Impacts on Neighbour s: Context ual Daylight, Sunlig ht & Overshadowi ng
Repor t
We are creating a place the world will watch with wonder, on London’s iconic site of human ingenuity.
rough our masterplan, we will reimagine the very fabric of living, working and urban wellbeing for London and future spaces.
Attracting the world’s most inventive, imaginative and extraordinary minds. at place is Earls Court.
Nature
A celebration of nature and its ability to connect and revive.
Innovation
A showcase for climate and clean innovation and skills.
Our four place pillars underpin our vision and set the ambitions for the place we want to create.
Culture
A cultural ecosystem for the future of talent.
Neighbourhood
An inspiring neighbourhood designed for all stages of life.
Foreword
After four years of deep consideration and collaboration with stakeholders and local people, The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) is delighted to present the ambitious future plans for this iconic Site.
We formed in 2021 during the lockdown imposed by the first global pandemic in a century, an era which was both disruptive and formative, demanding that we reflect and reassess how we will be living in the future. There could be no more engaging mission for a team specifically assembled to design a place fit for the 22nd century.
As a team, ECDC shares a passion for transformational inner-city projects, and collectively have wide-ranging experiences from diverse international projects. Together, we are driven to fulfil the opportunities of this complex strategic site for London and rightfully put Earls Court as a place back on the global map.
Our intent from the very beginning, was to take a different approach to community involvement in shaping design. Setting up as a local business and being right next to Site everyday, working closely with both local authorities, the Mayor’s office, local businesses and our neighbours has been fundamental in shaping our plans for the Site, which we believe are more relevant and exciting for it.
We have listened and taken huge inspiration from Earls Court’s heritage, as a place that dared — to showcase, to entertain and celebrate the spectacular. A place that was so clearly cherished for being bold and brave, welcoming people from across the globe.
Our plans retain that innovative spirit that embraces future thinking an approach we believe has become more important now than ever before. An approach that continues to drive
us to create a global exemplar of sustainability.
We understand our responsibility to deliver much needed homes and employment opportunities for London. Critical to achieving these aims is creating a place with personality, a place that once again becomes a destination with a broad cultural appeal and is fully inclusive to all that come to experience it.
The masterplan has been created to prioritise urban wellbeing and includes a network of Exhibition Gardens that will be open and accessible for everyone to enjoy. We’re creating a pedestrian-first environment alive with daytime and evening active uses. This generosity of open space is evident at key arrival points as well as the unique Table Park and Lillie Sidings.
Our commitment to create a better piece of city has been evidenced over the last three years as we have welcomed over 500,000 people back onto Site to enjoy a programme of events that nod to the past and point to the future of Earls Court.
ECDC began with a mantra ‘to make haste slowly’ and ensure we took the time to both listen and appreciate the world of Earls Court, which helped to establish the early vision to bring the wonder back to Earls Court.
Now, after over four years of consideration, we are proud to present our hybrid planning submission to the authorities for determination a key milestone to enable the future of Earls Court as a place, once again, to discover wonder.
Rob Heasman CEO e Earls Court Development Company
PROJECT DATA:
Client Earls Court Partnership Limited
Project Title Earls Court Development
Project Number 15447
REPORT DATA:
Report Title Contextual DSO Report
GIA Department Daylight Department
Dated July 2024
Prepared by DMC / FS
Checked by JW
Type FINAL
Revisions No: Date: Notes: Signed:
SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
Information Received IR212, IR241, IR242, IR243, IR244 and IR245
Release Number Rel_66_15447_CAD
Issue Number IS00, IS03, IS04, IS06, IS07, IS08, IS09 and IS10
Site Photos GIA / Google
3D models MSA Survey / VU.CITY
OS Data FIND Maps
DISCLAIMER:
N.B This report has been prepared for Earls Court Partnership Limited by GIA as their appointed Daylight & Sunlight consultants. This report is intended solely for Earls Court Partnership Limited and may contain confidential information. No part or whole of its contents may be disclosed to or relied upon by any Third Parties without the express written consent of GIA. It is accurate as at the time of publication and based upon the information we have been provided with as set out in the report. It does not take into account changes that have taken place since the report was written nor does it take into account private information on internal layouts and room uses of adjoining properties unless this information is publicly available.
1.1 This standalone Contextual Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Report is submitted on behalf of Earls Court Partnership Limited (ECPL - The Applicant) as part of two hybrid planning applications to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). The ‘Proposed Development’ will form the new proposed Earls Court Development. Within this report the Proposed Development refers to All Phases.
1.2 This Contextual Report and its appendices is fundamental to the review and understanding of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts on neighbours and it is necessary to consider this document as part of Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement (the ES Chapter). Overall conclusions in the ES Chapter at neighbouring properties and amenity areas have been made based on this Contextual Report.
1.3 The technical analysis has been undertaken against the methodologies set out in the “Building Research Establishment Guidelines – Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice 2011” (BRE Guidelines).
1.4 The BRE Guidelines note that alterations greater than 20% may be considered noticeable, however, it does not specify how the magnitude of an impact beyond Negligible (greater than 20%) should be categorised. The magnitude of impact criteria (Minor, Moderate and Major Adverse) adopted in the ES Chapter has been defined using an industry standard approach relating to noticeability i.e. the change in light from the existing condition. The magnitude of impact criteria, determines the scale and nature of the effect in the ES. Whilst this approach has been adopted as an industry standard guide, it is completely acontextual. In order to determine whether a noticeable change is acceptable, the retained levels of light must be considered in context in line with relevant case law, policy and guidance.
1.5 The Rainbird judgement1 (2018) advises that daylight and sunlight should be approached in a two-stage process when assessing impacts on existing neighbours (see Section 2). The two stage approach is now embedded in planning guidance (Housing
Design Standards LPG, 2023) as the recommended method of evaluating daylight and sunlight amenity (see Section 5):
• Stage 1 is a calculation to confirm whether the impact is noticeable by applying the national numerical assessments in the BRE Guidelines.
• Stage 2 is a matter of judgement, and it is necessary to consider whether a noticeable impact (as determined by the BRE assessments) is unacceptable in the particular context of the case.
1.6 Given the Site’s history, which includes a Consented Development (ES Scenario 1b) and large pre-existing buildings it is necessary that daylight and sunlight impacts are reviewed against context to determine if the retained daylight and sunlight is acceptable. This approach has been accepted by local authorities and also the Greater London Authority (GLA) on many urban brownfield sites.
1.7 With the approval of the Consented Development, it was anticipated that amenity at neighbouring properties would change as the strategic plan for this Opportunity Area was brought forward. The partially cleared site is a temporary condition as buildings were demolished for redevelopment. As such, the current levels of daylight and sunlight are not representative of those expected for this site.
1.8 To determine the acceptability of retained values, alternative target criteria has been set based on three relevant factors (where applicable at specific properties). This includes a comparison to the Consented Development or if relevant a comparison to the Pre-Existing Baseline. This is to understand if the retained levels of daylight and sunlight are materially different to those previously approved or experienced. Secondly, as recommended by the Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Guidance, the retained daylight has been compared to other “broadly comparable residential typologies.” Finally, as per the BRE Guidelines, the sensitivity of the loss has been considered against factors such as existing obstructions, room use and size. This is outlined in detail in Sections 2, 5, 6 and 9.
1.9 Contextual reporting and the use of alternative target criteria has been applied and accepted on a number of major planning applications and appeals in London and elsewhere in the UK. As such, the two stage approach is not only embedded in case
1 Rainbird, R (on the application of) v The Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2018] EWHC 657 (Admin) (28 March 2018)
law and planning guidance but has been applied extensively in practice.
1.10 Throughout the design process and the scheme’s evolution, the Proposed Development has been the subject of extensive reviews with the design team to help mitigate (where possible) impacts to neighbours whilst being mindful of the recommendations of policy with regards to housing optimisation and the Site’s location in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area.
1.11 GIA’s iterative testing process included multiple workshops with the design team to review where massing could be reduced to mitigate impacts to neighbours and improve the retained amenity. A number of scheme iterations were fully tested by GIA during the design stages and the plots were reduced in bulk and height during this time.
1.12 To assess Stage 1 of the two stage approach the change in light condition from the Existing (1a) baseline to the Proposed Development (3a) is calculated and reported on in the ES Chapter. Properties or amenity areas which are Negligible (BRE Compliant), Negligible Adverse or Minor Adverse are not reviewed further in this Contextual Report as the effects are considered overall not significant.
1.13 For those properties and amenity areas which experience a significant effect (Moderate to Major Adverse) as defined in the ES Chapter, we have determined in this Contextual Report whether the impact is acceptable by reviewing alternative target criteria related to context as per Stage 2 (see Section 6 and 9).
1.14 If the alternative target criteria is met, the impact is deemed acceptable based on wider contextual factors. In Appendix 01, detailed commentary on how a window, room or amenity area meets the alternative target criteria is provided along with the full assessment results.
1.15 For daylight, a total of 438 properties have been assessed. There would be no significant effects to 283 properties against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 155 properties which experience a significant daylight effect as outlined in the ES Chapter, there are:
• 97 properties that would meet the alternative daylight target criteria and are therefore
acceptable in consideration of context.
• 36 properties that would substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative daylight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 22 properties that would not meet the alternative daylight target criteria.
1.16 In summary, 65% of the properties see no significant effects. Where there are significant effects, 30% of the properties assessed meet or substantially meet the alternative target criteria. The remaining 5% do not meet the alternative criteria. However, this is generally a result of the existing architecture (selfobstruction or restrictive neighbouring buildings). These properties are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context;
• Flats 1-10 and Flats 46-55, Kensington Hall Gardens (LBHF)
• 177 North End Road (LBHF - within the Site boundary)
• 40-42 Lillie Road (LBHF)
• 9-28, 29-38 Gibbs Green (LBHF)
• 1, 2, 3-8, 9, 10 and 14 Dieppe Close (LBHF)
• 7 Garsdale Terrace (LBHF)
• 14B, 14C and 14D Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
• 7 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
• 7-9 Lillie Road (LBHF)
• 1 and 55 Eardley Crescent (RBKC)
• 25 and 35 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
1.17 For sunlight, a total of 271 properties have been assessed, 167 surrounding the Site are not relevant. There would be no significant effects to 198 properties against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 73 properties which experience a significant sunlight effect as outlined in the ES Chapter, there are:
• 40 properties that would meet the alternative sunlight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 25 properties that would substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative sunlight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 8 properties that would not meet the alternative sunlight target criteria.
1.18 In summary, 73% of the properties see no significant effects. Where there are significant effects, 24% of the properties assessed meet or substantially meet the alternative target criteria. The remaining 3% do not meet the alternative sunlight target
criteria. However, this is generally a result of the existing architecture (self-obstruction or restrictive neighbouring buildings). These properties are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context;
• 21 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 25 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 30-31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 37 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 40 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 42 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 46 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 48 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
1.19 As outlined in detail through illustrations in Section 9, where the alternative target criteria is not met there are largely other contextual factors which are relevant to consider such as proximity to the Site boundary, existing obstructions, projecting elevations and overhangs etc.
1.20 The Consented Development has been used to set one of the alternative target criteria for each relevant window, room and amenity area tested. In overall terms, (at all properties assessed), the average values (per floor) for the Proposed Development are broadly comparable with the Consented Development This is outlined on the graphs on pages 54-55.
1.21 In terms of the daylight (VSC) research undertaken at other streetscapes, on average (per floor) the proposed VSC (at all assessed properties) is broadly comparable with the average levels in other similar building typologies in LBHF and RBKC.
1.22 For overshadowing, a total of 400 amenity areas have been assessed. There would be no significant effects to 374 amenity areas against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 26 amenity areas which experience a significant effect in the ES Chapter, there are:
• 17 amenity areas that would meet the alternative overshadowing target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 4 amenity areas that substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative overshadowing target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 5 amenity areas that would not meet the alternative target criteria.
1.23 In summary, 94% of the amenity areas see no
significant effects. Where there are significant effects, 5% of the amenity areas assessed meet or substantially meet the alternative target criteria. The remaining 1% do not meet the alternative sunlight target criteria. However, this is generally a result of the orientation of the gardens as well as existing obstructions such as projecting building elements or fences. The June 21st sun exposure images demonstrate a significantly improved position in the summer months, which in practice is when the t areas are most actively used. These 5 amenity areas are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context:
• 31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 29 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 61 Philbeach Gardens terrace (RBKC)
• 7 Eardley Crescent (RBKC)
• 6 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
1.24 To undertake a fully robust contextual assessment, this report primarily considers All Phases as this is the largest massing to potentially come forward. If the Early Phases (see ES Chapter) were to be built out instead of All Phases, the conclusions outlined in this report would still be valid i.e. those properties that meet the alternative target criteria for All Phases would meet them for the Early Phases or perform better due to the reduced number of plots. A summary table outlining the Early Phases effects and alternative target criteria review is provided in Appendix 01. The assessment results of the Early Phases are provided in the ES Chapter.
1.25 In Opportunity Areas, where there is a need to optimise development for regeneration (to meet planning requirements and align with policy) impacts on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing (beyond the BRE Guidelines) are highly likely to occur as an area undergoes transformational change. This Contextual Report illustrates that high levels of compliance with the BRE guidelines and planning policy on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing matters will be achieved upon completion of the Proposed Development. Broadly comparable levels of daylight can be found in other established streetscapes and at large scale regeneration sites. Furthermore, the retained values are largely similar to levels previously approved by both local authorities and are, therefore, found to be contextually acceptable.
1.26 The Proposed Development will bring a range of
benefits and the alterations in daylight and sunlight should not be considered in isolation. Significant weight should be given to the factors outlined in this Contextual Report including the demands of planning policy and this specific Site context.
1.27 It is for the local authorities, along with their technical consultants, to review the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts against the benefits of the Proposed Development, which are outlined in the Planning and Public Benefits Statement and is submitted in support of the applications.
2.1 This standalone Contextual Report and its appendices is fundamental to the review and understanding of daylight and sunlight impacts and should be read as part of Chapter 15 of the ES. For ease, this report and its appendices are also included in Appendix 15.13 of the ES Chapter.
2.2 The technical analysis has been undertaken against the methodologies set out in the BRE Guidelines.
2.3 The BRE Guidelines note that alterations greater than 20% may be considered noticeable, however, it does not specify how the magnitude of an impact beyond Negligible (greater than 20%) should be categorised. The magnitude of impact criteria (Minor, Moderate and Major Adverse) adopted in the ES Chapter has been defined using an industry standard approach relating to noticeability. The magnitude of impact criteria, determines the scale and nature of the effect in the ES. Whilst this approach has been adopted as an industry standard guide, it is completely acontextual. In order to determine whether a noticeable change is acceptable, the retained levels of light must be considered in context in line with relevant case law, policy and guidance.
2.4 The Rainbird judgement1 advises that daylight and sunlight should be approached in a two-stage process. The two stage approach is now embedded in planning guidance (Housing Design Standards LPG, 2023) as the recommended method of evaluating daylight and sunlight amenity (see Section 5):
• Stage 1 is a calculation to confirm whether the impact is noticeable by applying the national numerical assessments in the BRE Guidelines.
• Stage 2 is a matter of judgement, and it is necessary to consider whether a noticeable impact (as determined by the BRE assessments) is unacceptable in the particular context of the case.
2.5 Stage 1 uses the technical calculations within the BRE Guidelines to determine whether a reduction in existing daylight and/or sunlight would be noticeable. The scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is determined by this noticeability test.
2.6 For Stage 2, a wider methodology based on context must be adopted in order to apply reasoned
1 Rainbird, R (on the application of) v The Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2018] EWHC 657 (Admin) (28 March 2018)
judgement when determining if an impact is acceptable.
2.7 For the Earls Court development, the Site characteristics and planning history, which includes pre-existing buildings and extant permissions (Consented Development), are material contextual considerations for daylight and sunlight (see Sections 3 and 4). As are the recommendations set out in planning policy and the BRE Guidelines (specifically Appendix F) which are necessary to review impacts on existing daylight and sunlight (see Sections 5 and 6).
2.8 Dependent on a Site’s context, planning policy and the BRE Guidelines recommends that alternative target criteria for daylight and sunlight can be used (Stage 2). The BRE Guidelines note in its opening summary;
“It is purely advisory and the numerical targets within it may be varied to meet the needs of the development and its location. Appendix F explains how this can be done in a logical way.”
2.9 If following Stage 1 the assessment results conclude in the ES Chapter that the effect against the Existing Baseline is Negligible (BRE Compliant), Negligible Adverse or Minor Adverse, no further review of these properties is undertaken as the effects are considered overall not significant.
2.10 Where the analysis in the ES Chapter identifies that properties have overall significant (Moderate to Major Adverse) effects these are reviewed further in this Contextual Report against alternative target criteria to determine if the impact is acceptable (see Section 9 and Appendix 01).
2.11 The alternative target criteria for daylight and sunlight (see Section 6 and 9) has been determined by (where applicable at specific properties);
• Comparing the proposed daylight, sunlight and overshadowing values with those previously approved for the Consented Development – Are the retained levels materially different to what was previously accepted?
