Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page | 1
Albert Quay Build To Rent SHD
11/07/2019
Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Study
Report For: Coakley O’Neill
Project No:14508
Confidential
Page | 2
Document created by: Integrated Environmental Solutions Limited
International Sustainability Consulting Developers of the IES Virtual Environment
Prepared by: Checked by:
Eirini Mouroutsou
Project Consultant
Douglas Bell
Senior Project Leader
Version: Date: Revision Details: Approved by:
4 16/10/2019 Final Report John Gleeson
Page | 3
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Orientation ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Proposed Model ................................................................................................................................. 8
Potential Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................ 9
BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2nd edition) .................................................. 10
Impact Classification Discussion ...................................................................................................... 10
Conventional Windows .................................................................................................................... 11
Shadow Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 12
Plan View .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Daylight Analysis of Existing Buildings ................................................................................................ 16
Guidance Requirements ................................................................................................................... 16
VSC Values .................................................................................................................................... 17
Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 18
Albert Street Residential Building ............................................................................................... 18
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Sunlight to the Proposed Amenity Spaces .......................................................................................... 22
Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 22
Proposed Amenity Areas ................................................................................................................. 23
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Average Daylight Factors ..................................................................................................................... 28
Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 34
Average Daylight Factors ................................................................................................................. 34
First Floor ...................................................................................................................................... 35
Third Floor .................................................................................................................................... 37
Fifth Floor ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Page | 4
Executive Summary This report was completed to quantify the Daylight performance of the proposed development
at Carey Hire, Albert Quay in Cork. The site itself is a built up urban city centre area of Cork,
situated to the south west of Ireland.
The following can be concluded based on the studies undertaken:
Shadow Analysis
The Shadow analysis shows different shadows being cast at some times of the year for the
proposed scheme. The impact of the proposed development on the surrounding amenity
spaces during the summer months, when the impact caused by overshadowing is generally
most noticeable, can be describe as negligible.
Daylight Analysis of existing buildings
All of the windows of the residential building at Albert Street achieve a vertical sky component
of at least 27% or no less than 0.80 that of the value for the existing situation in line with the
BRE requirements.
Sunlight to the Proposed Amenity Spaces
The proposed scheme shows that on the 21st of March, 93% of the total external amenity
areas would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight exceeding the BRE recommended of 50%.
Overall 59% of the existing amenity spaces would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight, exceeding
the BRE recommendations.
Average Daylight Factors
All of the tested rooms in the proposed scheme are projected to have an Average Daylight
Factors (ADF) above the recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF) in line with the BRE
guidelines.
Page | 5
Discussion
It should be noted that the guidance in 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide
to good practice' is not mandatory and the Report itself states ‘although it gives numerical
guidelines these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of many
factors in site layout design.
Whilst the results shown relate to the criteria as laid out in the BRE guidance targets it is
important to note that the BRE targets have been drafted primarily for use in low density
suburban development and should therefore be used with flexibility and caution when dealing
other types of sites. Despite this, the site performs well in relation to the metrics considered
in this report.
When comparing the proposed development against the existing situation the following can
be concluded:
The impact of the proposed development during the summer months when the
impact caused by overshadowing is generally most noticeable, can be describe as
negligible.
100% of the resultant VSC values for the residential properties tested exceed the BRE
recommendations.
The proposed scheme shows that on the 21st of March, 93% of the total external
amenity areas would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight exceeding the BRE
recommended of 50%.
In terms of Average Daylight Factors (ADF), a number of sample spaces were selected
on the first, third and fifth floors. The results show that all of the spaces are above the
recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF) in line with BRE guidelines.
Overall, the results demonstrate that the proposed development performance is in line with
BRE recommendations in the BRE ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ guide,
sometimes referred to as BRE Digest 209.
Page | 6
Introduction
This report was completed to quantify the Daylight performance of the proposed development
at Carey Hire Albert Quay in Cork.
Development Description The proposed development will consist of a Build-to-Rent Strategic Housing Development of
201no. 1 (93), 2 (104) and 3 (4) bed apartments in a building that ranges in height from 8, 11
to 24 storeys over ground floor. The proposed will consist of resident support facilities
(concierge, management facilities, post and parcel areas, and laundry and waste
management facilities) and resident services and amenities (lounge area, library, workspace,
meeting rooms, coffee dock, games room, cinema room, dining area, gym, 2no. rooftop
terraces and an internal amenity area on Level 24). The proposed development will also
comprise a ground floor cafe; public plaza; rooftop plant; canopies; two basement levels, to
include 402no. cycle spaces, 62no. car parking spaces and plant/services, as well as an
additional storage area; and all associated site development, ancillary development, including
2no. ESB substations, and landscaping and public realm works. The total above ground gross
floor area proposed is 21,220m2 (including existing buildings).
