ... · PDF fileResearch Establishment’s...

Documents

Transcript of Kevin Demirci Properties Ltd PROPOSED STUDENT ... · PDF fileResearch Establishment’s...