• Comparing the proposed daylight, sunlight and overshadowing values with those experienced historically with the Pre-Existing Baseline (Exhibition Centres and 344-350 Old Brompton
Road in situ) – Are the retained levels materially different to what was historically experienced?
• Comparing the proposed daylight values with other similar typologies - Are the retained levels in line with other broadly comparable residential typologies as recommended by the Housing SPG?
• Reviewing the sensitivity of the loss based on the building’s architectural form, the room use and size - Are there other relevant factors relating to the specific building typology and context which make a window and/or room less sensitive?
2.12 The acceptability of the daylight, sunlight or overshadowing effects identified as significant in the ES Chapter are concluded upon by reference to the alternative target criteria above (Stage 2).
2.13 If the alternative target criteria for daylight (VSC and NSL), sunlight (APSH) and overshadowing (SHOG) is met, the retained levels of daylight and sunlight are deemed acceptable when relevant contextual factors are considered.
3 EXISTING, CONSENTED DEVELOPMENT & PREEXISTING
EXISTING BASELINE (ES SCENARIO 1A)
3.1 A detailed description of the Existing Baseline and surrounding area is provided within the Design and Access Statement and is not repeated herein.
3.2 GIA consulted with Hawkins Brown/Studio Egret West (HBSEW) to confirm which buildings on the Site would be demolished as per the Demolition Parameter Plan and which would be retained. As illustrated on Figures 01 and 02 below on a worst case interpretation of the Demolition Parameter Plan it is assumed that all on-site buildings (in brown) are demolished in full with the exception of:
• The Table structure over WLL (beige) - In the Proposed Development this is incorporated in the landscaping and is not shown on GIA’s drawings
as it is not relevant for the impacts on neighbours analysis.
• 2 Cluny Mews -This is the three storey annex south of the Clear Channel building on the Cluny Mews part of the Site (pink) and is to be retained.
• 175-177 North End Road - These are the buildings on the corner of North End Road and Beaumont Avenue which are assumed to be retained but represent a worst case position.
3.3 GIA are aware that the parameter plans for the Outline Component allow for the potential demolition of 175-177 North End Road. For the purpose of the daylight and sunlight, 177 has been analysed as it contains residential units.
3.4 Figures 01 and 02 form the Existing Baseline against which daylight, sunlight and overshadowing
Figure 01: Existing Baseline (ES Scenario 1a) and Surrounding Properties - Plan View
assessments have been undertaken. The assessment of Scenario 1a (Existing Baseline) against Scenario 3a (Proposed Development - All Phases) is provided in the ES Chapter.
3.5 The existing condition, largely vacant or low rise where the former Exhibition Centres stood, represents an unrealistic context. The Exhibition Centres were demolished to make way for the previously Consented Development and the cleared portion of the Site is a temporary condition. Therefore, the current levels of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing are not representative of those expected for the Site. With the Consented Development (discussed on the next page), it was anticipated that amenity at neighbouring properties would change as the strategic plan for this Opportunity Area was brought forward.
3.6 This report considers how appropriate the retained levels of daylight and sunlight post implementation of the Proposed Development are in consideration of the Site context.
3.7 To do this, alternative target criteria has been set based on four key factors (where applicable at specific properties). These include a comparison to the Consented Development and if relevant PreExisting Baseline. Reviewing the daylight levels at other comparable streetscapes in the boroughs (as per the Housing SPG). As well as reviewing the sensitivity of the loss based on factors such as existing obstructions, room use and size etc (see Section 6 and 9).
Figure 02: Existing Baseline (ES Scenario 1a) and Surrounding Properties - 3D View
CONSENTED DEVELOPMENT (ES SCENARIO 1B)
3.8 There are existing planning permissions that relate to the Site. Within RBKC, these include:
• Outline Planning Permission (ref. PP/11/01937) dated 14th November 2013, as amended by various NMAs.
• Reserved Matters for ‘Earls Court Village Area’ (ref. PP/13/07062) dated 3rd April 2014.
• Reserved Matters for Development Zone WV03 (ref. PP/16/07386) dated 3rd May 2017.
• In October 2021, planning permission (ref. PP/21/00272) was granted at 344-350 Old Brompton Road (OBR), for the redevelopment of the Site to provide a nine-storey residential and
commercial building adjacent to the Earls Court Site. The Applicant was ECPL Subsequently, an NMA (ref. NMA/23/02884) was granted to OBR for minor below ground structural changes.
3.9 Within LBHF, these include:
• Outline Planning Permission (ref. 2011/02001/ OUT) dated 14th November 2013, as amended by various NMAs.
• Reserved Matters for Earls Court Village Area (ref. 2013/05200/RES) dated 10th April 2014.
3.10 GIA has used the approved drawings for the applications above to create a 3D model of the Consented Development (ES Scenario 1b). Full details of all modelling sources and assumptions can be found in Appendix 15.3 of the ES Chapter. Figures
Figure 03: Consented Development (ES Scenario 1b) and Surrounding Properties - Plan View
03 and 04 illustrate the Consented Development in yellow and surrounding properties.
3.11 A comparison of the Consented Development cannot be undertaken in relation to the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates. Whilst these were formally part of the 2013 Approved Masterplan, they are not part of the Proposed Development and therefore these buildings can only be tested against the Pre-Existing and Existing Baselines.
3.12 The residential buildings at 177 North End Road and One Cluny Mews also do not have a consented position as both buildings sit within plots of the 2013 Approved Masterplan.
of daylight and sunlight at these properties with formally approved levels at other neighbouring properties.
3.14 The consent at West Brompton Square (348-350 Old Brompton Road) which overlaps with the 2013 Approved Masterplan was superseded by the consent at 344-350 Old Brompton Road (OBRPP/21/00272). This consented scheme is no longer being developed in isolation and now forms part of the Proposed Development. GIA’s assessment uses the approved OBR scheme as the Consented Development massing in this part of the Site.
3.13 It is reasonable to consider the retained levels
Figure 04: Consented Development (ES Scenario 1b) and Surrounding Properties - 3D View
PRE-EXISTING BASELINE
3.15 In addition to extant permissions (Consented Development). there were also pre-existing buildings on the Site. The eastern and south-eastern parts of the Site (roughly triangular shaped and to the west of the West London Line) comprises extensive areas of open hard-standing. This area of hard-standing was previously occupied by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres which were demolished between 2015 and 2017.
3.16 Figures 05 and 06 illustrate the Pre-Existing Baseline and surrounding properties. The buildings in purple are the demolished Exhibition Centres and 344-350 Old Brompton Road. Those in brown are the existing buildings to be demolished and those in pink are the
existing buildings to be retained or assumed to be retained (see paragraph 3.2).
3.17 Whilst not a scenario provided in the ES Chapter, GIA has undertaken analysis against the PreExisting Baseline in this Contextual Report. This is to understand how the proposed values at neighbouring properties and amenity areas compare with the pre-existing levels when the Exhibition Centres (and other on-site buildings) were in situ.
3.18 The Consented Development is the primary scenario to consider over the Pre-Existing Baseline as this is a larger massing. However, it is relevant to consider the Pre-Existing Baseline for some properties surrounding the Site, particularly the provision of sunlight at Philbeach Gardens.
Figure 05: Pre-Existing Baseline and Surrounding Properties - Plan View
3.19 The methodology and alternative target criteria used by GIA in the assessment against the Pre-Existing Baseline are outlined in Section 9.
Figure 06: Pre-Existing Baseline and Surrounding Properties - 3D View
4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT & ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (ES SCENARIO 3A)
4.1 A detailed description of the Proposed Development (ES Scenario 3a) is provided within the Design and Access Statement and is not repeated herein.
4.2 Figures 07 and 08 illustrate the Proposed Development (All Phases) as confirmed by the Detailed Component architects between 8th-9th May 2024 and the masterplan architects on 21st May 2024.
4.3 The Proposed Development is being submitted as a Hybrid application to LBHF and separately RBKC. The plots highlighted in teal are in being brought forward in detail and those in blue are outline. It should be
noted that the Outline Component represents the maximum parameter massing (inclusive of balcony zones etc) and the intention is that Reserved Matters applications for the detailed design would be submitted for these plots following approval. The plots would at this point be retested in terms of daylight and sunlight. The buildings in pink are being retained or assumed to be retained in their existing form.
4.4 GIA has also undertaken an assessment of the development’s Early Phases. The plots included in the Early Phases were confirmed to GIA by the masterplan architects on 21st May 2024. Drawings of the Early Phases are included Appendix 15.5 of the ES Chapter.
Figure 07: Proposed Development (ES Scenario 3a) and Surrounding Properties - Plan View
4.5 The daylight and sunlight effects of the Early Phases are outlined in detail in the ES Chapter. This report focuses on All Phases as this is the largest massing. If the Early Phases were to come forward instead of All Phases, the conclusions outlined in this report would still be valid i.e. those properties that meet the alternative target criteria for All Phases would meet them for the Early Phases or perform better due to the reduction in the number of development plots. Within the ES Chapter and Appendix 01 of this report, we have provided additional commentary for individual properties on whether the alternative target criteria is met when considering the Early Phases.
are:
• 2 Cluny Mews
• 175-177 North End Road
4.7 As both 2 Cluny Mews and 177 North End Road contain residential units, the buildings have been assessed against the Proposed Development to understand the impact on daylight and sunlight. GIA are aware that the parameter plans for the Outline Component allow for the potential demolition of 175-177 North End Road. GIA has assumed a worst case position and tested 177 in relation to daylight and sunlight.
4.6 As mentioned, the existing buildings in pink are being retained within the Site boundary in their current form as part of the Proposed Development. These
Figure 08: Proposed Development (ES Scenario 3a) and Surrounding Properties - 3D View
ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT
4.8 Figures 09 and 10 depict the Illustrative Development. The Detailed Component (highlighted in teal) remains as per the Proposed Development, however, the masterplan architects have created an Illustrative massing for the Outline Component highlighted in yellow. The buildings in pink are being retained in their existing form.
4.9 Given that no detailed design has been developed for the Outline Component, this massing is just an indication of what could come forward.
4.10 The impact of the Illustrative Development has not been considered in detail (with regards to impacts on neighbours) as the Applicant is seeking approval
for the Proposed Development. However, following a pre-application request from RBKC we have also provided in Appendix 02 the daylight and sunlight analysis comparing the Existing Baseline with the Illustrative Development. This analysis is not discussed in detail within this report.
Figure 09: Illustrative Development and Surrounding Properties - Plan View
Figure 10: Illustrative Development and Surrounding Properties - 3D View
5 PLANNING POLICY & GUIDANCE
5.1 Outlined below are key sections from the following documents which are considered to be the most pertinent in relation to daylight and sunlight matters and how the effects of the Proposed Development on neighbouring properties have been approached:
1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2023)
2 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG 2024)
3 London Plan 2021 (2021)
4 Mayor of London, Housing Design Standards LPG (2023)
5 Mayor of London, Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (Housing SPG 2016)
6 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018)
7 Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Local Plan (2019). There is also an emerging Local Plan, see paragraph 5.18
8 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (BRE Guidelines 2022)
1 - NPPF
5.2 The NPPF (1) highlights the Government’s recognition that increased flexibility is required on daylight and sunlight in response to the requirement for higher density development. The documents states that, “when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards)”1
5.3 This demonstrates the Government’s recognition of the need for flexibility when considering daylight and sunlight targets. There is an acknowledgement that to achieve efficient use of land and optimise massing for growth and regeneration, that impacts to daylight and sunlight amenity will likely occur.
2 - PPG
5.4 The PPG (2) outlines that all developments should
1 Department for Leveling Up, Housing & Communities (2023). National Planning Policy Framework, p 38, para 129 (c)
“maintain acceptable living standards” and that assessing appropriate daylight and sunlight amenity “will depend to some extent on context”2.
5.5 The PPG recognises the significance of context in determining what are appropriate and reasonable levels of daylight and sunlight amenity. This is discussed in greater detail within this report.
3 - LONDON PLAN
5.6 It is clear from the London Plan (3) that the GLA’s focus is on “sufficient” or retained daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties “that is appropriate for its context” by reference to criterion ‘d’ of Policy D6 (Housing Quality and Standards).
5.7 The London Plan provides scope for flexibility in reviewing daylight and sunlight impacts by reference to context. By following the demands of policy, deviations from the strict BRE Guide are likely to occur and this must be appreciated when reviewing daylight and sunlight impacts and retained values.
4 - HOUSING DESIGN STANDARDS
5.8 The Housing Design Standards LPG (4) recognises that consideration of daylight and sunlight impacts involves a two stage approach;
“Firstly, by applying the BRE guidance; and secondly, by considering the location and wider context when assessing any impacts.”3
5.9 Paragraph A1.8 states that;
“particular consideration should be given to the impact of new development on the level of daylight and sunlight received by the existing residents in surrounding homes”.
5.10 The importance of location and context is reiterated in this planning guidance. With this document the two stage approach is now embedded in planning guidance.
2 Department for Leveling Up, Housing & Communities. (2019). National Planning Policy Guidance (2019), para 66-00720190722
3 Mayor of London. (2023). London Plan Guidance – Housing Design Standards, p 19, para 4.1.2
5 - HOUSING SPG
5.11 The Housing SPG (5) advocates a flexible approach to daylight and sunlight matters, advising that:
“Guidelines should be applied sensitively to higher density development, especially in opportunity areas, town centres, large sites and accessible locations, where BRE advice suggests considering the use of alternative targets. This should take into account local circumstances; the need to optimise housing capacity; and scope for the character and form of an area to change over time.”4
5.12 The Housing SPG further states that;
“The degree of harm on adjacent properties and the daylight targets within a proposed scheme should be assessed drawing on broadly comparable residential typologies within the area and of a similar nature across London. Decision makers should recognise that fully optimising housing potential on large sites may necessitate standards which depart from those presently experienced, but which still achieve satisfactory levels of residential amenity and avoid unacceptable harm.”5
5.13 The Housing SPG, additionally suggests that;
“Quantitative standards on daylight and sunlight should not be applied rigidly, without carefully considering the location and context and standards experienced in broadly comparable housing typologies in London.”6
5.14 To summarise, the Housing SPG;
• Calls for an appropriate degree of flexibility in the application of the BRE guidance to the circumstances of London.
• Recommends that the BRE guidance is applied sensitively to high density development, especially in opportunity areas, where alternative target criteria may be more appropriate.
• Suggests that the application of the BRE guidance needs to be consistent with
4 Mayor of London [2016], Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, p.53, para 1.3.45
5 Mayor of London [2016], Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, p.53, para 1.3.46
6 Mayor of London [2016], Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, p.87-88, para 2.3.47
• optimising density and growth recognising the need for change in an area.
• Advises that comparisons should be made with light values achieved in comparable areas and typologies across London (rather than strictly with the national numerical values).
• Notes that to fully optimise housing potential on large sites may necessitate a departure from the current ‘standards.
6 - LBHF LOCAL PLAN
5.15 Policy HO11 of RBKC’s Local Plan notes the following in relation to daylight and sunlight,
“The council will ensure that the design and quality of all new housing, including new build, conversions and change of use, is of a high standard and that developments provide housing that will meet the needs of future occupants and respect the principles of good neighbourliness.
To achieve a high standard of design, the following considerations will be taken into account:
k. protection of existing residential amenities, including issues such as loss of daylight, sunlight, privacy and overlooking.”7
5.16 The supporting text for Policy HO11 states that, “these standards are often subject to on-site judgment, but a departure from the standards needs to be justified by the circumstances of a particular case.‘“8
5.17 The LBHF local plan therefore recognises the importance of specific site context when there is a deviation from the national numerical values within the BRE Guidelines.
7 - RBKC LOCAL PLAN
5.18 GIA are aware that RBKC has been working on a New Local Plan Review (NLPR) since late 2020. There has been several rounds of public consultation and the NLPR was submitted to the Secretary of
7 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Local Plan [2018], p.110
8 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Local Plan [2018], p.111, para 6.74
State in February 2023. The New Local Plan Review Publication (Regulation 19) dated October 2022 references the Earls Court Opportunity Area where it is anticipated that there would be significant change to bring forward the strategic vision for this location. With development change on this scale, it should be recognised that amenity provision in terms to daylight and sunlight will also be affected when density is increased.
5.19 With regards to daylight and sunlight, the current RBKC’s Local Plan notes,
“Issues of daylight and sunlight are most likely to occur where the amount of adjoining habitable accommodation is limited, or situated within the lower floors of buildings with openings on to lightwells. Mathematical calculation to assess daylighting and sunlighting may be an inappropriate measure in these situations; on-site judgment will often be necessary.9
5.20 At Policy CL5 Living Conditions,
“The Council will require all development ensures good living conditions for occupants of new, existing and neighbouring buildings.
‘To deliver this the Council will:
a. require applicants to take into account the prevailing characteristics of the area
b. ensure that good standards of daylight and sunlight are achieved in new development and in existing properties affected by new development; and where they are already substandard, that there should be no material worsening of the conditions”10
5.21 RBKC recognises that on-site judgment should be used when considering daylight and sunlight assessments. RBKC also considers the prevailing characteristics of an area important. Given the anticipated change for this location established with the previously Consented Development. There has to be recognition that the current daylight and sunlight amenity enjoyed will be altered as the strategic vision for this Opportunity Area is brought forward.