The proposed development involves the demolition of the three-storey former Sextant pub,
and the reuse and renovation of 2no. Protected Structures, the two-storey former Cork,
Blackrock and Passage Railway Offices, Ref. No. PS 1137, and the adjoining single-storey
former Blackrock and Passage Railway Terminus – Ticket Office, Ref. No. PS 1138, which is
also a Recorded Monument, CO074-119002, which are to be retained and initially reused as a
temporary construction compound for the proposed development, and then refurbished as
part of the proposed development for an office and bar/restaurant use respectively. The
proposed development also involves the retention of the Albert Road Post Box, which is also
a Protected Structure Ref. No. PS942. The proposed development site is located in the Albert
Quay, Albert Road, Victoria Road Proposed Architectural Conservation Area.
Analysis Performed The focus of the study considers the following items with respect to the proposed new
development:
Shadow Analysis - A visual representation analysing any potential changes that may arise
from the proposed development on to the neighbouring existing developments.
Daylight Analysis of Existing Buildings - via consideration of Vertical sky component (VSC).
Sunlight to the Proposed Amenity Spaces – via annual sunlight hours comparison.
Average Daylight Factors – via average daylight factor calculations carried for floor plans
across Carey Hire Albert Quay site of the proposed development.
The analysis was completed using the IES VE software. The design team’s objective is to exceed
the recommendations given in BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight guide.
Page | 7
Methodology
Orientation
The model orientation has been taken from drawings provided by the Architect and the
resulting angle shown below is used in the analysis.
Orientation
Page | 9
Potential Sensitive Receptors
To help understand the potential impact to surrounding buildings potential sensitive receptors
were identified as illustrated below.
Albert Street – Residential
Page | 10
BRE – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight (2nd edition)
Access to daylight and sunlight is a vital part of a healthy environment. Sensitive design should
provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new housing while not obstructing light to existing
homes nearby.
The BRE Report, “Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice
(BR209)”, advises on planning developments for good access to daylight and sunlight, and is
widely used by local authorities to help determine the impacts of new developments.
Impact Classification Discussion
BRE guidance in Appendix I – Environmental Impact Assessment suggests impact classifications
as minor, moderate and major adverse. It provides further classifications of these impacts with
respect to criteria as follows;
Where the loss of skylight or sunlight fully meets the guidelines in the BRE guide, the impact is
assessed as negligible or minor adverse. Where the loss of skylight or sunlight does not meet
the BRE guidelines, the impact is assessed as minor, moderate or major adverse.
Negligible adverse impact
Loss of light well within guidelines, or
only a small number of windows losing light (within the guidelines) or
limited area of open space losing light (within the guidelines)
Minor adverse impact (a)
Loss of light only just within guidelines and o a larger number of windows are affected or o larger area of open space is affected (within the guidelines)
Minor adverse impact (b)
only a small number of windows or limited open space areas are affected
the loss of light is only marginally outside the guidelines
an affected room has other sources of skylight or sunlight
the affected building or open space only has a low level requirement for skylight or sunlight
there are particular reasons why an alternative, less stringent, guideline should be applied
Major adverse impact
large number of windows or large open space areas are affected
the loss of light is substantially outside the guidelines
all the windows in a particular property are affected
the affected indoor or outdoor spaces have a particularly strong requirement for skylight or sunlight (living rooms / playground)
Page | 11
Conventional Windows
The BRE Guide talks about Conventional window design based on the discussions around these
it could be determined that this term refers to windows typical with a sill height of 800mm –
1000mm as shown in the images below.
Page | 12
Shadow Analysis
The statistics of Met Eireann, the Irish Meteorological Service, show that the sunniest months
in Ireland are May and June.
The following can also be shown:
During December, Cork receives a mean daily duration of 1.7 hours of sunlight out of a
potential 7.6 hours sunlight each day (i.e. only 22% of potential sunlight hours).
During June, Cork receives a mean daily duration of 5.8 hours of sunlight out of a
potential 16.0 hours sunlight each day (i.e. only 36% of potential sunlight hours).
Therefore, impact caused by overshadowing are generally most noticeable during the summer
months and least noticeable during the winter months.
