VCAT Expert Witness Statement - Daylight - 26-56 Queens ......26) The modelling was undertaken using an overcast design sky for Melbourne. 27) Daylight factors are a percentage (%)

VCAT Expert Evidence Statement – Daylight 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy

Mixed Use Multi-Unit Residential Development 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy

Internal Daylight Amenity Statement of Evidence Permit Applicant: Gurner 26-56 Queens Parade Pty Ltd Responsible Authority: Yarra City Council VCAT References: P2079/2016 & P147/2017 Instructed By: Maddocks

17th March 2017

S2932 EES.V0

PREPARED BY:

Lindsay Richardson BE (Environmental) with Honours GSAP

Sustainable Development Consultants 2nd Floor, 555 Riversdale Rd. Camberwell VIC 3124

T: (03) 9882 9967 F: (03) 9882 9969 [email protected]

sdconsultants.com.au

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS

26-56 QUEENS PARADE, NORTH FITZROY | S2932 | EES.V0 PG. 3

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

2. Witness Qualifications and Instructions .............................................................................................................................. 4

3. Standards and Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

4. Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 CAD Based 3-Dimensional Modelling ...................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Daylight Modelling Reflectance and Transmission Values ................................................................................... 7

5. Assessment of Daylight Modelling Results ......................................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Apartments within The Proposal ................................................................................................................................. 7

5.2 Neighbouring Dwellings Affected by The Proposal ............................................................................................ 14

5.3 Interpretation of Daylight Modelling Results ......................................................................................................... 17

6. Document List ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19

8. Declaration ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Expert Evidence Statement Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 21

26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy ................................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A – Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B – SDAPP IEQ Best Practice Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 23

Appendix C – BESS IEQ Tool Notes ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix D – Detailed Daylight Modelling Results ................................................................................................................ 29



1. Introduction

1) This expert statement is provided in relation to the Planning Permit application for a 12 level mixed use

multi-unit residential development at 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy (referred to as The Proposal

from here on in).

2) The permit application for the 4 proposed townhouses on the site known as Rear 26-56 Queens Parade,

North Fitzroy is not dealt with in detail in this statement as there was no daylight amenity concerns with

the proposed design of these 4 townhouses.

3) This statement addresses the daylight penetration into the apartments within The Proposal and whether

the level of daylight predicted to be received by those apartments provides appropriate internal amenity

for this type of development. This analysis has been made under the current surrounding conditions to

provide a realistic assessment of how the apartments are likely to perform once constructed.

4) This statement also addresses the impact that The Proposal will have on the neighbouring dwellings

which exist on the sites to the east (58 Queens Parade and 497 Napier Street).

5) The plans used as the basis for the assessment for The Proposal are the plans referenced as “VCAT

Submission” dated 20th February 2017 by Koichi Takada Architects.

6) In reviewing The Proposal, I have undertaken a detailed daylight modelling assessment for select

apartments which I consider may have a constrained access to daylight due to outlook, depth or design

features. These apartments were modelled on the lowest levels of the development to represent the

worst case scenario. I then modelled similar apartments on levels above to determine if improvement was

achieved with an increase in height, or whether the apartment design was the primary factor leading to

the outcome achieved in the worst case scenario.

2. Witness Qualifications and Instructions

7) I have over eight (8) years of experience in daylight modelling, ESD consulting and related matters that

are relevant to the provision of expert opinion on the subject proposal. My curriculum vitae is attached as

Appendix A.

8) I was requested by Maddocks, on behalf of Yarra City Council, to consider whether the proposed

development provides an acceptable level of daylight for future residents, and whether the proposed

development provides an acceptable level of daylight for existing residents to the immediate east of the

subject land (at 58 Queens Parade and 497 Napier Street, North Fitzroy).

9) I was also requested to consider measures required to result in an acceptable outcome, should The

Proposal not achieve acceptable levels of daylight for future residents, or for existing residents on the

neighbouring sites.

10) Finally, I was instructed to prepare an expert witness statement summarising my opinions on this matter.

11) I have reviewed plans of The Proposal and of the surrounding conditions, and aerial photographs of the

site and area on Nearmap to help form my opinions outlined within this statement. I have visited the

Subject Site, in particular making note of any neighbouring properties which may impact on the daylight

amenity of the new dwellings within The Proposal, or which may have internal daylight amenity negatively

affected by the The Proposal.



3. Standards and Guidelines

12) Yarra City Council has implemented a local planning policy entitled Environmentally Sustainable

Development (Clause 22.17 in the Yarra Planning Scheme), which requires the assessment of a

proposed development against the policy objectives. The two most important policy objectives to be

aware of when assessing internal daylight amenity are:

a) To achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of building occupants,

including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation, and natural daylight; and

b) To reduce reliance on mechanical heating, ventilation, cooling and lighting systems.