9 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Local Plan [2019], p.190
10 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Local Plan [2019], p.190
8 - BRE GUIDELINES
5.22 The BRE Guidelines offer a numerical methodology to calculate changes in daylight and sunlight condition.
5.23 To assess daylight the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and No Sky Line (NSL) are used. Sunlight is calculated using Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH). All three have been considered to understand and compare the existing levels of daylight and sunlight and those experienced once the Proposed Development has been implemented.
9.1 The Transient Overshadowing (TOS) and Sun Hours on Ground (SHOG) methodologies are used to assess overshadowing on neighbouring amenity areas.
5.24 A summary of the BRE Guidelines is provided within Appendix 15.2 of the ES Chapter. Section 6 elaborates further on the key advice in the BRE Guidelines with regards to alternative target criteria which are relevant when reviewing daylight and sunlight impacts.
SUMMARY
5.25 The Site is located within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. As set out within the London Plan, Opportunity Areas are London’s principal opportunities for accommodating large scale development to provide substantial numbers of new employment and housing.
5.26 In determining the acceptability of daylight and sunlight impacts, it is important to consider not only the technical data set out within the BRE Guidelines but also the demands of planning policy.
5.27 With transformational regeneration in Opportunity Areas comes increased density. It is therefore key to consider amenity in a holistic way against the backdrop of planning policy.
5.28 At all levels (national, regional and local), policy and guidance is clear, if land is to be used more efficiently and density is to be increased, to accommodate employment and housing needs in urban locations then deviations from the BRE Guidelines will occur. The BRE Guidelines, themselves, recognise this in its Introduction, which notes,
“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.”11
5.29 There is a recognition from the BRE that context plays an important role in determining daylight and sunlight values for a given location and that alternative targets can be used where appropriate.
11
Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.7
6 ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
BRE GUIDELINES
BRE Advice
6.1 The BRE Guidelines note in the opening summary of the document that,
“It is purely advisory and the numerical targets within it may be varied to meet the needs of the development and its location. Appendix F explains how this can be done in a logical way.”
6.2 Appendix F “Setting alternative target values for skylight and sunlight access”, outlines recommended alternative targets to those set out in the guidance.
6.3 Paragraph F1 of Appendix F notes,
“F1 - Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 give numerical target values in assessing how much light from the sky is blocked by obstructing buildings. These values are purely advisory and different targets may be used based on the special requirements of the proposed development or its location,”1
Extant Permissions
6.4 Paragraph F2 of Appendix F discusses how extant consents can be used to set alternative targets,
“F2 - Sometimes there may be an extant planning permission for a site but the developer wants to change the design. In assessing the loss of light to existing windows nearby, a local authority may allow the vertical sky component (VSC) and annual probable sunlight hours (APSH) for the permitted scheme to be used as alternative benchmarks. However since the permitted scheme only exists on paper, it would be inappropriate for it to be treated in the same way as an existing building, and for the developer to set 0.80 times the values for the permitted scheme as benchmarks.”
6.5 This is relevant to Earls Court as there is an approved masterplan (Consented Development) for the Site. When considering a consented baseline, it is the absolute change in daylight, sunlight or
1 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.85
overshadowing from the consented to the proposed value which can be used to understand whether the difference between options is noticeable.
6.6 For the Proposed Development, an additional comparison of the Pre-Existing baseline (where relevant) has been reviewed in the same way as the Consented Development as this is a relevant contextual factor for some properties surrounding the Site. Reviewing absolute changes to determine whether there is a material difference in a retained daylight or sunlight value for alternative massing options has been accepted on many large scale developments in London. Examples of this are provided in the table in Section 7.
6.7 GIA acted as daylight and sunlight consultants on the 2021 344-350 Old Brompton Road (OBR) planning application. This Site falls within the Proposed Development Site boundary (see Section 3). The consent is no longer being brought forward in isolation and now forms part of the Outline Component.
6.8 For OBR application, both a Consented and PreExisting Baseline were considered as relevant contextual factors. As such, assessments were undertaken against these baselines as well as the Existing Baseline. To contextualise the retained values post-implementation of the OBR proposal, alternative target criteria for daylight and sunlight were set and then accepted by RBKC when the scheme was approved. Given the location of this approved scheme, we have proposed the same contextual approach for the Proposed Development for Earls Court.
Retained VSC
6.9 Table F1 within Appendix F of the BRE Guidelines provides a list of obstruction angles (ranging from 16 to 50 degrees) with the corresponding VSC value (ranging from 32% to 13%).
6.10 The BRE Guidelines suggest an optimum VSC value of 27%. Although it is not explicitly stated in the BRE guide, it can be inferred from the diagrams within it and the basis behind the calculations, that a VSC value of 27% is derived from an environment where the obstruction angle between buildings is no more than 25 degrees. This can be less common condition in a urban environment.
6.11 The Greater London Authority (GLA) has made reference to VSC values in urban locations in a 2013 GLA hearing report (D&P/3067/03) which notes,
“It, should, nevertheless, be noted that the 27% VSC target value is derived from a low-density suburban housing model. The independent daylight and sunlight review states that in an inner-city urban environment, VSC values in excess of 20% should be considered as reasonably good, and that VSC in the mid-teens should be acceptable. However, where the VSC value falls below 10% (so as to be in single figures), the availability of direct light from the sky will be poor”.2
6.12 GIA has considered the above GLA advice with regards to mid-teens (15% VSC) in defining an alternative target for VSC. Whilst this has been used as a benchmark, many of the windows which are significantly impacted, retain a VSC value in excess of mid-teens (where the value was above 15% in the existing condition).
6.13 Following pre-application discussions with RBKC and LBHF, GIA has provided additional commentary on room use and retained values for those windows that retain 15% above and experience a significant effect (Moderate or Major Adverse) in ES terms. This is outlined in Section 9.
VSC and APSH to Rooms
6.14 As per the BRE Guidelines, the VSC value (daylight) is calculated for each window; however, “If a room has two or more windows of equal size, the mean of their VSCs may be taken”.3
6.15 Where a room is served by two or more windows of the same or different sizes, the VSC value to the room can be calculated by applying an average weighting calculation to understand the VSC value to the room.
6.16 The BRE provide the following methodology to calculate APSH (sunlight) in relation to the room and window,
2 Greater London Authority, Representation Hearing Report D&P/3067/03, Appendix 01 [18 November 2013]
3 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.15, para 2.2.6
“If a room has multiple windows, the amount of sunlight received by each can be added together provided they occur at different times and sunlight hours are not double counted.”4
6.17 The above extract of the BRE Guidelines is in relation to proposed units rather than existing buildings. It does, however, make sense to apply this methodology to existing rooms as well, when room layouts are known. This is because a room served by multiple windows could receive the benefit of sunlight from all windows and not just one.
Room Use and Size
6.18 The BRE Guide advises that some room uses in existing buildings are more important than others for daylight and sunlight.
6.19 In relation to NSL (daylight distribution) it notes, “Where room layouts are known (for example if they are available on the local authority’s planning portal), the impact on the daylighting distribution in the existing building should be found by plotting the no sky line in each of the main rooms. For houses this would include living rooms, dining rooms, and kitchens; bedrooms should also be analysed although they are less important.” 5
6.20 The BRE Guidelines further notes in Appendix D,
“In most cases the position of the no sky line has to be found from plans. The calculation can only be carried out where room layouts are known. Using estimated room layouts is likely to give inaccurate results and is not recommended. However where plans are available, for example on the local authority’s online planning portal, the calculation should be carried out.”6
6.21 Whilst bedrooms have been assessed, they are considered less important with regards to NSL.
4 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.15, para 2.2.6
5 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.15, para 2.2.10
6 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.79, Appendix D, para D3
Where room layouts have been obtained (from public sources or historic access) GIA has included these properties in the NSL (daylight distribution) assessment. Where room uses are unknown and floor plans have not been obtained, these rooms have been excluded from the analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
6.22 Additionally, the BRE Guidelines makes reference to NSL in single aspect rooms and notes, “If an existing building contains rooms lit from one side only and greater than 5m deep, then a greater movement of the no sky line may be unavoidable.”
6.23 With regards to sunlight the BRE Guidelines states, “It is viewed as less important in bedrooms and in kitchens, where people prefer it in the morning rather than the afternoon.”7
6.24 Importantly, the BRE also notes the following with regards to sunlight assessments,
“Kitchens and bedrooms are less important, although care should be taken not to block too much sun. Normally loss of sunlight need not be analysed to kitchens and bedrooms.”8
6.25 The BRE therefore advises that sunlight does not need to be tested in kitchens and bedrooms. The sensitivity (as defined by the BRE Guide) of rooms has been considered when reviewing the daylight and sunlight results.
Balconies and Overhangs
6.26 The BRE Guide recognises that existing architectural features on neighbouring buildings such as balconies and overhangs inherently restrict the quantum of skylight to a window. The BRE Guidelines notes,
“This is a particular problem if there are large obstructions opposite; with the combined effect of the overhang and the obstruction, it may be impossible to see the sky from inside the room, and hence to receive any
7 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.21, para 3.1.2
8 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.24, para 3.2.3
direct skylight or sunlight at all.”9
6.27 The BRE Guidelines further state, “Existing windows with balconies above them typically receive less daylight. Because the balcony cuts out light from the top part of the sky, even a modest obstruction opposite may result in a large relative impact on the VSC, and on the area receiving direct skylight. One way to demonstrate this would be to carry out an additional calculation of the VSC and the area receiving direct skylight, for both the existing and proposed situations, without the balcony in place.”10
6.28 As such, where there are existing overhanging features, larger reductions in daylight and sunlight may be unavoidable and alternative targets can be used. The guidance suggests that in such situations a calculation for VSC and APSH is carried out that excludes the balcony or the obstruction. This has been undertaken for relevant properties surrounding the Proposed Development.
LBHF & RBKC LOCAL PLANS
Non-Habitable Kitchens
6.29 The Glossary of the LBHF Local Plan defines “A habitable room” as;
“any room used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes above 6.5 sq.m. (70 sq.ft.) in floor area except for kitchens of less than 13 sq.m.”11
6.30 Additionally, the RBKC Local Plan Chapter 32 Glossary notes,
“For the purposes of density calculations solely only kitchens of above 13sqm count as habitable rooms.”12
9 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.11, para 2.1.17
10 Building Research Establishment, Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight, A guide to good practice [2022], p.16, para 2.2.13
11 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Local Plan [2018], Glossary
12 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Local Plan [2019], p.406
6.31 The sensitivity of kitchens (based on their size) has been considered when reviewing the daylight and sunlight results.
SUMMARY
6.32 GIA has set alternative target criteria to determine the acceptability of a significant effect in the ES based on the advice in planning policy and guidance as well as professional judgement.
6.33 Where relevant for specific properties, a window and/or room is said to meet the daylight (VSC and NSL) and sunlight (APSH) alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context by reference to Stage 2 of the two stage approach if:
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
1 A window retains 15% or above VSC - The GLA considers “mid-teens” acceptable in inner city locations.
2 The absolute difference in VSC to a window from the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 3%.
3 The VSC to the room is BRE compliant.
4 The absolute difference in NSL to a room from the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 2 sq.m or less than 5%.
5 The property (i.e. Hotels etc) or room use (i.e. Study etc) are considered less sensitive.
6 The room use is less important for daylight (NSL to Bedrooms).
7 The room is single aspect and deeper than 5 metres and therefore the NSL change may be unavoidable.
8 The kitchen is less than 13 sq.m and is not defined as a “habitable room” by both Local Authorities.
9 There is a low existing VSC (window) or NSL (room) value which is causing a disproportionate percentage change.
10 The window has a low existing value because it is restricted by an obstruction (balcony, overhang or eave). Further testing has been undertaken by GIA for these windows. Upon removal of the obstruction, the alternative target is met if the window is Negligible (BRE compliant) for VSC.
11 The retained VSC value is in line with the borough research average (per floor). Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
1 The absolute difference in APSH (annual sunlight) to a room from the Pre-Existing or Consented value is 2% or less.
2 The absolute difference in WPSH (winter sunlight) to a room from the Pre-Existing or Consented value is 1% or less.
3 There is a low existing APSH or WPSH value which is causing a disproportionate percentage change.
4 The property (i.e. Hotels etc) or room use (i.e. Study etc) are considered less sensitive.
5 The loss of sunlight is to a bedroom or kitchen which the BRE Guidelines consider “less important” and “need not be analysed”
6 The kitchen is less than 13 sq.m and is not defined as a “habitable room” by both Local Authorities.
7 The window has a low existing value because it is restricted by an obstruction (balcony, overhang or eave). Further testing has been undertaken by GIA for these windows. Upon removal of the obstruction, the alternative target is met if the window is Negligible (BRE compliant) for APSH.
6.34 An outdoor amenity area (private and public gardens or roof terraces) is said to meet the overshadowing (SHOG) alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context by reference to Stage 2 of the two stage approach if:
Overshadowing (SHOG)
1 The absolute difference in SHOG from the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 5%.
7 TWO STAGE APPROACH PRECEDENTS
7.1 Contextual reporting and the use of alternative target criteria has been applied and accepted on a number of major planning application and appeals in London and elsewhere in the UK.
7.2 Within this section, GIA has compiled a list of successful medium to large scale planning decisions in Opportunity Areas and/or central locations where the two stage approach has been used to assist in determining the acceptability of amenity impacts.
7.3 The two stage approach has been used by Local Authorities, the GLA, Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to understand daylight and sunlight impacts in context whilst reviewing wider planning considerations.
7.4 The tables on pages 28-31 outline a number of projects where GIA acted as daylight and sunlight consultants and the two stage approach was applied. For a number of the developments listed a Contextual Report was submitted alongside an ES Chapter.
7.5 GIA was not involved in the Shepherd’s Bush Market application, however, this has been included given its location in LBHF and discussions at the preapplication stage. This development has a resolution to grant permission from planning committee.
7.6 The schemes outlined are not an exhaustive list and there are many other applications where this approach has been considered appropriate and valid by decision makers. It is recommended that RBKC and LBHF consider both Stage 1 (outlined in the ES Chapter) and Stage 2 (outlined in this Contextual Report) when determining the application for the Proposed Development.
7.7 Dependent on the Site, its location and characteristics, different alternative target criteria were used (in the developments outlined) to provide context to the amenity impacts and determine overall acceptability. These included:
1 Mayor’s Housing SPG - Research was undertaken and daylight and/or sunlight targets were set by reference to other “broadly comparable residential typologies.”
2 Alternate Baselines - Comparisons were made to extant permissions or site allocations.
3 Retained Values / Absolute changesConsideration was given to retained daylight and
sunlight values as well as the absolute change. This was in addition to relative percentage reductions.
4 No Balconies or Obstructions - Additional assessments were undertaken which removed a restrictive obstruction.
5 Mirror Massing - Neighbouring properties were mirrored onto the development site to set an alternate baseline.
6 Room Use or Size - Less weighting was given to impacts on rooms deemed less important due to their use or size.
7.8 Additionally, GIA has highlighted how the schemes compare to the Proposed Development in terms of the following factors:
1 Borough - Where the development is located.
2 Type - The development’s tenure in terms of residential or commercial.
3 Storeys - The maximum height of the development.
4 Site Area - How many hectares the development site covers.
5 PTAL - What the Public Transport Accessibility Level for the development site is.
6 Daylight (VSC) Impact - What percentage of windows achieve BRE compliance for VSC and what percentage see Major Adverse losses (Existing v Proposed analysis).
7.9 The information provided demonstrates that decision makers and planning advisors have advocated the two stage approach on many occasions.
7.10 Extracted on pages 32-35 are some key statements from the planning documents for some of the pertinent developments listed below:
• Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street (Appeal Decision, 2018)
• Bishopsgate Goodsyard (GLA Decision, 2020)
• Vauxhall Cross (Secretary of State Decision, 2020)
• H1 Elephant Park (Appeal Decision, 2023)
• ITV Studios (Secretary of State Decision, 2024)
• 18 Blackfriars (Local Authority Decision, 2024)
• Old Brompton Road (Local Authority RBKC Decision, 2021)
• Shepherd’s Bush Market (Local Authority LBHF Decision, 2023)
7.11 This review clearly demonstrates that at various levels of decision making the two stage approach has been applied to determine the acceptability of daylight and sunlight impacts.
7.12 Given the complexity of the Proposed Development it is key to consider context and alternative target criteria when reviewing the results set out in the ES Chapter which solely look at relative percentage change from the existing to the proposed scenario.
Table 01: Precedent developments which have used the two stage approach for daylight and sunlight
• Approach and alternative target criteria outlined in Section 6 and 9.
• Comparative research of existing VSC in borough
• Consent v Proposed and Pre-Existing v Proposed analysis.