This section will consider the shadows cast for the Proposed development for the following
dates;
March 21st / September 21st (Equinox)
June 21st (Summer solstice)
These images will show shadows cast for ‘prefect sunny’ conditions with no clouds and
assuming that the sun is out for every hour shown. Given the discussion above it is important
to remember that this is not always going to be the case.
Page | 13
Plan View March 21st
Plan View
Perspective View
8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 14:00 PM 16:00 PM
Page | 14
June 21st
Plan View
Perspective View
8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 14:00 PM 16:00 PM
Page | 15
Discussion
Shading from the proposed development is summarised as follows based on analysis of the
previous images.
On March 21st the shading on the boardwalk is minimal since the proposed
development sits distantly to the south-east.
During the month of June, no shading is visible on the boardwalk as shadows cast by
the proposed development are restricted to the development site and River Lee.
Page | 16
Daylight Analysis of Existing Buildings
Guidance Requirements
BRE Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (Section 2.2)
When designing a new development, it is important to safeguard the daylight to nearby
buildings. The BRE’s 2011 guidance provide numerical values that are purely advisory. Different
criteria may be used based on the requirements for daylighting in an area viewed against other
site layout constraints. Another issue is whether the Permitted building is itself a good
neighbour, standing a reasonable distance from the boundary and taking no more than its fair
share of light. Any reduction in the total amount of skylight can be calculated by finding the
vertical sky component at the centre of key reference points. The vertical sky component
definition from the BRE’s 2011 is described below;
The maximum possible VSC value for an opening in a vertical wall, assuming no obstructions,
is 40%. This VSC at any given point can be tested in the Radiance module of the IES VE software.
For typical Schemes the BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and
Sunlight which states the following in Section 2.2.7
As such this study will compare the Existing Scheme and Proposed Schemes and consider
whether the VSC values are greater than 27% and if not, any reduction will be no greater
than 20%.
Page | 17
VSC Values
The BRE Guide also states the following in Section 2.1.6 that the amount of daylight a room
needs depends on what it is being used for, but roughly speaking if the VSC is:
≥ 27%, conventional window design will usually give reasonable results
between 15 % and 27 % special measures (larger windows, changes to room layout)
are usually needed to provide adequate daylight
between 5 % and 15 % it is difficult to provide adequate daylight unless very large
windows are used
<5 % it is often impossible to achieve reasonable daylight even if the whole window
wall is glazed
As such, these values will be referred to as part of the analysis for the adjacent properties.
Page | 18
Assessment
Albert Street Residential Building
Based on the above the following location has been modelled:
Points Existing Situation VSC Proposed Scheme VSC Proposed VSC % of Existing Situation
Comment
1 38.96 37.53 96%
2 38.85 37.22 96%
3 38.84 37.16 96%
4 38.82 36.97 95%
5 38.46 33.47 87%
Page | 19
Points Existing Situation VSC Proposed Scheme VSC Proposed VSC % of Existing Situation
Comment
6 38.26 34.71 91%
7 38.49 37.16 97%
8 38.56 36.82 95%
9 38.54 36.71 95%
10 38.55 36.47 95%
11 37.36 32.03 86%
12 36.27 32.36 89%
13 38.02 36.04 95%
14 37.99 35.81 94%
15 13.79 12.46 90%
16 18.00 15.39 86%
17 24.07 21.22 88%
18 36.53 33.70 92%
19 32.09 27.33 85%
20 26.74 26.74 100%
21 30.71 26.74 87%
22 29.70 26.89 91%
23 37.72 35.31 94%
24 37.79 35.08 93%
25 12.91 11.72 91%
26 16.28 14.86 91%
27 17.00 14.76 87%
28 18.36 16.13 88%
29 28.54 23.77 83%
30 26.94 23.57 87%
31 26.11 23.10 88%
32 25.21 22.93 91%
33 37.22 35.18 95%
34 37.18 34.35 92%
35 12.64 11.04 87%
36 16.25 14.09 87%
37 16.16 14.35 89%
38 17.73 14.29 81%
39 24.97 20.86 84%
40 22.97 20.08 87%
41 21.92 19.62 90%
42 21.30 19.16 90%
43 36.39 33.90 93%
44 36.48 33.62 92%
45 12.40 10.29 83%
46 14.70 13.35 91%
47 15.42 13.08 85%
48 16.99 13.61 80%
49 22.05 17.74 80%
50 19.68 17.39 88%
51 18.81 16.80 89%
52 17.76 16.32 92%
The points tested on the adjacent residential building have a vertical sky component of at least
27% or not less than 0.80 of the existing situation.