13) Further to this policy, I understand that Yarra City Council has been relying on the Sustainable Design

Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) assessment methodology for some time (Guidelines

provided as Appendix B). I note that these guidelines are not referenced in the Yarra Planning Policy

22.17.

14) It is my understanding that the preferred assessment tool for projects in the City of Yarra, to demonstrate

compliance with Planning Policy 22.17 and the SDAPP requirements, is the Built Environment

Sustainability Scorecard (BESS) tool or the current Green Star tool. The BESS tool has some guidance

(tool-notes provided in Appendix C) which outlines how daylight amenity could be assessed and shown

to be compliant to these guidelines if a modelled approach (rather than a strict adherence to the

prescriptive pathway) was to be followed by the design team. BESS is a reference document to Planning

Policy 22.17 and was designed to respond to the SDAPP guidelines being implemented by council

officers on projects in participating municipalities.

15) Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework recognises the Design Guidelines for Higher Density

Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004) as a reference document

that must be considered in new development. The zoning controls (Clause 32.04-13) state that this

document must be considered for all development of five or more storeys (excluding a basement).

16) The project will be required to comply with the building code requirements outlined in Part F4 of the

relevant National Construction Code / Building Code of Australia (NCC/BCA) for daylight and ventilation

access.

4. Assessment Methodology

17) The method of assessment for the adequate provision of daylight for internal amenity (via daylight

modelling) is not specifically outlined within any of the relevant standards outlined above in Section 3. As

such I have relied on the following methodology to complete this assessment and base my expert opinion

for consideration at the Tribunal.

18) I have undertaken the assessment of The Proposal and the existing neighbouring dwellings using 3-

dimensional modelling to predict the daylight factor (which is the percentage of light available inside

compared to that in the sky outside) within the apartment occupied zones (living zones and bedrooms).

19) The daylight modelling has been undertaken making use of the same modelling methodology required to

be used to show compliance with the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star Multi Unit

Residential v1 IEQ-4 Daylight credit. This methodology has been accepted by many councils as



appropriate for the provision of advice regarding how a development is likely to perform with respect to

internal daylight amenity.

20) The overall assessment to determine if The Proposal provides an appropriate level of daylight amenity to

bedrooms and living areas has been based on the proportion of areas within the apartments which meet

the ideal level of daylight for adequate internal amenity.

21) In my opinion, the provision of 1% daylight factor to over 90% of the primary living zones and the

provision of over 0.5% daylight factor to the kitchen and bedrooms represents an ideal level of internal

daylight amenity for these spaces (assuming that a well-designed, energy efficient and task based

lighting layout is provided to the kitchen areas).

22) In my opinion, the inclusion of kitchens as part of the living zone is appropriate, however due to the task

based nature of a kitchen I consider them to be a secondary living zone. As such, the level of daylight

required in a kitchen can be reduced somewhat compared with the remainder of the living zones and still

be considered to provide an apartment with an acceptable level of internal daylight amenity.

4.1 CAD Based 3-Dimensional Modelling

23) The assessment of apartments was made by developing a 3-dimensional model of the proposed

development, to scale, in the CAD based program Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011 with the daylight

levels modelled by the Radiance Plug-in.

24) Surrounding buildings which may have an effect on the light penetration into the development were then

built up in block form in the model based on conditions outlined on the town planning drawings for The

Proposal.

25) The program Autodesk Ecotect Analysis 2011 is a comprehensive modelling program that makes use of

material types and finishes, glazing properties, reflectance off internal and external surfaces as well as

local weather, and latitude and longitude coordinates for the proposed site.

26) The modelling was undertaken using an overcast design sky for Melbourne.

27) Daylight factors are a percentage (%) of the available daylight under a design sky. An overcast design

sky is used for daylight modelling as it assumes the sky lighting output for a worst case scenario (ie no

sun). This avoids skewing results due to direct sunlight penetration at different times of the year or at

different times of the day. It relies more on the amount of direct sky that can be viewed from the

measurement point, and the amount of internal and external reflections which can be received by the

measurement point.

28) The analysis grid points are all within 0.75m of the walls surrounding them, typically closer, and the grid

is set to be 100mm above the finished floor level in the apartments being modelled. Each grid point is

approximately 0.75m apart in each direction (or closer).

29) All building fabric which may overshadow the apartments within The Proposal, such as the surrounding

buildings, the privacy screens between apartment balconies on the same level, privacy screening to

windows, balcony balustrades at the edge of the balconies, and the balconies of the floor above have

been built within the model to provide an accurate understanding of the available light under the

proposed conditions.