• Absolute changes of <3% VSC, <5% NSL, 1% WPSH and 2% APSH acceptable. Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• Kitchens less than 13 sqm non-habitable
• Single digit VSC at lower floors acceptable (where relevant).
• Comparative research with other consents.
• Acceptable VSC for unencumbered windows: Living rooms/Living/Kitchen/ Dining rooms - 18%, Bedrooms - 16%.
• Acceptable VSC for windows in a recessed / ‘winged wall’ arrangement or side facing position: 8% (ground floor).
• Acceptable sunlight (room APSH): Main living rooms with largely unencumbered windows - 20%
• Largely vacant urban site.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• No balconies analysis.
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• Comparative research with other consents. Comparative research of existing VSC in borough.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• Consent v Proposed analysis.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• Kitchens smaller than 13sqm nonhabitable.
• Light to bedrooms considered less critical.
• Buildings intended for redevelopment less sensitive.
ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
MAYOR’S HOUSING
• Comparative research with other consents (largely sense of enclosure).
• Mirror massing acceptable.
• Absolute changes in <3%VSC & <5% NSL acceptable.
• Comparative research with other consents
• Mirror massing acceptable.
• Kitchens less than 13 sqm nonhabitable.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• Consent v Proposed analysis.
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• Comparative research with other consents
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• High percentage change disproportionate where existing value is low.
• Comparative research with other consents and similar residential typologies.
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• No balconies analysis.
• Consent v Proposed analysis.
• Low rise existing site.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• No balconies analysis.
• Kitchens less than 13 sqm nonhabitable.
• Comparative research with other consents.
• Light to bedroom a lesser requirement.
• Consent v Proposed analysis.
• Mid-teens VSC acceptable.
• No balconies analysis.
• Kitchens less than 11 sqm nonhabitable.
• Light to bedroom a lesser requirement.
ENTERPRISE HOUSE
“[…]. A recent Court judgment has clarified that this should be a two-stage process. In essence, first, as a matter of calculation, whether there would be a material deterioration in conditions and second, as a matter of judgement,whether that deterioration would be.”1
“[…]. This indicates to me that the acceptability of a material deterioration in living conditions must be judged in its local context.”
“[...] By strictly applying the BRE guidelines, development of the site would be unfairly prejudiced.”
“The development proposals would have severe impacts on neighbourhood amenity with regard to daylight and sunlight, although this is outweighed by material considerations including the undeveloped nature of the site and the urban context.”
“The BRE Guide recognises, however, that in certain locations such as inner cities, [...] it may be possible to robustly justify an alternative benchmark. [...]”
“[...]. In terms of daylight and sunlight, the site is currently undeveloped site and some impact on neighbouring properties is inevitable [...]1”
BISHOPSGATE GOODSYARD
1 The Planning Inspectorate, Appeal Decision, Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN Appeal Ref: APP/E5900/W/17/3191757 [17 December 2018], page 4 and 5
1 Greater London Authority, representation hearing report GLA/1200cd/07, Bishopsgate Goodsyard [3rd December 2020], page 7, 122 and 154
VAUXHALL CROSS H1 ELEPHANT PARK
‘‘The law and recent appeal decisions set out a twostage process, beginning with a BRE analysis using a variety of different benchmarks within that work, followed by an exercise of judgement based on context, to arrive at an overall view as to whether the impact would be acceptable or unacceptable.”
“The BRE guidance itself must be applied flexibly, particularly in urban locations. The context here is the extant scheme baseline, the OAPF and the kinds of effects (and residual levels) that recently consented schemes achieved1.”
“It should be a two-stage process – first as a matter of calculation, whether there would be a material deterioration in conditions; and second, as a matter of judgment, whether any deterioration would be acceptable or unacceptable in the particular circumstances of the case
“The ‘judgement’ stage of the process will always involve balancing impacts against other factors or benefits and that balance will be different in every case1.”
Ref:
1 Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government, Secretary of State Decision, Land Bounded By Wandsworth Road, Parry Street, Bondway and Vauxhall Bus Station, London, SW8 , APP/N5660/V/19/3229531[9th April 2020], page 12
1 The Planning Inspectorate, Appeal Decision, Plot H1, Elephant Park, Land bounded by Walworth Road, Elephant Road, Deacon Street, and Sayer Street North, London SE17, Appeal
APP/A5840/W/23/3319797[30th November 2023], page 8 and 9
ITV STUDIOS 18 BLACKFRIARS
“The assessment of the acceptability of daylight impacts is a two-stage process: one first assesses what can be quantified using the BRE yardsticks, and then performs a context-based exercise in judgement, aimed at assessing the planning question as to whether the impacts are acceptable.“
“I have also had regard to the other comparable schemes referred to within the evidence in order to provide some comparable typologies and circumstances and therefore suggested alternative target values [...] Whilst I find these to be useful background, [...] each proposal needs to be considered against its own contextual streetscape1.”
“[...] these results are not significantly dissimilar to the consented scheme and there should also be some acknowledgement that the site is in an opportunity area within a central London location and accordingly the standards should be applied with some degree of flexibility.“
“[...} it is considered that whilst the impacts to some rooms would fail to meet the relevant standards of the BRE, other factors [...] and the improvement to the urban environment and public realm should be given weight, and accordingly would be sufficient to consider the level of impact, on balance, acceptable1.”
1 Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, Secretary of State Decision, Former London Television Centre, 60-72 Upper Ground, London, SE1 9LT, APP/ N5660/V/22/3306162 [6 February 2024], page 128 and 137
1 Planning Committee Report, Land at 18 Blackfriars Road bounded by Stamford Street, Paris Gardens and Christ Church Gardens, London, SE1 8Ny, Application 16/AP/5239 [19 July 2017], page 48
OLD BROMPTON ROAD
“- [...]. Using contextual analysis to inform the results is entirely appropriate and indeed the Mayor’s Housing SPG recognises as being appropriate in understanding what an appropriate benchmark may be on new development sites in London.
“Further, it is important to note that retained VSC levels of the mid-teens have been found acceptable by the Council and in a range of appeal decisions in Central London locations, where it has accepted that for a high density urban area these mid-teen levels of daylight and sunlight are reasonable.”
- [...] even where it is concluded that a development breaches the BRE guidelines this does not equate to a harmful impact or unacceptability. [...].1”
“[...] with minimal massing currently on site (and associated subsequent high levels for some properties of daylight and / or sunlight), for suitable development of the site given the site designation as both a White City Opportunity Area and a White City Regeneration Area, Alternative Targets for the site have been considered as appropriate for this site. Alternative Target value approaches are recognised within the Appendix F of the BRE Guide
“Where transgressions to BRE Guidelines exist for daylight VSC or Sunlight APSHs, reference to applicable Alternative Target for the site have been considered1.”
SHEPHERD’S BUSH MARKET
1 Planning Committee Report, 344-350 Old Brompton Road, Application PP/21/00272 [29th April 2021], page 21
1 Planning Committee Report, Shepherd’s Bush Market, Former Old Laundry yard, 42 and 48 (Ground Floor), Goldhawk Road, London, W12, Application 2023/01093/FUL [5th December 2023], page 153
8 BOROUGH RESEARCH
8.1 As outlined in Section 5, the Housing SPG recommends that areas of similar typology and character should be used as a benchmark to determine what levels of daylight amenity are appropriate for areas of higher density development in London.
8.2 The guidance recommends that daylight should be assessed by drawing on the levels achieved in “broadly comparable residential typologies.”
8.3 As discussed with RBKC and LBHF at the preapplication stage, GIA has undertaken contextual research and reviewed the average retained daylight (VSC) values in historic and successful streetscapes (of varying building typologies) within both LBHF and RBKC. This has allowed us to build on the contextual research undertaken for the 344-350 Old Brompton Road application (an approach accepted by RBKC) where streets similar to Philbeach Gardens and Eardley Crescent were reviewed.
8.4 The purpose of this research is to determine if the proposed daylight (VSC) values for properties surrounding the Proposed Development are broadly comparable with other streetscapes in the respective boroughs.
8.5 The research areas have primarily been selected for the following reasons:
1 The areas are within either RBKC or LBHF and are in close proximity to the Proposed Development.
2 Three of the sites (Kempsford Gardens, Kensington Hall Gardens, Chesson Road and 207-225 North End Road) are adjacent to the Proposed Development site and demonstrate the typical urban grain of the local context.
3 The majority of buildings include habitable rooms at basement level, similar to Philbeach Gardens and Eardley Crescent.
4 Many of the building typologies have similar levels of self-obstruction (caused by the existing architecture) or context to those neighbouring the Proposed Development.
5 There are buildings of more than three storeys in height within similar streetscapes.
6 The properties are likely to have multiple flats and living spaces due to internal conversions.
8.6 Although the majority of properties surrounding the Proposed Development only have site facing windows on their rear elevations, a combination of both front and rear elevations have been included in the selected research areas in LBHF and RBKC. This is due to limited access and visibility of rear elevations for many buildings. It is reasonable to assume that some of the average VSC values calculated within the research represent higher figures compared to what would be expected for windows on the rear elevations of the selected properties. Unlike front elevations, rear façades tend to have more projecting extensions which can cause a “tunnel” effect as recognised by the BRE Guidelines. Rear elevations are also often closer to other buildings meaning the levels of daylight would be lower.
8.7 There are no properties within the research areas which have very restrictive existing architecture (i.e. deep set overhangs or walkways). As such, we have removed the heavy obstructions for the relevant properties surrounding the Proposed Development; and taken the average VSC values per floor with the obstruction removed.
8.8 The values for inclined windows such as roof lights have been removed for the properties surrounding the Proposed Development as the buildings in the research areas only include vertical windows.
8.9 Further detail on the selected research areas can be found in Appendix 04. The following information is provided:
1 Borough and/or Conservation Area location.
2 Ownership.
3 Building Typology.
4 Building Height.
5 Number of windows included in research area sample.
6 Elevation included in the research area sample.
SUMMARY
8.10 As noted in Section 7, there have been a number of planning decisions which have supported the two stage approach and the need to benchmark retained daylight against values at other similar locations as per the Housing SPG.
8.11 GIA’s VSC (daylight) research is presented in the
graphs in Figures 12-15 on pages 41-47.
8.12 The graph in Figure 12 illustrates the mean average VSC per floor (basement to fourth floor) in each of the research areas in LBHF and RBKC. The chosen research areas are listed at the bottom of the graph and the properties are numbered as per the map in Figure 11. There are two horizontal lines on the graph which illustrate 15% VSC (acceptable according to the GLA) and 27% VSC (BRE optimum value).
8.13 In Figure 13, the graph on the left illustrates the mean average VSC per floor for all windows chosen in the research areas (LBHF and RBKC combined). This is a total of 2770 windows. The graph on the right illustrates the same data but for all windows (6484 windows) included in GIA’s assessment of the Proposed Development; excluding those mentioned in paragraph 8.7 and 8.8.
8.14 The graphs in Figure 14 show the same data above but only for windows in the LBHF research areas and windows located in LBHF surrounding the Proposed Development.
8.15 In Figure 15, the same data is provided but only for windows in the RBKC research areas and windows located in RBKC surrounding the Proposed Development.
8.16 The graphs demonstrate that on average the proposed VSC at properties surrounding the Proposed Development are “broadly comparable” (Housing SPG) with those in other similar locations and residential typologies within both boroughs.
1. KEMPSFORD GARDENS RBKC
2. MCLEOD’S MEWS RBKC
3. ST MARGARET’S LANE RBKC
4. KENSINGTON COURT PLACE
5. DE VERE GARDENS RBKC
LUCAN PLACE RBKC
Figure 11: VSC research areas in LBHF and RBKC
CULFORD GARDENS RBKC
8. ELM PARK ROAD RBKC
9. IMPERIAL WHARF LBHF
10. RADIPOLE ROAD LBHF
11. FITZJAMES AVENUE LBHF
12. CASTLETOWN ROAD LBHF
13. 207-225 NORTH END ROAD LBHF 14. CHESSON ROAD LBHF
KENSINGTON HALL
1. Kempsford Gardens (RBKC)
2. McLeod's Mews (RBKC)
3. St Margaret's Lane (RBKC)
4. Kensington Court Palace (RBKC) 5. De Vere Gardens (RBKC) 6. Lucan Place (RBKC)
7. Culford Gardens (RBKC)
8. Elm Park Road (RBKC)
FLOOR - BOROUGH RESEARCH
Averages by Floor
Second (F02) Third (F03) Fourth (F04)
9. Imperial Wharf (LBHF)
10. Radipole Road (LBHF)
11. Fitzjames Avenue (LBHF)
12. Castletown Road (LBHF)
13. 207-225 North End Road (LBHF)
14. 29-40 Chesson Road (LBHF)
15. Kensington Hall Gardens & North End Road (LBHF)
MEAN VSC AVERAGES
2770 WINDOWS
Figure 13: Mean VSC Averages by Floor - Combined research areas in LBHF & RBKC and surrounding the Proposed Development in LBHF & RBKC
VSC RESEARCH - LBHF & RBKC
6484 WINDOWS
PROPOSED VSC - LBHF & RBKC
14:
1382 WINDOWS
VSC RESEARCH - LBHF
AVERAGES BY FLOOR - LBHF
3012 WINDOWS
PROPOSED VSC - LBHF
15:
VSC RESEARCH - RBKC 1388 WINDOWS
AVERAGES BY FLOOR - RBKC
3472 WINDOWS
PROPOSED VSC - RBKC
1 Case law, appeals and planning guidance advocate a twostage process for reviewing daylight and sunlight.
2 Flexibility is appropriate when applying daylight and sunlight policy and guidance.
3 National policy confirms that context is relevant when considering acceptable living standards.
4 London Plan requires sufficient daylight and sunlight which is appropriate for its context.
5 Local policy requires on site judgement and the prevailing characteristics of an area to be considered.
6 BRE Guidelines suggests the use of alternative target values based on special requirements and location.
9 DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT & OVERSHADOWING ON NEIGHBOURS
MODELLING AND SCOPE
9.1 GIA has created a three-dimensional computer model of Site and surrounding properties. All relevant assumptions made in producing this model can be found in Appendix 15.3 of the ES Chapter.
9.2 The use map in Figure 19 identifies the properties which are relevant for daylight and sunlight assessment and have been included in GIA’s analysis.
TWO STAGE APPROAC H
9.3 As outlined in Section 2, the two stage approach is now embedded in planning guidance as the recommended method of evaluating daylight and sunlight amenity.
• Stage 1 is a calculation to confirm whether the impact is noticeable by applying the national numerical assessments in the BRE Guidelines.
• Stage 2 is a matter of judgement, and it is necessary to consider whether a noticeable impact (as determined by the BRE assessments) is unacceptable in the particular context of the case.
9.4 As mentioned previously, the analysis and overall conclusions outlined in this report consider the existing baseline and two alternate baseline scenarios (where relevant at specific properties). These include:
1 Existing (ES Scenario 1a) v Proposed (3a) - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Existing Baseline (see Sections 3 and 4).
2 Consented (1b) v Proposed (3a) - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Consented Development (see Sections 3 and 4).
3 Pre-Existing v Proposed (3a) - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Pre-Existing Baseline (see Sections 3 and 4).
9.5 The summary tables in Appendix 01, outline which properties have a consented position and have been tested against the Consented Development.
9.6 The first assessment above determines the scale and nature of the effect in the ES Chapter (noticeability) which is outlined in Figure 20 for daylight and Figure 22 for sunlight.
9.7 To determine acceptability for Stage 2, we have
considered (where relevant at specific properties);
• Are the retained levels materially different to what was previously accepted in the Consented Development (Consented Development v Proposed Development)?
• Are the retained levels materially different to what was historically experienced (Pre-Existing Baseline v Proposed Development)?
• Are the retained levels in line with other broadly comparable residential typologies as recommended by the Housing SPG (see Section 7 and 8)?
• Are there other relevant factors relating to the specific building typology and context which make a window and/or room less sensitive (see Section 6)?
ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
9.8 Where relevant for specific properties, a window and/or room is said to meet the daylight (VSC and NSL) and sunlight (APSH) alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context by reference to Stage 2 of the two stage approach if:
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
1 A window retains 15% or above VSC - The GLA considers “mid-teens” acceptable in inner city locations.
2 The absolute difference in VSC to a window from either the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 3%.
3 The VSC to the room is BRE compliant.
4 The absolute difference in NSL to a room from either the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 2 sq.m or less than 5%.
5 The property (i.e. Hotels etc) or room use (i.e. Study etc) are considered less sensitive.
6 The room use is less important for daylight (NSL to Bedrooms).
7 The room is single aspect and deeper than 5 metres and therefore the NSL change may be unavoidable.
8 The kitchen is less than 13 sq.m and is not defined as a “habitable room” by both Local Authorities.
9 There is a low existing VSC (window) or NSL (room) value which is causing a disproportionate percentage change.
10 The window has a low existing value because it is restricted by an obstruction (balcony, overhang or eave). Further testing has been undertaken by GIA for these windows. Upon removal of the obstruction, the alternative target is met if the window is Negligible (BRE compliant) for VSC.