Therefore, these points exceed the BRE recommendations.
Page | 20
Albert Road Residential Building
Based on the above the following location has been modelled:
Points Existing Situation VSC Proposed Scheme VSC Proposed VSC % of Existing Situation
Comment
1 16.73 16.85 100%
2 16.86 16.69 99%
3 17.56 16.77 96%
Page | 21
Points Existing Situation VSC Proposed Scheme VSC Proposed VSC % of Existing Situation
Comment
4 17.34 17.58 100%
5 18.12 17.66 97%
6 14.82 14.55 98%
7 14.56 14.50 100%
8 14.45 14.48 100%
9 14.82 14.67 99%
10 15.37 15.04 98%
11 15.13 15.28 100%
12 16.14 16.04 99%
13 25.01 24.85 99%
The points tested on the adjacent residential building have a vertical sky component of at least
27% or not less than 0.80 of the existing situation.
Therefore these points exceed the BRE recommendations.
Discussion
For the following locations considered:
Albert Street – Residential
All of the spaces achieve a vertical sky component of at least 27% or no less than 0.80 that of
the value for the existing situation, exceeding BRE requirements.
Albert Road – Residential
All of the spaces achieve a vertical sky component of at least 27% or no less than 0.80 that of
the value for the existing situation, exceeding BRE requirements.
As such, there is no impact of the proposed development on the existing residential building.
Page | 22
Sunlight to the Proposed Amenity Spaces
Requirements
The impact of the development proposal on the sunlight availability in the amenity areas will
be considered to determine how they perform when assessed against the BRE’s 2011 guidance
document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight which states the following in Section
3.3.17;
BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states in 3.3.17
that for a space to, appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a garden or
amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March.
Page | 23
Proposed Amenity Areas
As stated above for a space to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of a
garden or amenity area should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on 21st March.
This analysis will be performed on the following development at Albert Quay and the proposed
amenity spaces shown in the images below:
Proposed Scheme Amenity Areas
Existing Amenity Area (Boardwalk)
Page | 24
The following images show the predicted results with respect to this space receiving at least 2
hours of sunlight on 21st March, across the gridded cells.
Proposed Shared Private Amenity Space
Plan View
Perspective View
Page | 25
Public Plaza
Plan View
Perspective View
Page | 26
Existing Amenity Area (Boardwalk)
Plan View
Perspective View
Page | 27
Discussion
Section 3.3.17 of BRE’s Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states that for a space to
appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half of the garden or amenity area
should receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on the 21st of March.
Overall 93% of the proposed amenity spaces would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight,
exceeding the BRE recommendations.
Overall 59% of the existing amenity spaces would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight, exceeding
the BRE recommendations.
Amenity Total Area receiving 2
hours of Sunlight
% of Area receiving 2
hours of Sunlight
External Private Shared
Amenity Space ~625 m2 ~579 m2 93%
Existing Amenity Space
(Boardwalk) 1781 m2 1057 m2 59%
Page | 28
Average Daylight Factors
This section addresses daylight to the proposed apartments.
BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight states the
following in Appendix C with respect to Average Daylight Factors (ADF);
From BRE’s 2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight
From this the recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF) are therefore;
Bedrooms - 1.0%
Living Rooms - 1.5%
This study will consider the predicted average daylight factor to the subject application.
Analysis has been carried by using the Radiance module of IES VE software to quantify the
metrics describe below.
Daylight is constantly changing, so its level at a point in a building is usually defined as an
average daylight factor.
Page | 29
This is the ratio of the indoor illuminance at the point in question to the outdoor
unobstructed horizontal illuminance.
Both illuminances are measured under the same standard sky, a CIE overcast sky. Since the
sun is in a particular position for only a short period each day, direct sunlight is excluded.
Instead diffuse sunlight is used for average daylight calculations. Diffuse sunlight describes
the sunlight that has been scattered by molecules and particles in the atmosphere but has
still made it down to surface of the earth.
For average daylight factor there are three possible paths along which diffuse light can get
into a room through glazed windows.
a) Light from the patch of sky visible at the point considered, is expressed as the sky
component.
b) Light reflected from opposing exterior surfaces and then reaches the point, is
expressed as the externally reflected component.
c) Light entering through the window but reaching the point only after reflection from
internal surfaces, is expressed as the internally reflected component.