11 The retained VSC value is in line with the borough research average (per floor).
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
1 The absolute difference in APSH (annual sunlight) to a room from the Pre-Existing or Consented value is 2% or less.
2 The absolute difference in WPSH (winter sunlight) to a room from the Pre-Existing or Consented value is 1% or less.
3 There is a low existing APSH or WPSH value which is causing a disproportionate percentage change.
4 The property (i.e. Hotels etc) or room use (i.e. Study etc) are considered less sensitive.
5 The loss of sunlight is to a bedroom or kitchen which the BRE Guidelines consider “less important” and “need not be analysed”
6 The kitchen is less than 13 sq.m and is not defined as a “habitable room” by both Local Authorities.
7 The window has a low existing value because it is restricted by an obstruction (balcony, overhang or eave). Further testing has been undertaken by GIA for these windows. Upon removal of the obstruction, the alternative target is met if the window is Negligible (BRE compliant) for APSH.
9.9 An outdoor amenity area (private and public gardens or roof terraces) is said to meet the overshadowing (SHOG) alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context by reference to Stage 2 of the two stage approach if:
Overshadowing (SHOG)
1 The absolute difference in SHOG from the Existing, Pre-Existing or Consented value is less than 5%.
MAPS AND TABLES
1 Negligible Compliant)(BRE
2 Negligible Adverse
3 Minor Adverse
DESCRIPTION
Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing:
The property or amenity area is Negligible (BRE Compliant) and there is no further discussion as overall the effect is not significant.
Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing:
The property or amenity area is Negligible Adverse and there is no further discussion as overall the effect is not significant.
Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing:
The property or amenity area is Minor Adverse and there is no further discussion as overall the effect is not significant.
Daylight & Sunlight:
The property experiences a significant effect but meets the alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context.
4 Meets Alternative Target
5 Substantially meets Alternative Target
Overshadowing:
The amenity area experiences a significant effect but the area meets the alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context.
Daylight & Sunlight:
The property sees a significant effect but substantially (for the most part) meets the alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context.
Overshadowing:
The amenity area substantially (for the most part) meets the alternative target criteria and is therefore acceptable in context.
Daylight & Sunlight:
6 Beyond Alternative Target, Negligible (BRE compliant) with obstruction removed.
Where windows do not meet the alternative target criteria this is due to an obstruction. With the obstruction removed, the window is Negligible (BRE compliant) and is therefore acceptable in context.
Daylight & Sunlight:
7 Beyond Alternative Target, meets target with obstruction removed.
8 Beyond Alternative Target
Where windows do not meet the alternative target criteria, this is due to an obstruction. With the obstruction removed, the window meets the alternative target criteria. Further discussion is provided in the Contextual Report.
Daylight & Sunlight:
There are windows and/or rooms in the property which do not meet the alternative target criteria. Further discussion is provided in the Contextual Report.
Overshadowing:
The amenity area does not meet the alternative target criteria. Further discussion is provided in the Contextual Report.
03: Alternative Target Criteria (Stage 2) Map Key
9.10 The maps in Figures 21, 23 and 25 illustrate which properties meet the alternative target criteria (Stage 2) in relation to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing. The properties assessed on each map have been assigned a colour which is defined within Table 03.
9.11 Detailed commentary is provided alongside the results for each property (per window, room and amenity area) in terms of daylight (VSC and NSL), sunlight (APSH) and overshadowing (SHOG) in the tables in Appendix 01. This section of the report should be read in conjunction with these summary tables as the impact in consideration of context is fully explained.
9.12 Those properties and amenity areas which are coloured yellow or orange are reviewed in further detail within this section. Only windows, rooms or amenity areas which do not meet the alternative target criteria are discussed. For those windows, rooms and amenity areas that meet the alternative target criteria or substantially (for the most part) meet the targets, further commentary is provided in the summary tables in Appendix 01.
Daylight
9.13 In terms of daylight (discussed on pages 64-109), this includes;
• Flats 1-10, Kensington Hall Gardens (LBHForange)
• Flats 46-55, Kensington Hall Gardens (LBHFyellow)
• 177 North End Road (LBHF - orange)
• 40-42 Lillie Road (LBHF - orange)
• 9-28 Gibbs Green (LBHF - yellow)
• 29-38 Gibbs Green (LBHF - yellow)
• 1 Dieppe Close (LBHF - yellow)
• 2 Dieppe Close (LBHF - yellow)
• 3-8 Dieppe Close (LBHF - yellow)
• 9 Dieppe Close (LBHF - yellow)
• 10 Dieppe Close (LBHF -yellow)
• 14 Dieppe Close (LBHF - orange)
• 7 Garsdale Terrace (LBHF - orange)
• 14B Aisgill Avenue (LBHF - yellow)
• 14C Aisgill Avenue (LBHF - yellow)
• 14D Aisgill Avenue (LBHF - yellow)
• 7 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF - orange)
• 7-9 Lillie Road (LBHF - orange)
• 1 Eardley Crescent (RBKC - orange)
• 55 Eardley Crescent (RBKC - yellow)
• 35 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 25 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)discussed in Sunlight Section (see below)
9.14 Sunlight is also discussed for the above properties, however in less detail as; it may not be relevant, the property is Negligible (BRE compliant) for APSH or points 1-7 in Table 03 apply in terms of sunlight.
Sunlight
9.15 With regards to sunlight (discussed on pages 114-141), this includes:
• 21 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 25 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 30-31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 37 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 40 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 42 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 46 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 48 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
9.16 Daylight is also discussed for the above properties, however, in less detail as; it may not be relevant, the property is Negligible (BRE compliant) for VSC and NSL or points 1-7 in Table 03 apply in terms of daylight.
Overshadowing
9.17 In terms of overshadowing (discussed on pages 142-155), this includes:
• 31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 29 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC - orange)
• 1 Philbeach Gardens terrace (RBKC - orange)
• 7 Eardley Crescent (RBKC - orange)
• 6 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF - orange)
CONSENTED V PROPOSEDAVERAGE VSC
9.18 In addition to comparing the consented daylight values with the proposed VSC on an individual property basis (see Appendix 01 and 02), we have also looked at daylight in overall terms with regards to average levels of VSC per floor.
9.19 The graph on the left in Figure 16 illustrates the mean average VSC per floor for the properties surrounding the Site (in LBHF and RBKC) should the Consented Development be implemented. The graph on the right illustrates the average values per floor should the Proposed Development be implemented. The grey horizontal lines represent 15% VSC (considered acceptable by the GLA) and 27% VSC (BRE optimum VSC value).
9.20 The graphs in Figures 17 and 18 provide the average values for LBHF and RBKC separately for both the Consented Development and the Proposed Development.
9.21 We are aware that the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates, 177 North End Road and 1 Cluny Mews
do not have a consented position as they fall within the plots of the previously approved masterplan. As such, these properties are not included in the consented averages within the graphs.
9.22 In overall terms, the average VSC per floor is very similar between the Consented Development and the Proposed Development. When reviewing both LBHF and RBKC combined (see Figure 16), the difference in the average for basement, ground and first floor is circa 1%. At second, third and fourth floor this is between 2% and 3% where the averages are high (20%+).
9.23 When looking at the LBHF properties in isolation (see Figure 17) for both options (Consented and Proposed), the average values are also quite similar with some improved averages at ground and first floor for the Proposed Development.
9.24 With RBKC in isolation (see Figure 18), the averages are a little bit lower for the Proposed Development when compared with the Consented Development, however, the averages from first floor upwards are all above 20%.
Figure 16: Mean Average VSC per floor for Consented Development compared with the Proposed Development in LBHF and RBKC
17: Mean Average VSC per floor for Consented Development compared with the Proposed Development in LBHF
18: Mean Average VSC per floor for Consented Development compared with the Proposed Development in RBKC
Figure
Figure
RETAINED VSC - IMPACTED WINDOWS
9.25 Following pre-application discussions with RBKC and LBHF, GIA were asked to provide additional information on those habitable rooms which see Moderate to Major Adverse effects but retain 15% VSC and therefore meet the alternative target criteria set out in Section 6 and 9. This is the information provided in Table 04. Non-habitable kitchens and hotel bedrooms have been excluded from this review as per the alternative target criteria. The totals have also been split out by borough.
9.26 The windows which have been included serve:
• Living Room / LKD (including Assumed)
• Bedroom (including Assumed)
• Habitable Kitchen (including Assumed)
• Studio (including Assumed)
• Unknown
• Miscellaneous Use
9.27 The retained VSC has been banded as follows:
• 15-15.4%
• 15.5-15.9%
• 16-16.9%
• 17-19.9%
• 20+%
9.28 In LBHF, 76% of the windows retaining greater than 15% VSC, that see Moderate to Major Adverse effects, retain values in excess of 17%.
9.29 In RBKC, 90% of the windows retaining greater than 15% VSC, that see Moderate to Major Adverse effects, retain values in excess of 17%.
9.30 As outlined in the results and alternative target review tables in Appendix 01, there are a number of windows which retain less than 15% VSC with the Proposed Development implemented. These windows have been assessed against different alternative target criteria, for example, whether the retained value is materially different to the consented value or if there an obstructing feature which is influencing the receipt of daylight. As such, these windows have not been included in this review but are discussed in full in Appendix 01 or where relevant on pages 64-109 in this Section.
Table 04: Windows with greater than 15% banding per room
USES OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES ASSESSED
Figure 19: Uses of neighbouring properties assessed
Use
/ Hostel
PROJECT Earls Court
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
DRAWING TITLE
Use
Property Use Map
Building
RELEASE / ISSUE REL 00 / Issue 00
/ Hostel
DATE 26 April 2024
STAGE 1: IS THE IMPACT NOTICEABLE?
Figure 20: Daylight - ES Scale & Nature of Effect
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Negligible Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor to Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate to Major Adverse
Major Adverse
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Negligible Adverse
PROJECT Earls Court
Minor Adverse
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Minor to Moderate Adverse
DRAWING TITLE Daylight ES Significance Map
Moderate Adverse
RELEASE / ISSUE REL 66 / Issue 01
Moderate to Major Adverse
DATE 30 May 2024
Major Adverse
DAYLIGHT: ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
STAGE 2: IS THE IMPACT ACCEPTABLE IN CONTEXT?
Figure 21: Daylight - Alternative Target Criteria
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Minor Adverse
Meets Alternative Target Negligible Adverse
Substantially meets Alternative Target
Beyond Alternative Target, BRE Compliant with obstruction removed
Site Boundary
Beyond Alternative Target, Meets target with obstruction removed
Beyond Alternative Target
Minor Adverse
PROJECT Earls Court
Meets Alternative Target Negligible Adverse
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Substantially meets Alternative Target Negligible (BRE Compliant)
DRAWING TITLE
Beyond Alternative Target, BRE Compliant with obstruction removed
Daylight Alternative Target Map
RELEASE / ISSUE REL 66 / Issue 03 & 07
Beyond Alternative Target, Meets target with obstruction removed
Beyond Alternative Target
DATE 10 June 2024
DAYLIGHT: DOES NOT MEET ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
Flats 1-10 Kensington Hall Gardens (LBHF)
9.31 This residential mansion block is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development on the Site boundary near to West Kensington Station.
9.32 GIA has been provided with lease plans for this property and modelled the internal layouts based on the floor plans provided. Reasonable assumptions have been made as to the room uses based on the lease information.
9.33 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraphs 9.8.
9.34 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.35 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are
outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.36 With regards to the alternative target criteria, there are seven windows (highlighted on the window map on page 65) which do not meet the alternative target criteria (Stage 2) and are discussed further.
Ground Floor
9.37 On the ground floor (F00) this includes a window (W10) serving an assumed living room (R7). The room is served by two windows (W9 and W10) with W9 meeting the alternative VSC target (no change from the consented value). W10 retains 13.5% VSC and the VSC to the room sees a 2.7% absolute loss from the consented value. With regards to NSL, the living room meets the alternative target with less than 2 sq.m loss from the consented value.
9.38 The second window (W11) at this level serves an assumed bedroom (R8) and retains 14.1% VSC, as such it does not meet the alternative target. Window W12 also serves this room and meets the alternative target by retaining 15.5% VSC and having a 2.6% absolute loss from the consented value. Whilst not included in the analysis (as per BRE guidance), both windows are partially obstructed by foliage when in bloom (see imagery opposite). With regards to
NSL, it is a bedroom which the BRE considers less important.
9.39 An additional assumed living room (R9) at ground floor is served by a window (W13) which retains 14.3% VSC. The room is served by two windows, W14 meets the alternative target by retaining 16.6% VSC and having a 1.9% loss from the consented value. Both windows in reality are obstructed by foliage (see imagery opposite). In relation to NSL, the living room is fully BRE compliant.
9.40 The retained VSC (13.5%-14.3%) at all three windows is broadly comparable with the average VSC for ground floor in the borough research for LBHF and RBKC which is 14% (see Figure 13).
First
Floor
9.41 At first floor (F01), there is a window (W9) serving an assumed bedroom (R7) which does not meet the alternative VSC target, retaining 8.2% VSC and having an absolute loss from the consent of 3.7%. It should be noted the window is located beneath a balcony (see window map above). With the
9.42 A second window (W15) at first floor serving an assumed living room (R11) does not meet the alternative VSC target (retaining 9.8% VSC). The window is located beneath a balcony (see window map on page 65) and with the obstruction removed retains 17.5% VSC. The window in reality is obstructed
by foliage when in bloom (see imagery on page 67). The living room is served by three other windows, two are BRE compliant for VSC and one meets the alternative VSC target (retaining 15.9% and having a 1.1% absolute loss from the consent). The VSC to the room sees a 2.1% absolute loss from the consented value. The room is fully BRE compliant for NSL.
Third Floor
9.43 At the third floor (F03), there is a window (W7) serving an assumed bedroom (R6) which retains 13.1% VSC and sees a 4.1% absolute loss from the consent (does not meet the alternative target criteria). The window is obstructed by a balcony (see window maps on page 67), with this removed the retained value is 21.1% VSC. As the room is a bedroom, it is less important for NSL.
9.44 Additionally, there is a window (W8) serving an assumed living room (R7) which does not meet the alternative target (retaining 13.8% VSC and 2.7% absolute loss from consent). The room is served by two additional windows (W9 and W10) which meet the alternative VSC target (retaining 22.1% and 21.5% VSC).
9.45 The VSC to the room meets the alternative target at 19.8%. With regards to NSL, the room does not meet the alternative target. In total, 64.1% of the room has a view of the sky at the working plane.
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
9.46 The sunlight (APSH and WPSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail within the ES Chapter (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.47 With the exception of one room on the ground floor (R5); all rooms assessed for sunlight are either BRE compliant or the impact is to a bedroom (assumed) which the BRE Guidelines advise are less important and need not be analysed for sunlight.
9.48 The remaining room (R5) on the ground floor (F00) is served by one window (W7) and is a study/play area. The room sees a 38.5% change in APSH and 25% loss of WPSH from the existing. There is no change in WPSH from the consented value. With regards to APSH, the absolute difference is 8% from the consented value.
9.49 The BRE Guidelines do not provide commentary as to the sensitivity of this room use for sunlight. However, we would consider this to be a less sensitive room use.
Summary
9.50 This property shares a boundary with the Proposed Development, as such, the Site facing windows are in close proximity are sensitive to increases in massing.
9.51 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.52 The majority of the windows and rooms assessed will meet the alternative target criteria (Stage 2). Where there are breaches beyond the targets, the windows are largely below balconies, obstructed by foliage (when in bloom) or immediately on the Site boundary (see window map on page 67). Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Flats 46-55,
Kensington Hall Gardens (LBHF)
9.53 This residential mansion block is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development on the Site boundary near to West Kensington Station.
9.54 The internal layouts for this property have been modelled using reasonable assumptions and nonhabitable room uses have been determined by external observations. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/or uses.
9.55 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.56 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC)
9.57 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.58 With regards to the alternative target criteria, six of the seven windows (except W9) on the first floor (highlighted on the window maps on page 69) meet the alternative VSC targets in terms of absolute losses from the consented value (between 0.8%2.9%). The remaining W9 sees a 3.4% absolute loss from consent and the VSC to the room sees a 2.4% change.
9.59 In terms of VSC, the retained values are between 10.2%-13.3% for the seven windows (W7, W8, W9, W12, W14 and W17 - unknown). All of the windows are located beneath balconies. With the balconies removed, all windows will meet the alternative target, retaining between 16.5%-20.3%.
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
9.60 The sunlight (APSH and WPSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail within the ES Chapter (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Negligible Adverse.
Summary
9.61 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.62 All of the windows (except one) meet the alternative target criteria with regards to either retained VSC values (>15%) or when compared to the Consented Development (<3% absolute loss). Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
End Road (LBHF)
9.63 This mixed-use property is located within the Site boundary and is being retained in its existing form. As the building contains residential units, it has been assessed.
9.64 GIA is not aware of any future redevelopment or change of use for this building, however, the position could change and the building may be less sensitive in the future, dependent on its use and form.
9.65 GIA has obtained elevation drawings of this building, however, GIA were advised that no floor plans were available. As such, the internal layouts are based on reasonable assumptions based on the building’s architectural form and GIA’s external observations. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/ or uses.