Daylight Factor Methodology
E = illuminance on unobstructed plane e = illuminance at point in interior
Daylight Factor = e/E (often expressed as a percentage)
SC – Sky Component
ERC – Externally Reflected Component
IRC – Internally Reflected Component
Page | 30
Assumptions
The following assumptions are used in the study:
Sky Conditions: Standard CIE overcast sky
Time (24hr): 12:00
Date: 21 September
Working Plane: 0.85m
Floor to Ceiling Height for First Floor 3 m
Floor to Ceiling Height for Third Floor 2.7m
Floor to Ceiling Height for Fifth Floor 2.7m
External Wall Thickness 360mm
The following Surface Reflectance's are to be used in the study:
Material Surface Reflectance
External Wall 0.50
Internal Partition 0.50
Roof 0.20
Ground 0.20
Floor/Ceiling (Floor) 0.20
Floor/Ceiling (Ceiling) 0.70
Glazing Transmittance:
Light Transmittance: 70%
Assumed Window Frame thickness: 80 mm
Page | 31
Discussion
The full results for the rooms considered can be seen in the Appendix. It should be noted that
the ‘worst’ case locations have been tested on the lower floors i.e. rooms on the upper floors
will generally have unobstructed views and should meet the BRE recommendations.
These are summarised as follows:
First Floor
Tested 21
Bedroom above BRE recommendations 12
Living Room above BRE recommendations 9
Below BRE recommendations 0 100%
Third Floor
Tested 38
Bedroom above BRE recommendations 23
Living Room above BRE recommendations 15
Below BRE recommendations 0 100%
Fifth Floor
Tested 17
Bedroom above BRE recommendations 11
Living Room above BRE recommendations 6
Below BRE recommendations 0 100%
Total
Tested 76
Bedroom above BRE recommendations 46
Living Room above BRE recommendations 30
Below BRE recommendations 0 100%
Page | 32
Conclusion
The following can be concluded based on the studies undertaken:
Shadow Analysis
The Shadow analysis shows different shadows being cast at some times of the year for the
proposed scheme. The impact of the proposed development on the surrounding amenity
spaces during the summer months, when the impact caused by overshadowing is generally
most noticeable, can be describe as negligible.
Daylight Analysis of Existing Buildings
All of the windows of the residential building at Albert Street achieve a vertical sky component
of at least 27% or no less than 0.80 that of the value for the existing situation in line with the
BRE requirements.
Sunlight to the Proposed Amenity Spaces
The proposed scheme shows that on the 21st of March, 93% of the total external amenity
areas would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight exceeding the BRE recommended of 50%.
Overall 59% of the existing amenity spaces would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight, exceeding
the BRE recommendations.
Average Daylight Factors
All of the tested rooms in the proposed scheme are projected to have an Average Daylight
Factors (ADF) above the recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF) in line with the BRE
guidelines.
Page | 33
Discussion
It should be noted that the guidance in 'Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide
to good practice' is not mandatory and the Report itself states ‘although it gives numerical
guidelines these should be interpreted flexibly because natural lighting is only one of many
factors in site layout design.
Whilst the results shown relate to the criteria as laid out in the BRE guidance targets it is
important to note that the BRE targets have been drafted primarily for use in low density
suburban development and should therefore be used with flexibility and caution when dealing
other types of sites. Despite this, the site performs well in relation to the metrics considered
in this report.
When comparing the proposed development against the existing situation the following is
concluded:
The impact of the proposed development during the summer months when the impact
caused by overshadowing is generally most noticeable, can be describe as negligible.
100% of the resultant VSC values for the residential properties tested exceed the BRE
recommendations.
The proposed scheme shows that on the 21st of March, 93% of the total external
amenity areas would receive at least 2 hours of sunlight exceeding the BRE
recommended of 50%.
In terms of Average Daylight Factors (ADF), a number of sample spaces were selected
on the first, third and fifth floors. The results show that all of the spaces are above the
recommended Average Daylight Factors (ADF) in line with BRE guidelines.
Overall, the results demonstrate that the proposed development performance is in line with
BRE recommendations in the BRE ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ guide,
sometimes referred to as BRE Digest 209.
Page | 34
Appendix A
Average Daylight Factors
The following key:
All these rooms have an average daylight factor of not less than the recommended
minimum values (1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms) as stated under BRE’s
2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. Therefore,
these rooms are all compliant with BRE recommendation.
x All these rooms have an average daylight factor of less than the recommended
minimum values (1.5% for living rooms and 1.0% for bedrooms) as stated under BRE’s
2011 guidance document Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. Therefore,
these rooms are all compliant with BRE recommendation.