9.66 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.67 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC)
9.68 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.69 With regards to the alternative target criteria, there are two windows (unknown) on the ground (W2) and first floor (W1) highlighted on the window map on page 71 which do not meet the alternative VSC target criteria.
9.70 Window W2 sees a 76.3% loss from the existing condition, retaining 6.9%. Window W1 sees a 58% loss, retaining 14.2%
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
9.71 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.72 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.73 The property is within the Site boundary, hence
it may be redeveloped in the future and could be considered less sensitive. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
40-42 Lillie Road (LBHF)
9.74 This residential property is located to the south of the Proposed Development on Lillie Road. It is the rear elevation has Site facing windows.
9.75 GIA has obtained floor plans of this property from the planning portal. This information has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses along with external observations.
9.76 As outlined in this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.77 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.78 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Minor to Moderate Adverse.
9.79 In terms of the alternative target criteria, there are three windows serving bedrooms located on the ground (W1/F00), first (W1/F01) and second floor (W1/F02) which do not meet the alternative VSC targets.
9.80 The retained VSC values for each window are 11.1% (W1/F00), 12% (W1/F01) and 14% (W1/F02). The window map on page 73 illustrates that all three are located in the corner of the building’s rear projection and therefore sky visibility may be more restricted. LBHF accepted on Shepherd’s Bush Market a VSC value of 8% for windows in a “recessed/winged wall arrangement or side facing” position on the ground floor (see Section 7).
9.81 The windows see absolute losses from the consented VSC value of 3.7%, 4.2% and 4.6% respectively. All three windows serve bedrooms which are less important for NSL in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
9.82 On the Site facing facade of the rear projection there are a further three windows (W4/B01, W4/F00 and W4/F01 - living rooms) located under balconies (see window map on page 73). These windows see a very slight improvement (between 0.2% and 0.5%) from the consented position. With the balconies removed, the windows also meet the alternative target criteria with between 17.8% and 19.4% retained. The living rooms remain fully BRE compliant for NSL.
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
9.83 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.84 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as
the Site context (Stage 2).
9.85 The bedroom windows which do not meet the alternative target criteria are located in the corner of the building’s rear projection. The living rooms on the rear Site facing facade see a slight improvement from the consented levels. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
9-28 Gibbs Green (LBHF)
9.86 This residential block of flats is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.87 From online resources (lease plans and estate agents’ websites), GIA has obtained floor plans for other similar properties in the Estates. Using this information, GIA has replicated the layouts obtained and room uses (into this building) given the similarities in the architectural form.
9.88 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.89 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.90 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.91 There are four windows serving bedrooms (W13, W18, W23 and W32) located on the ground floor (F00) which do not meet the alternative VSC targets. As illustrated on the window map on page 75, the windows on the ground, first and third floor of this property are located below deep external walkways. The architectural form of the building is heavily restricting the receipt of daylight (VSC) in the existing condition.
9.92 All four windows have low existing VSC values of between 5.1% and 7.1% and with the Proposed Development in place this is reduced to between 0.1% and 1.7%. With the VSC calculation point moved forward (flush with the facade), all windows meet the alternative target, retaining between 19.1% and 21.5% VSC. With regards to NSL, all four windows serve bedrooms which are less important for daylight distribution.
9.93 There are a number of kitchens experiencing Major Adverse effects, however, all are considered nonhabitable (meets alternative target) by LBHF due to their size (less than 13 sq.m). The majority are also underneath the deep external walkways.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.94 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.95 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.96 The rooms affected are bedrooms or non-habitable kitchens. Those which do meet the alternative target criteria (retained values or room use) are located beneath deep external walkways; and so sky visibility is already restricted in the existing condition by the building’s architectural form.
9.97 GIA understand from the floor plans obtained that the main living rooms and second bedrooms are located on the south facing facade and are unaffected by the Proposed Development.
9.98 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
29-38 Gibbs Green (LBHF)
9.99 This residential block of flats is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.100 From online resources (lease plans and estate agents’ websites), GIA has obtained floor plans for other similar properties on the Estates. Using this information, GIA has replicated the layouts and uses obtained (into this building) given the similarities in the architectural form.
9.104 With regards to the alternative target criteria, there are two windows (W5 and W8) located on the ground floor (F00) serving bedrooms (R3 and R6) which do not meet the alternative VSC targets. As illustrated on the window map on page 77, windows on the ground, first and third floor of this property are located below deep external walkways. The architectural form of the building is heavily restricting the receipt of daylight (VSC) in the existing condition.
9.101 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.102 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.103 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.105 The two windows (W5 and W8) have low existing VSC values of 6.6% and 6.1%. With the Proposed Development in place this is reduced to 0%. With the VSC calculation point moved forward (flush with the facade), all windows meet the alternative target, retaining 15.1% and 15.9% VSC. In relation to NSL, both rooms are bedrooms which are less important for daylight distribution.
9.106 On the fourth floor (F04), an additional window (W3) serving a bedroom does not meet the alternative VSC target at 14.4% retained VSC. The window is located beneath the building eave. With the eave removed, the retained VSC increases to 18.4%. As it is a bedroom, NSL is less important.
9.107 There are a number of small kitchens experiencing Major Adverse effects, however, all are considered non-habitable (meets alternative target) by LBHF due to their size (less than 13 sq.m). All of the kitchens are also underneath the deep external walkways.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.108 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.109 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.110 Two of the bedrooms which do not meet the alternative target criteria are below deep external walkways and the third is below the building eave. All affected kitchens are non-habitable (less than 13 sq.m).
9.111 All of the main living rooms with Site facing windows remain fully BRE compliant for daylight (VSC and NSL).
9.112 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
9.113 This residential terraced house is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.114 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.115 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.116 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.117 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.118 In relation to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there is one window (W3/F01) serving a bedroom
(R3) which does not meet the alternative target with a retained value of 11.9% VSC. The window is located below the building eave as illustrated on the window map on page 79, with the eave removed the retained value is 20%.
9.119 In relation to NSL, all rooms are fully BRE compliant.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.120 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.121 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.122 The two windows (serving a living room) seeing Moderate effects retain 15.5%-17.5% VSC, meeting the alternative target. The only room which does not meet the alternative target (mid-teens VSC) is a bedroom below an eave. Very high levels of daylight distribution are retained throughout which is fully BRE compliant. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Dieppe Close (LBHF)
2
Dieppe Close (LBHF)
9.123 This residential terraced house is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.124 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained full floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.125 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.126 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.127 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.128 With regards to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there is one window (W1/F01) serving a
bedroom (R1) which does not meet the alternative target with a retained value of 12.1% VSC. The window is located below the building eave as illustrated on the window map on page 81, with the eave removed the retained value is 20.3%.
9.129 In relation to NSL, the majority of rooms are BRE compliant with one room seeing an Minor Adverse effect.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.130 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.131 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.132 The one window (serving a living room) seeing a Moderate effect retains 18.2% VSC, meeting the alternative target. The only window (bedroom) which does not meet the alternative target (mid-teens VSC) is a bedroom below an eave. Very high levels of daylight distribution are retained throughout with mainly BRE compliance and only one Minor impact.
9.133 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
3-8 Dieppe Close (LBHF)
9.134 This residential block of flats is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.135 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained full floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.136 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.137 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.138 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.139 In relation to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there are four windows (W1, W3, W4 and W6 on F01) serving four bedrooms (R1, R3, R4 and R6) which
do not meet the alternative target, retaining 13.6% to 14.1% VSC. As illustrated on the window map on page 83, all of these windows are located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed, the retained values are above 16% VSC.
9.140 Two windows on the ground floor (W4/F00 and W31/ F00 - bedrooms) almost meet the alternative target with 14.7% and 14.8% VSC retained.
9.141 With regards to NSL, the majority of rooms are BRE compliant. Where there are Moderate or Major Adverse effects these are to non-habitable kitchens or bedrooms.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.142 In relation to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.143 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.144 Where windows do not meet the alternative target in terms of retained values they are below the building eave and/or serve bedrooms. Consequently, the
impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Dieppe Close (LBHF)
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.145 This residential terraced house is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.146 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.147 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.148 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.149 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.150 With regards to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there is one window (W2/F01) serving a bedroom (R2) which does not meet the alternative target, retaining 12.4% VSC. As illustrated on the window map on page 85, the window is located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed, the retained value is 18% VSC.
9.151 In relation to NSL, the only room experiencing a Moderate Adverse effect is the bedroom discussed above which is less important in relation to daylight distribution.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.152 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.153 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.154 The window which does not meet the alternative target in terms of retained VSC is below the building eave and serves a bedroom. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Dieppe Close (LBHF)
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.155 This residential terraced house is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.156 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.157 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.158 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.159 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.160 With regards to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there is one window (W4/F01) serving a bedroom (R4) which does not meet the alternative target, retaining 12.5% VSC. As illustrated on the window map on page 87, the window is located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed, the retained value is 19.7% VSC.
9.161 In relation to NSL, the rooms tested remain BRE compliant or experience a Minor Adverse effect.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.162 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.163 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.164 The window which does not meet the alternative target in terms of retained values is below the building eave and serves a bedroom. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Dieppe Close (LBHF)
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.165 This residential terraced house is located to the south and west of the Proposed Development within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.166 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained full floor plans for this property. This has been used to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
9.167 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.168 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.169 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.170 With regards to the alternative target criteria for VSC, there is one window (W12/F01) serving a bedroom (R12) which does not meet the alternative target, retaining 12.8% VSC. As illustrated on the window map on page 89, the window is restricted by the flank wall of the neighbouring house.
9.171 There is one further window (W11/F00) on the ground floor serving a living room (R7) which almost meets the alternative target at 14.8%. The VSC to the room meets the alternative target with 17.8% retained VSC.
9.172 In relation to NSL, the only room experiencing a Major Adverse effect is the bedroom next to the flank wall. Bedrooms are less important for daylight distribution.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.173 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Summary
9.174 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.175 The window which does not meet the alternative target (retained VSC) is next to a flank wall. The
other living room window on the ground floor is only marginally below mid-teens VSC and sees a Minor Adverse effect to NSL, retaining 77.1%. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
9.176 This residential terraced house is located to the west of the Proposed Development along the Site boundary within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.177 The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions. Non-habitable room uses have been determined by external observations. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/ or uses.
9.178 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.179 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC)
9.180 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.181 With regards to the alternative target criteria, window W7 serving room R5 (unknown) on the ground floor (F00) retains 12% VSC. On the first floor (F01), window W3 (unknown) does not meet the alternative target, retaining 13.9% VSC. Both windows are restricted by the side elevation of the neighbouring house on the terrace.
9.182 As highlighted in the window maps on page 91, the building is on the edge of the Site boundary, as such, the windows are close to the proposed massing.
9.183 Window W4 (unknown) on the ground floor (F00) retains 13.1% VSC and is one of two windows serving room R3. As illustrated on the photograph this is likely to be a secondary window and the other window (W3) serving the room remains BRE compliant.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.184 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.185 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.186 Windows which do not meet the alternative target in terms of VSC are restricted by the neighbouring building or are directly face the Site near to the boundary. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
14B Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
9.187 This residential terraced house is located to the west of the Proposed Development close to the Site boundary within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.188 The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions and the architectural form of the building. The room uses have been determined by external observations.
9.189 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.190 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.191 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.192 In relation to the alternative target criteria, on the first floor (F01), there is one window (W1) serving a bedroom (R1) which does not meet the alternative VSC targets, with a retained value of 10.2%.
9.193 As highlighted in the window map on page 93, the window is restricted by the side elevation of the neighbouring house and is located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed the window retains 20.9% VSC. In terms of NSL, the window serves a bedroom which is less important in relation to daylight distribution.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.194 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.195 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.196 The one window which does not meet the alternative VSC target serves a bedroom, is located below the building’s eave and next to a flank elevation.
9.197 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight
for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
14C Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
9.198 This residential terraced house is located to the west of the Proposed Development close to the Site boundary within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.199 It has not been possible to obtain floor plans for this property. As such, the internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions and the architectural form of the building. The room uses have been determined by external observations.
9.200 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.201 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.202 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.203 In relation to the alternative target criteria, the first floor (F01), there is one window (W1) serving a bedroom (R1) which does not meet the alternative VSC targets, with a retained value of 9%.
9.204 As highlighted in the window map on page 95, the window is restricted by the side elevation of the neighbouring house and is located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed the window retains 18.6% VSC. In terms of NSL, the window serves a bedroom which is less important in relation to daylight distribution.
9.205 There is another window experiencing a Major Adverse daylight effect, however, it meets the alternative target in terms of room use as it is a small kitchen (less than 13 sq.m) which is considered non-habitable by LBHF.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.206 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.207 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.208 The one window which does not meet the alternative VSC target serves a bedroom, is located below the building’s eave and next to a flank elevation. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
14D Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
9.209 This residential terraced house is located to the west of the Proposed Development close to the Site boundary within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.210 The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions and the architectural form of the building. The room uses have been determined by external observations.
9.211 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.212 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.213 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.214 In relation to the alternative target criteria, the first floor (F01), there is one window (W1) serving a bedroom (R1) which does not meet the alternative VSC targets, with a retained value of 7.6%.
9.215 As highlighted in the window map on page 97, the window is restricted by the side elevation of the neighbouring house and is located below the building’s eave. With the eave removed the window retains 15.8% VSC. In terms of NSL, the window serves a bedroom which is less important in relation to daylight distribution.
9.216 The remaining two impacted windows (W1/F00 and W3/F01) serve a non-habitable kitchen (meets alternative target due to use) and a bedroom (assumed) which retains almost 18% VSC.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.217 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.218 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.219 The one window which does not meet the alternative VSC target serves a bedroom, is located below the building’s eave and next to a flank elevation. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.220 This residential terraced house is located to the west of the Proposed Development close to the Empress State Building within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.221 From the planning portal, GIA has obtained floor plans for other similar properties on the Estates. Using this information, GIA has replicated the layouts and uses obtained (into this building) given the similarities in the architectural form.
9.222 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.223 The results for the assessment against the Existing and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed is the primary assessment to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.224 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and
nature of the effect in ES terms is Minor to Moderate Adverse.
9.225 In relation to the alternative target criteria, on the ground (F00), first (F01) and second (F02) floors there are three windows (W1) serving a kitchen, living room and bedroom (R1) which do not meet the alternative VSC targets, with retained VSC values of 10.1%, 11% and 14%.
9.226 Due to the orientation of the windows and the location of the Proposed Development plots alongside the Empress State Building, it is challenging to increase the retained VSC values in this property. However, it should be noted that all three rooms remain compliant with regards to NSL retaining 60.6%-80.7% NSL. As such, over 60% of each room has a view of the sky at the working plane.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.227 With regards to sunlight, this property is fully BRE compliant based on the Existing v Proposed analysis
Summary
9.228 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.229 Where windows have VSC values beyond the alternative target, the effect is Moderate Adverse and the daylight distribution to the room is fully BRE compliant.
9.230 It is therefore concluded that the daylight and sunlight impacts to this building are regarded acceptable in consideration of context. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
7-9 Lillie Road & 1-9 Lillie Road Consent (LBHF)
9.231 This residential block of flats is located to the east of the Proposed Development on Lillie Road.
9.232 GIA are aware that there is an extant permission (2013/02620/FUL) for this Site. The existing 7-9 Lillie Road is still in situ, therefore, the existing building has been tested (1-5 Lillie Road is commercial).
9.233 A floor plan for the existing building has been obtained from the planning portal and this has been replicated throughout the building to determine the internal layouts and room uses.
analysed against the Existing, Consented and PreExisting baselines. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed, Consented v Proposed and Existing v Future Baseline are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.234 The 1-9 Lillie Road consent (includes no.1-5) is a material consideration as this application was approved in the knowledge that the Proposed Development Site would be redeveloped in future. As such, we have also considered the analysis in a Future Baseline scenario (see Appendix 01) and tested the impact of the Proposed Development on the consented 1-9 Lillie Road.
9.235 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.236 The technical results for this property with additional commentary on Stage 2 is provided in Appendix 01 and 02. The existing 7-9 Lillie Road has been
9.237 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect on the existing 7-9 Lillie Road in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.238 In relation to the alternative target criteria, the majority of windows and rooms do not meet the alternative target criteria in relation to daylight (see Appendix 01).
9.239 Given there is a extant permission and intention for the Site to be redeveloped we have considered whether the Consented 1-9 Lillie Road would meet the alternative target criteria when assessed against the Proposed Development.
9.240 Within 1-9 Lillie Road (Block N), there are two windows (W13/F02 and W13/F03) seeing a 30.6% and 30.8% change from the existing condition, just beyond Minor Adverse. All rooms in this block are BRE compliant in relation to NSL.
9.241 In 1-9 Lillie Road (Block M), there are three windows (W8, W9 and W10) on the first floor (F01) which are just below the alternative target retaining 14.7%-14.8% VSC. The remaining windows are BRE compliant, see Minor Adverse effects or meet the alternative target retaining above 15%. In most instances the retained value is greater than 17%.
9.242 In relation to NSL within 1-9 Lillie Road (Block M), all of the impacted rooms are bedrooms (less important for NSL) or single aspect rooms deeper than 5m (movement of NSL may be unavoidable).
9.243 The existing building at 7-9 Lillie Road is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
9.244 The consented 1-9 Lillie Road is fully BRE compliant for sunlight based on the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Sunlight (APSH)
7-9 LILLIE ROAD (EXISTING)
1-9 LILLIE ROAD BLOCK N & M (CONSENTED)
Summary
9.245 As detailed in the ES Chapter, the existing 7-9 Lillie Road will see changes in daylight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.246 Given that there is an extant permission for 1-9 Lillie Road, it is relevant to consider the impact of the Proposed Development on this consent. Overall, the consented scheme largely meets the alternative target criteria with regards to daylight and is fully BRE compliant for sunlight.
9.247 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
INTENTIONALLy BLANK PAGE
9.248 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development on the Site boundary adjacent to the plot which is the former 344-350 Old Brompton Road consent.
9.249 There are three flats (Flat A, C and D) within this property which GIA understand are under the ownership of the Applicant. GIA has gained access to this property and carried out internal surveys. The internal layouts and room uses have been determined from the information obtained on these visits.
9.250 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.251 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.252 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are
outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.253 In relation to the alternative target criteria, with the exception of one window (W6) on the third floor (F03) serving a living room (R4), all windows meet the alternative target criteria in that the window either retains greater than 15% or in some cases 20% VSC or is less than 3% absolute loss from the consent.
9.254 It is relevant to note that this property was assessed for the 344-350 Old Brompton Road application (see Section 6) and the alternative target criteria outlined in this report for Earls Court was accepted by RBKC on this previous application in the same context. The Outline Component design for the Proposed Development envelopes the OBR consented scheme.
9.255 The living room (R4/F03) is served by windows W6, W5 and W7. One window (W5) remains BRE compliant for VSC and the other retains 19.1% VSC. The VSC to the room meets the alternative target with 2.9% absolute loss from the consented value. The living room is fully BRE compliant for NSL.
9.256 There are three rooms; R2/F00 (living room), R4/ F01 (studio) and R4/F02 (studio) which do not meet the alternative target criteria for NSL. Both studios retain circa 62% NSL, as such there is a view of the sky at the working plane in over half the room. The living room retains 45.6% NSL which is a 3.8 sq.m absolute loss from consent. The windows serving the
rooms meet the alternative target criteria for VSC.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.257 Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse for sunlight.
9.258 On the first floor (F01), a studio (R4) sees a 4% absolute loss from the consented value in terms of APSH, the retained value is 19%. There is no change to WPSH from the consent.
9.259 A living room (R4) on the third floor (F03) achieves 23% APSH (against the BRE’s suggested 25%) and sees no change in WPSH from the consented value.
9.260 Overall, this property substantially meets the alternative target criteria.
Summary
9.261 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.262 The majority of windows meet the alternative target criteria for VSC. Where three rooms do not meet the
targets for NSL, two retain a view of the sky to over half the room at the working plane.
9.263 With regards to sunlight, the majority of rooms also meet the alternative target criteria. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
55 Eardley Crescent (RBKC)
9.264 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.265 The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions and the architectural form of the building. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/or uses.
9.266 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.267 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC)
9.268 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.269 In relation to the alternative target criteria, there
is one window (W3/B01 - unknown) which does not meet the alternative target criteria in terms of VSC. The window has a low existing VSC value of 6.2%. The window is located at basement level underneath an overhang as illustrated on the window map on page 107. The room (R2) is served by another window (W2/B01) and the VSC to the room meets the alternative target (1.8% absolute loss from the consented value). With the overhang removed, the window would experience a Minor Adverse effect in the Existing v Proposed analysis.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.270 This property is not relevant for sunlight analysis in accordance with the BRE Guidelines.
Summary
9.271 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight which will be noticeableaccording to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.272 The only window which does not meet the alternative target for VSC is located at basement level below an overhang which is restricting sky visibility. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
9.273 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.274 GIA accessed this property historically for an internal survey and obtained partial internal layouts.
9.275 Where the internal configuration is unknown, reasonable assumptions have been used. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/ or uses.
9.276 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.277 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.278 Within the ES Chapter, the daylight (VSC and NSL) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and
nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.279 In relation to the alternative target criteria, there are two windows (W2/F00 and W2/F01) serving living rooms which do not meet the alternative target criteria in terms of VSC, retaining 12.5% and 13.3%. As illustrated on the window map on page 109 both windows are restricted by the projection on the rear of the building. With regards to NSL, both rooms will remain fully BRE compliant.
9.280 On the second floor (F02), room R2 (unknown) is served by two windows (W1 and W2). W1 meets the alternative target retaining 24.5% VSC and W2 is just below the alternative target criteria at 14.8%. This window is also restricted by the building’s rear projection (see window map).
Sunlight (APSH)
9.281 In terms of sunlight, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.282 There is one living room (R2/F00) which is on cusp of meeting the alternative target criteria. The room retains a very high level of APSH at 50% (the BRE suggests 25%). In terms of WPSH the retained value is 4% which marginally below the BRE’s suggested 5% in winter. The absolute reduction from the consent is 10%. As noted previously, this room is set back at the side of a rear projection.
9.283 The remaining impacted rooms are bedrooms, which are less important for sunlight.
Summary
9.284 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.285 The majority of windows and rooms meet the alternative target criteria in terms of daylight and sunlight. The windows and/or rooms which do not meet the alternative target criteria are located next to the building’s rear projection. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
SUNLIGHT: ES SCALE & NATURE OF EFFECT
STAGE 1: IS THE IMPACT NOTICEABLE?
Figure 22: Sunlight - ES Scale & Nature of Effect
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Negligible Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor to Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate to Major Adverse
Site Boundary
Major Adverse
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Not Relevant
Negligible Adverse
Minor Adverse
PROJECT Earls Court
Minor to Moderate Adverse
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Moderate Adverse
DRAWING TITLE Sunlight ES Significance Map
Moderate to Major Adverse
RELEASE / ISSUE REL 66 / Issue 01
Major Adverse
Not Relevant
DATE 31 May 2024
SUNLIGHT: ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
STAGE 2: IS THE IMPACT ACCEPTABLE IN CONTEXT?
23: Sunlight - Alternative Target Criteria
Figure
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Minor Adverse
Meets Alternative Target Negligible Adverse
Substantially meets Alternative Target
Beyond Alternative Target
Not Relevant
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Negligible Adverse
PROJECT Earls Court
Minor Adverse
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Meets Alternative Target
DRAWING TITLE Sunlight Alternative Target Map
Substantially meets Alternative Target
RELEASE / ISSUE
Beyond Alternative Target
REL 66 / Issue 03 & 07
DATE 30 May 2024
Not Relevant
Scale: Date:
Reference: Order
21 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
SUNLIGHT: DOES NOT MEET ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions. Some room uses have been determined by external observations. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of floor plans and/or uses.
9.288 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.289 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.290 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.291 When reviewing the alternative target criteria, there are two rooms (R1 and R2) located on the ground floor which do not meet the alternative target criteria in terms of APSH and WPSH. Room R1 retains 16% APSH and 1% WPSH with a 4% and 3% absolute loss from the consent. Room R2 retains 17% APSH and 0% WPSH with a 5% and 3% absolute loss from the consented value.
9.292 As illustrated on the window maps and waldram diagrams (projected view from the window) on pages 115 (W1/F00) and 116 (W2/F00), both windows are restricted by the building’s rear projection.
9.293 On the waldram diagram, the yellow dots are the annual sunlight spots and blue are the winter sun spots. The area shaded grey is the existing building and the teal massing is the Proposed Development.
9.294 In relation to daylight, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.295 With regards to VSC, the Site facing windows experience Minor Adverse effects or meet the
alternative target criteria retaining greater than 17% VSC and/or experiencing less than a 3% absolute loss from the consent.
9.296 Where uses are known, we have assessed NSL and the rooms are both bedrooms (less important) and BRE compliant.
WINDOW W1/100 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
WINDOW W2/100 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
Summary
9.297 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.298 The majority of rooms meet the alternative target criteria in terms of sunlight. The rooms which do not meet the alternative target criteria are located next to the building’s rear projection. Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
9.299 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.300 The internal layouts have been modelled using reasonable assumptions. Some room uses have been determined by external observations. In accordance with the BRE Guidelines, NSL has not been assessed in the absence of accurate floor plans or uses.
9.301 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.302 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.303 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate to Major Adverse.
9.304 In relation to the alternative target criteria, at
basement level (B01), there is one room (R1unknown) which does not meet the alternative target in terms of WPSH. The retained WPSH is 2% and the absolute loss from the consented value is 2% (beyond the alternative target). However, the retained APSH is 23% (against the BRE’s suggested 25%) and it meets the alternative target criteria in terms of absolute change from the consented value (2%). As illustrated on the window map and waldram diagram (for W1/B01) on page 119, the windows serving this room are restricted by the building’s rear projection and also the neighbouring wall (massing in grey).
9.305 A further four rooms (R2/B01, R1/F00, R2/F00M and R1/F01) do not meet the alternative target for WPSH with 2%-7% absolute loss from the consented value. However, the retained APSH for these rooms is very high at between 27% and 56%. The BRE Guidelines suggests 25%. Three of the rooms are located next to the building’s rear projection. The remaining rooms meet the BRE Guidelines or the alternative target criteria for sunlight.
Daylight (VSC)
9.306 In relation to daylight, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.307 With the exception of two, all windows meet the alternative target criteria in terms of VSC. The windows will either retain 17-19.9%, more than 20% or
WINDOW W1/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
are less than a 3% absolute loss from the consented value. At basement level, those with a value less than 3% absolute from consent retain between 7.6% and 14.3% VSC.
9.308 There are two windows (W1 and W2) at ground floor (F00) and first floor (F01) which do not meet the alternative target criteria retaining 12% and 13.3% VSC. As highlighted on the window map, both windows are restricted by the building’s rear projection.
Summary
9.309 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.310 The majority of rooms meet the alternative target criteria in terms of sunlight. For rooms which do not meet the targets, it is in relation to winter sunlight and the retained annual sunlight is very high and/ or BRE compliant.
9.311 The majority of windows meet the alternative target criteria for daylight (VSC).
9.312 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
INTENTIONALLy BLANK PAGE
30-31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
9.313 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.314 GIA has obtained partial floor plans of this property from the planning portal and photographs from estate agents’ websites. This information has been used to model the internal floor plans.
9.315 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.316 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.317 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.318 In relation to the alternative target criteria, at basement level and ground floor there are two
rooms (R1/B01 - studio and R1/F00 - unknown) which do not meet the alternative target for APSH or WPSH. In terms of APSH, the absolute change from the consented values are 6%, with retained values of 20% (the BRE Guide suggests 25%). In terms of WPSH, both windows retain 0% from 4% and 6% for the consent.
9.319 As illustrated on the window map on page 123, both windows are set back and restricted by rear projections on both sides. The waldram diagram also on page 123 illustrates the view from window W1/ B01 at basement with the existing building projection is shown in grey.
9.320 One further room (R4/F00) is fully BRE compliant for APSH, retaining 27%. WPSH is 4%, just marginally below the suggested 5%.
9.321 The remaining impacted rooms are bedrooms which are less important for sunlight in accordance with the BRE Guide.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.322 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.323 The majority of windows experiencing Moderate to Major Adverse effects meet the alternative target criteria retaining 17-19.9%, more than 20% or the value is less than a 3% absolute loss from the
consented value.
9.324 Two windows (W1/F00 and W8/F00 - unknown) are almost meet the alternative target experiencing a 3.2% and 3% absolute change from the consent. A third window (W6/F01 - bedroom) sees a 3.4% absolute change from the consent. These windows are located next to the building’s rear projection (see window map on page 123).
9.325 An additional bedroom window (W6/F02) almost meets the alternative target at 14% retained. This
window is also located next to the building’s rear projection (see window map on page 123).
9.326 With regards to NSL, the studio in the basement (R1/ B01) does not meet the alternative target criteria but experiences a 32.4% change from the existing position. The other moderately impacted room is a bedroom, which is less important for NSL.
Summary
9.327 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will
WINDOW W1/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.328 Where there are rooms beyond the alternative target criteria for sunlight, this is primarily to winter sunlight and the retained levels of annual sunlight are good.
9.329 With regards to daylight, the majority of windows and rooms meet the alternative target criteria. Those which do not are located next to the building’s rear projection or the use is less important.
9.330 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
9.331 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.332 GIA has obtained partial floor plans for this property from the planning portal and survey information from historic access. This information has been used to model the internal floor plans.
9.333 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.334 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.335 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.336 In relation to the alternative target criteria, at basement level (B01) there is one room (R1 - studio)
which does not meet the alternative target criteria.
9.337 The room has a low existing APSH value 10%, this is reduced to 2% with the Proposed Development in place. In terms of WPSH, the reduction is from 9% to 1%. When compared to the consent the absolute difference in the values for APSH and WPSH is 4%.
9.338 As illustrated on the window map and waldram diagram on page 127, the window serving the room is located beneath an overhang (grey massing on waldram) which is affecting the receipt of sunlight in the existing situation.
9.339 The remaining impacted room is a bedroom which is less important for sunlight in accordance with the BRE Guide.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.340 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.341 The majority of windows meet the alternative target criteria retaining 17%-19.9% or more than 20% VSC. Those windows retaining lower than 15% see less than a 3% absolute loss from the consented value.
9.342 There are two windows which do not meet the alternative target criteria for VSC. One is a small window (W4/F00 - studio) restricted by the building’s rear projection (see window map). The other window
WINDOW W4/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
(W5/F01 - living room) retains 14.9%, just shy of the alternative target. This window is also located next to the building’s rear projection (see window map).
9.343 With regards to NSL, the only room seeing a Major Adverse impact (R2/B01) meets the alternative target with less than a 5% absolute loss from the consented value.
Summary
9.344 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.345 There is only one window at basement level which does not meet the alternative target in terms of sunlight. The window is located beneath an existing overhang is therefore already restricted in terms of APSH.
9.346 With regards to daylight, the majority of windows and rooms meet the alternative target criteria. Those which do not are located next to the building’s rear projection.
9.347 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
INTENTIONALLy BLANK PAGE
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
9.348 This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.349 GIA historically accessed this property to undertake internal surveys. This information has been used to model the internal floor plans. Where layouts are unknown, reasonable assumptions have been used.
9.350 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.351 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.352 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.353 In relation to the alternative target criteria, basement level (B01) there is one room (R1 - LKD) which
does not meet the alternative target in relation to WPSH, experiencing an absolute loss of 2% from the consented value. However, the room retains a very high level of APSH (32%).
9.354 On the ground (F00) and first floor (F01) there are two rooms (both R1 - unknown) which do not meet the alternative target in terms of APSH with retained values of 18% and 20% and an absolute change from the consented value of 4% and 5%. In terms of WPSH, the alternative target is met with either no change from the consent or a 1% absolute loss.
9.355 As illustrated on the window map on page 131, both windows on ground and first floor are set back next to the building’s rear projection. The waldram diagram on page 131 shows the projected view from window W1/F00 on ground, the existing rear projection is shown in grey.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.356 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.357 With regards to VSC, the windows assessed experience Minor Adverse effects or meet the alternative target criteria by retaining largely 20+% VSC or seeing less than a 3% absolute loss from the consented value.
9.358 Where rooms have been tested for NSL, the rooms
remain fully BRE compliant..
Summary
9.359 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.360 Those windows which do not meet the alternative
target criteria in terms of annual APSH are located next to the building’s rear projection. The basement window retains a high level of APSH despite not meeting the target for WPSH.
9.361 With regards to VSC, the effects are Minor Adverse or the alternative target criteria are met. NSL sees full BRE compliance.
9.362 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
WINDOW W1/F00 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
9.364 GIA has obtained partial floor plans from the planning portal. This information has been used to determine some of the internal layouts and room uses. Where floor plans have not been obtained, reasonable assumptions have been made as to the internal layouts.
9.365 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraphs 9.8.
9.366 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.367 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
In relation to the alternative target criteria, there are three rooms (R1 - unknown) located at basement (B01), first (F01) and second (F02) floor which do not meet the alternative target for APSH. The absolute losses from the consented value are 4%-5% and the retained values are 13%-20%. The three rooms meet the alternative target in terms of WPSH with 1% absolute loss from the consent.
9.369 The three rooms are set back and located next to building’s rear projection (see window map on page 133).
9.370 The projected view from the basement window (W1/ B01) is shown on the waldram diagram on page 133. The building’s existing rear projection is shown in grey.
9.371 On the ground floor (F00) a bedroom (R1) is located in this same position, however, bedrooms are less important for sunlight.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.372 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.373 With the exception of one, all windows experiencing Moderate or Major Adverse effects meet the alternative target criteria. This means either the window retains greater than 15% (the majority are in excess of 20%) or there is less than a 3% absolute change from the consented value.