Page | 35
First Floor
Page | 36
Room Reference Room Name Average Daylight Factor BRE Recommendation
1 L1: Apt 01_Living 2.08
2 L1: Apt 01_Bedroom 01 1.72
3 L1: Apt 02_Bedroom 01 1.41
4 L1: Apt 02_Living 1.84
5 L1: Apt 03_Living 1.70
6 L1: Apt 03_Bedroom 01 1.15
7 L1: Apt 04_Bedroom 01 1.12
8 L1: Apt 04_Living 1.56
9 L1: Apt 05_Living 2.06
10 L1: Apt 05_Bedroom 01 1.25
11 L1: Apt 06_Bedroom 01 1.38
12 L1: Apt 06_Living 1.97
13 L1: Apt 06_Bedroom 02 5.81
14 L1: Apt 07_Bedroom 02 8.72
15 L1: Apt 07_Living 6.86
16 L1: Apt 07_Bedroom 01 7.66
17 L1: Apt 08_Bedroom 02 6.99
18 L1: Apt 08_Living 6.22
19 L1: Apt 08_Bedroom 01 6.51
20 L1: Apt 09_Bedroom 01 4.51
21 L1: Apt 09_Living 4.20
Page | 37
Third Floor
Page | 38
Room Reference Room Name Average Daylight Factor BRE Recommendation
1 L3: Apt 10_Bedroom 02 2.05
2 L3: Apt 11_Living 2.03
3 L3: Apt 11_Bedroom 1.83
4 L3: Apt 12_Living 1.69
5 L3: Apt 12_Bedroom 1.64
6 L3: Apt 13_Bedroom 1.60
7 L3: Apt 13_Living 1.53
8 L3: Apt 13_Bedroom 1.61
9 L3: Apt 14_Living 1.84
10 L3: Apt 14_Bedroom 1.60
11 L3: Apt 15_Bedroom 01 1.73
12 L3: Apt 15_Living 2.42
13 L3: Apt 15_Bedroom 02 5.30
14 L3: Apt 16_Bedroom 02 8.08
15 L3: Apt 16_Living 6.94
16 L3: Apt 16_Bedroom 01 7.20
17 L3: Apt 17_Bedroom 02 5.72
18 L3: Apt 17_Living 5.87
19 L3: Apt 17_Bedroom 01 6.02
20 L3: Apt 18_Bedroom 4.25
21 L3: Apt 18_Living 4.15
22 L3: Apt 19_Living 3.72
23 L3: Apt 19_Bedroom 4.75
24 L3: Apt 20_Living 5.27
25 L3: Apt 20_Bedroom 5.56
26 L3: Apt 21_Bedroom 02 6.81
27 L3: Apt 21_Living 7.90
28 L3: Apt 21_Bedroom 01 4.75
29 L3: Apt 22_Bedroom 5.08
30 L3: Apt 22_Living 7.26
31 L3: Apt 22_Bedroom 7.14
32 L3: Apt 23_Bedroom 01 6.96
33 L3: Apt 23_Living 7.58
34 L3: Apt 23_Bedroom 02 3.14
35 L3: Apt 24_Bedroom 5.36
36 L3: Apt 24_Living 6.71
37 L3: Apt 10_Bedroom 01 8.30
38 L3: Apt 10_Living 8.64
Page | 39
Fifth Floor
Page | 40
Room Reference Room Name Average Daylight Factor BRE Recommendation 1 L5: Apt 27_Bedroom 02 4.12 2 L5: Apt 30_Bedroom 01 3.92 3 L5: Apt 30_Living 4.70 4 L5: Apt 30_Bedroom 02 5.49 5 L5: Apt 29_Bedroom 01 8.25 6 L5: Apt 29_Living 6.56 7 L5: Apt 29_Bedroom 02 7.51 8 L5: Apt 28_Bedroom 4.55 9 L5: Apt 28_Living 4.42
10 L5: Apt 25_Bedroom 01 7.13 11 L5: Apt 25_Living 8.75 12 L5: Apt 25_Bedroom 02 5.55 13 L5: Apt 26_Bedroom 01 7.00 14 L5: Apt 26_Living 7.74 15 L5: Apt 26_Bedroom 02 3.35 16 L5: Apt 27_Bedroom 01 8.35 17 L5: Apt 27_Living 8.75
Page | 41