9.374 The remaining window (W1 - bedroom) located on the ground floor (F00) almost meets the alternative target with 3% absolute loss from the consented value.
9.375 With regards to NSL, where layouts and/or uses are known the rooms are BRE compliant or experience a Minor Adverse effect.
Summary
9.376 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.377 The rooms which do not meet the alternative target criteria for sunlight are located next to the building’s rear projection.
WINDOW W1/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
9.378 With regards to VSC, the majority of windows meet the alternative target criteria and NSL is either BRE compliant (Negligible) or Minor Adverse effects.
9.379 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
GIA historically accessed this property to undertake internal surveys. This information has been used to model the internal floor plans. Where layouts are unknown, reasonable assumptions have been used.
9.382 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
(B01), ground (F00) and first (F01) floor which do not meet the alternative target in terms of APSH with absolute losses from the consent of between 4% and 7%. The retained values are 11%, 10% and 12%. These windows meet the alternative target for WPSH.
9.386 As illustrated on the window map on page 137 all three rooms are set back next to the building’s rear projection.
9.387 The projected view from the basement window (W1/ B01) is shown on the waldram diagram on page 137. The building’s existing rear projection is shown in grey.
9.383 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.384 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.385 In relation to the alternative target criteria, there are three rooms (R1 - studio) located at basement
9.388 On the second floor, one further room (R2/F02) does not meet the alternative target in terms of WPSH with a 2% absolute loss from the consented value. However, the room retains 28% APSH which is in excess of the BRE’s suggested 25%.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.389 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Moderate Adverse.
9.390 With regards to VSC, where windows experience a Moderate Adverse effect all of the windows meet the alternative target criteria. This means either the window retains greater than 15% (the majority are in excess of 20%) or there is less than a 3% absolute change from the consented value.
9.395 Where layouts and/or uses are known the majority of rooms are BRE compliant for NSL. The one room which experiences a Major Adverse effect (R1/B01) is a single aspect room deeper than 5m and therefore meets the alternative target.
WINDOW W1/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
Summary
9.391 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the Site context (Stage 2).
9.392 The rooms which are beyond the alternative target in terms of APSH are located next to the building’s rear projection. The room which does not meet the target for winter sunlight, retains high levels of annual sunlight.
9.393 With regards to VSC, all of the windows meet the alternative target criteria. In terms of NSL, the majority of rooms are BRE compliant except one which is deep and single aspect.
9.394 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE
Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
Sunlight (APSH and WPSH)
This residential property is located to the east of the Proposed Development near to the Site boundary.
GIA historically accessed this property to undertake internal surveys. This information has been used to model the internal floor plans. Where layouts are unknown, reasonable assumptions have been used.
9.398 As outlined within this report, the daylight and sunlight amenity has been evaluated in a two stage process by reviewing not only where the impact is noticeable (Stage 1), but also against alternative target criteria to determine acceptability (Stage 2) as set out in paragraph 9.8.
9.399 The results for the assessment against the Existing, Consented and Pre-Existing baselines and the alternative target criteria review are provided in Appendix 01 and 02. Due to the property’s location, the Existing v Proposed and Consented v Proposed are the primary assessments to consider in terms of the application of alternative target criteria.
Sunlight (APSH)
9.400 Within the ES Chapter, the sunlight (APSH) results of the Existing v Proposed analysis are outlined in detail (Stage 1). Overall, the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Major Adverse.
9.401 In relation to the alternative target criteria, there are
two rooms at basement (R1/B01 - unknown) and ground floor (LKD - R1/F00) which do not meet the alternative target in terms of APSH with absolute losses from the consented value of 3% and 4%. There is no change in WPSH as it was 0% in the consent and remains 0% with the Proposed Development in place.
As illustrated on the window map on page 141, both rooms are set back next to the building’s rear projection.
9.403 The projected view from the basement window (W1/ B01) is shown on the waldram diagram on page 141. The building’s existing rear projection is shown in grey.
Daylight (VSC and NSL)
9.404 In relation to daylight (VSC and NSL), the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms is Minor to Moderate Adverse.
9.405 With regards to VSC, where windows experience a Moderate Adverse effect all of the windows meet the alternative target criteria. This means either the window retains greater than 15% (the majority are in excess of 20%) or there is less than a 3% absolute change from the consented value.
9.406 Where layouts and/or uses are known the majority of rooms are BRE compliant. The one room which experiences a Minor Adverse effect.
Summary
9.407 As detailed in the ES Chapter, this property will see changes in daylight and sunlight which will be noticeable - according to the BRE Guide (Stage 1). However, the transgressions should not be considered in isolation but against planning policy and guidance as well as the site context (Stage 2).
9.409 With regards to VSC, all of the windows meet the alternative target criteria. In terms of NSL, the majority of rooms are BRE compliant.
9.410 Consequently, the impacts on daylight and sunlight for this building are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
9.408 The rooms which are beyond the alternative target in terms of APSH are located next to the building’s rear projection.
WINDOW W1/B01 - WALDRAM DIAGRAM
OVERSHADOWING ON NEIGHBOURS
9.411 The following methodologies are used to assess overshadowing on neighbouring amenity areas:
• Transient Overshadowing (TOS); and
• Sun Hours on Ground (SHOG).
9.412 Both TOS and SHOG assessments determine the extent of overshadowing on surrounding amenity areas. TOS is initially used as a screening exercise to determine which amenity areas should be included for the purpose of the SHOG assessment.
9.413 For large amenity areas TOS is used as the main assessment given the difficulties to quantify using the SHOG assessment. For smaller amenity areas with distinct boundaries, SHOG (undertaken on 21st March) is used as the main assessment as per the BRE Guidelines.
9.414 The diagrams and results of both assessments (TOS and SHOG) are included in the ES Chapter. The SHOG results and diagrams are also included in Appendix 02 with additional Sun Exposure diagrams on 21st March and 21st June. The technical results for each amenity area with additional commentary on Stage 2 (alternative target criteria) is provided in Appendix 01.
9.415 As discussed previously, in applying the two stage approach, GIA has considered firstly the Existing v Proposed analysis to understand the whether there will be a noticeable level of overshadowing at neighbouring amenity areas. Then alternative target criteria as set out in paragraph 9.9 (Stage 2) have been applied to determine the acceptability of the impact based on the retained sunlight to the gardens. A summary table of the SHOG results with commentary on the alternative target criteria is provided in Appendix 01.
9.416 As with daylight and sunlight to neighbours, analysis and overall conclusions outlined in this section consider the existing baseline and two alternate baseline scenarios (where relevant at specific properties). These include:
1 Existing v Proposed - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Existing Baseline (see Sections 3 and 4).
2 Consented v Proposed - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Consented Development (see Sections 3 and 4).
3 Pre-Existing v Proposed - A comparison of the Proposed Development to the Pre-Existing
Baseline (see Sections 3 and 4).
9.417 The summary tables in Appendix 01, outline which properties have a consented position and which do not.
9.418 When reviewing the results of the overshadowing assessments, we have considered the relative percentage reduction from the existing baseline (Stage 1 - Existing v Proposed). This determines the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms which is outlined in Figure 24 for overshadowing.
9.419 For Stage 2, the retained sunlight levels per amenity area are compared to those for the Consented Development and Pre-Existing Baseline using the alternative target outlined in paragraph 9.9.
9.420 All relevant public areas of open space such as parks and squares and neighbouring communal amenity areas and private gardens have been tested.
9.421 The map in Figure 24 illustrates all of the amenity areas assessed and the magnitude of overshadowing effects in ES terms when considering the Existing v Proposed analysis (Stage 1).
9.422 The map in Figure 25 illustrates which properties meet the alternative target criteria (Stage 2).
9.423 GIA has worked closely with the design team to ensure overshadowing is minimised (where possible) to the public and private open spaces surrounding the Proposed Development, As such, only five amenity areas out of the 400 areas assessed do not meet the alternative target criteria.
9.424 These amenity areas include:
• 31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 29 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC)
• 61 Philbeach Gardens terrace (RBKC)
• 7 Eardley Crescent (RBKC)
• 6 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF)
9.425 Table 05 on page 143 outlines what percentage of the five amenity areas see two hours of direct sunlight on 21st March (BRE test) in the Existing and Pre-Existing Baseline conditions as well as for the Consented Development and Proposed Development.
05: Sun Hours on
Results - Existing, Pre-Existing, Consented and Proposed Development
9.426 Due to the orientation of the rear gardens on the Philbeach Gardens crescent, sunlight availability in this area is more limited on the Spring Equinox (21st March). This is demonstrated by the Consented and Pre-Existing results which show low levels of sunlight on 21st March (see Appendix 02). The gardens within Philbeach are also heavily restricted by existing foliage which in reality will heavily shade the gardens when in bloom (see photograph above).
Table
Ground
OVERSHADOWING:
STAGE 1: IS THE IMPACT NOTICEABLE?
&
Figure 24: Overshadowing - ES Scale & Nature of Effect
Site Boundary
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Major Adverse
PROJECT Earls Court
Site Boundary
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Negligible (BRE Compliant)
DRAWING TITLE Daylight Alternative Target Map
RELEASE / ISSUE
Moderate Adverse
REL 66 / Issue 03 & 07
Major Adverse Minor Adverse
DATE 14 June 2024
OVERSHADOWING: ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
STAGE 2: IS THE IMPACT ACCEPTABLE IN CONTEXT?
25: Overshadowing - Alternative Target Criteria
Figure
Site Boundary
Negigable (BRE Compliant)
Minor Adverse
Meets Alternative Target
Substantially meets Alternative Target
Beyond Alternative Target, Meets target with obstruction removed
Site Boundary
PROJECT Earls Court
Negigable (BRE Compliant)
PROJECT NUMBER 15447
Minor Adverse
DRAWING TITLE
Meets Alternative Target
Daylight Alternative Target Map
Substantially meets Alternative Target
RELEASE / ISSUE REL 66 / Issue 03 & 07
Beyond Alternative Target, Meets target with obstruction removed
DATE 14 June 2024
OVERSHADOWING: BEYOND ALTERNATIVE TARGET CRITERIA
29 and 31 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC) - Gardens
9.427 The rear gardens of 29 and 31 do not meet the BRE test on 21st March (see diagram below) and experience reductions in sunlight beyond the alternative target criteria (see Table 05). However, there are 27 gardens at Philbeach Gardens which experience improvements compared to either the Consented Pre-Existing or both conditions (see Appendix 01).
9.428 In order to provide a more comprehensive sunlight appraisal, sun exposure diagrams are provided in Appendix 02 which show the actual levels of sunlight on 21st March. It is recognised that the outdoor open spaces are predominantly used during warmer months. It is therefore sensible to also consider the
sunlight exposure on the summer solstice (21st June) as per the diagram on page 148,
9.429 The sun exposure diagrams demonstrate that the sunlight availability during the summer period is very good. The majority of these two gardens see in excess of six hours of direct sun on 21st June.
9.430 Consequently, the impacts on overshadowing for these gardens are regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
BRE TEST - 21st MARCH
61 Philbeach Gardens (RBKC) - Terrace
9.431 The terrace on the rear of 61 Philbeach Gardens does not meet the BRE test on 21st March (see diagram below) and experiences reductions in sunlight beyond the alternative target criteria (see Table 05).
9.432 This small terrace is already obstructed by the existing projection to the south of it. Sunlight, therefore, relies on the western aspect during the afternoon hours. The Proposed Development only results in loss of sunlight in late afternoon, after 4pm.
9.433 The sun exposure diagram (see page 151) demonstrates that this roof terrace would receive additional sunlight on June 21st, which in practice is when the outdoor spaces are most actively used.
9.434 Consequently, the impacts on overshadowing for this terrace is regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
BRE TEST - 21st MARCH
7 Eardley Crescent (RBKC) - Garden
9.435 The rear garden of 7 Eardley Crescent does not meet the BRE test on 21st March (see diagram on page 153) and experience reductions in sunlight beyond the alternative target criteria (see Table 05).
9.436 For this garden, the existing surroundings obstruct most sunlight and direct sunlight is only available from the western aspect.
9.437 This garden is heavily restricted by existing foliage which in reality will heavily shade the gardens when in bloom (see photograph below).
9.438 The sun exposure diagram (see page 153) demonstrates that the sunlight availability during the summer period (which in practice is when the outdoor areas are most actively used) is good with the majority of the garden area receiving in excess of three hours of direct sun on 21st June.
9.439 Consequently, the impacts on overshadowing for this gardens is regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
6 Aisgill Avenue (LBHF) - Garden
9.440 The garden at 6 Aisgill Avenue does not meet the BRE test on 21st March (see diagram below) and does not have a consented position as this amenity area is within the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.
9.441 Due to the orientation of this garden to the north, sunlight availability on 21st March is only limited to early hours in the morning. The Proposed Development will only obstruct the sunlight to this garden for a short period of time on 21st March from 8-9am.
9.442 The sun exposure diagram (see page 153) demonstrate that the sunlight availability during the summer period (which in practice is when the outdoor areas are most actively used) is very good with the majority of the garden area receiving in excess of six hours of direct sun on 21st June.
9.443 Consequently, the impacts on overshadowing for this garden is regarded as acceptable, considering the context.
BRE TEST - 21st MARCH
10 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 This Contextual Report has been written as a standalone document to be read as part of the ES Chapter.
10.2 As outlined in detail within this report, daylight and sunlight is to be considered in a two stage process.
• Stage 1 is a calculation to confirm whether the impact is noticeable by applying the national numerical assessments in the BRE Guidelines.
• Stage 2 is a matter of judgement, and it is necessary to consider whether a noticeable impact (as determined by the BRE assessments) is unacceptable in the particular context of the case.
10.3 To understand Stage 1, we have considered whether there is a noticeable change from the Existing Baseline against the Proposed Development. This determines the scale and nature of the effect in ES terms.
10.4 To determine acceptability of the impact in Stage 2, we have considered (where applicable at specific properties);
• Are the retained levels materially different to what was previously accepted in the Consented Development (Consented Development v Proposed Development)?
• Are the retained levels materially different to what was historically experienced (Pre-Existing Baseline v Proposed Development)?
• Are the retained levels in line with other broadly comparable residential typologies as recommended by the Housing SPG?
• Are there other relevant factors relating to the specific building typology and context which make a window and/or room less sensitive?
10.5 For daylight, a total of 438 properties have been assessed. There would be no significant effects to 283 properties against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 155 properties which experience a significant daylight effect as outlined in the ES Chapter, there are:
• 97 properties that would meet the alternative daylight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 36 properties that would substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative daylight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 22 properties that would not meet the alternative daylight target criteria. However, this is generally a result of the existing architecture (self-obstruction or restrictive neighbouring buildings). These properties are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context.
10.6 In overall terms, (at all properties assessed), when comparing the average daylight (VSC) per floor at all of the assessed neighbouring properties for the Consented and Proposed Development, the average values are similar.
10.7 In terms of the daylight (VSC) research undertaken at streetscapes in LBHF and RBKC, the results demonstrate that on average the proposed VSC at properties surrounding the Proposed Development are “broadly comparable” (Housing SPG) with those in other similar locations and residential typologies within both boroughs. The levels of daylight can be found in established streets in the boroughs and in other regeneration areas.
10.8 For sunlight, a total of 271 properties have been assessed, 167 surrounding the Site are not relevant. There would be no significant effects to 198 properties against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 73 properties which experience a significant sunlight effect as outlined in the ES Chapter, there are:
• 40 properties that would meet the alternative sunlight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 25 properties that would substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative sunlight target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• Only 8 properties that would not meet the alternative sunlight target criteria. However, this is generally a result of the existing architecture (self-obstruction or restrictive neighbouring buildings). These properties are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context.
10.9 For overshadowing, a total of 400 amenity areas have been assessed. There would be no significant effects to 374 amenity areas against the Existing Baseline (1a). Of the 26 amenity areas which experience a significant effect in the ES Chapter,
there are:
• 17 amenity areas that would meet the alternative overshadowing target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• 4 amenity areas that substantially (for the most part) meet the alternative overshadowing target criteria and are therefore acceptable in consideration of context.
• Only 5 amenity areas that would not meet the alternative target criteria. However, this is generally a result of the existing architecture and orientation of the areas. The June 21st sun exposure images demonstrate a significantly improved position in the summer months, which in practice is when the t areas are most actively used. These 5 amenity areas are discussed in detail in Section 9 and Appendix 01, where it is concluded that the impacts are considered acceptable in context.
10.10 In Opportunity Areas, where there is a need to optimise development (to meet planning requirements and align with policy) impacts on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing are highly likely to occur where transformational change is anticipated.
10.11 Overall, the design of the Proposed Development has been carried out with careful consideration of the impacts on daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing for neighbouring properties. Consequently, high levels of compliance with the BRE guidelines and planning policy on daylight, sunlight and overshadowing matters will be achieved upon completion of the Proposed Development. Furthermore, the retained values are largely similar to levels previously approved by both local authorities and are in line with the expectations of a large scale regeneration site of this nature and therefore, found to be contextually acceptable.