30) The neighbouring apartments which have been assessed in the modelling program are modelled to the

same level of detail, based on the endorsed planning drawings for those apartments.

4.2 Daylight Modelling Reflectance and Transmission Values

31) The following reflectance and transmission values have been used to model the apartments. These

values are conservative and are based on worst case scenario (such as walls and windows that are not

cleaned or where matte paint, rather than glossy is applied). These values are similar (and comparatively

conservative) to those outlined as typical standards within the Green Star daylight modelling protocol

and are often used as a basis for daylight modelling of the proposed types of finishes:

Building Fabric Reflectance / Visual Light Transmission

White Ceilings 0.7

Internal Plasterboard Partitions 0.7

External Walls 0.5

Internal Flooring 0.3

External Glazing (Assumed Clear) 0.7 (VLT)*

Balcony Floors 0.4

Underside of Balcony 0.4

Surrounding Building Walls 0.5

*VLT = Visual Light Transmission

5. Assessment of Daylight Modelling Results

5.1 Apartments within The Proposal

32) The following section analyses the daylight modelling results for the apartments within The Proposal

which were considered likely to have a reduced level of internal daylight amenity due to the apartment

design or location within the development. The analysis will outline whether I consider the apartment to

be provided with an appropriate amount of natural light for future occupants, and if not, how the natural

light penetration could be improved.

33) The primary area of concern which I identified during my initial review of the plans was the lower level

apartments which are inwards facing in towers C1 and C3. These towers create a ‘V’ shape where the

apartments on the inside of the towers face towards each other. This area of the development has the

highest concentration of apartments which do not meet the ideal level of daylight.



FIGURE 1: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS OF LEVEL 1 APARTMENTS IN TOWERS C1 AND C3.

34) The results above (Figure 1) demonstrate that all of these apartments are not predicted to be provided

with the desired level of daylight for good internal amenity. These apartments all have kitchens which fall

below the 0.5% daylight factor and living/dining rooms which fall below the 1% daylight factor which I

consider needs to be met for an apartment living zone to be acceptable. The bedrooms located behind

the balconies in the apartments also all fall below the desired 0.5% daylight factor for a bedroom to be

considered acceptable.

35) Similar results are reflected for these apartments on Level 2 and 3 in tower C1, and for Level 2 in tower

C3.

36) Due to the repeated poor performance of these apartments on multiple levels I suggest that a redesign of

this portion of the development be investigated. There are two main design features that are preventing

these apartments from achieving acceptable internal daylight amenity. These are the relatively small

distance between the two apartment towers and the depth of the habitable zones from the façade.

37) In order to improve these apartment designs to an acceptable level, I would suggest that these

apartments be combined, reduced in depth from the façade and provided with wider and shallower living

zones.

38) The daylight modelling results for these apartments demonstrates that an ideal amount of daylight is

provided typically only 2m to 3m in from the building façade. As such I recommend that any redesign of

the apartments ensure that the room depth from the façade is no deeper than 3m on the lowest level. The

benefit of this will be to provide wider apartments with a higher glazing to floor area ratio which allow

more of the light available in the ‘V’ section between the two towers to enter the apartments.

39) In addition, by reducing the depth of the apartments there will be the opportunity to increase the distance

between the two towers slightly, which will help to increase the daylight available in the ‘V’ section, thus

further improving the daylight available to these apartments.



40) In order to ensure that the external distance between the towers is maintained at a greater distance from

Level 1 to the top of the towers, I suggest that the redesign of apartments be undertaken on all levels in

this zone to ensure the optimal outcome is achieved.

FIGURE 2: PLAN SNAPSHOT IDENTIFYING THE LEVEL 1 APARTMENTS IN TOWERS C1 AND C3 CONSIDERED IN FIGURE 1.

41) The next area of The Proposal is the apartments leading to the internal corner between towers C3 and

C5.

42) The results for the Ground Floor apartments in this zone are provided in Figures 3 and 4, with the plan

snapshot identifying the apartments provided in Figure 5 (all on the following pages).

43) The results in these locations demonstrate that the Ground Floor apartments in tower C3 (particularly C3

GF 01) are not provided with the desired daylight levels to the kitchen / dining zone. Given the additional

distance between the apartments in this location, more light is able to penetrate deeper into the

apartments. As such, the apartments located in a similar position on Levels 1 and above meet an

acceptable level of daylight provision.



44) It is possible that increasing the distance between the C1 and C3 towers will improve these ground floor

apartments sufficiently for them to be provided with an ideal level of internal daylight amenity without

further design changes.

FIGURE 3: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS OF GROUND LEVEL APARTMENTS IN TOWER C3.




FIGURE 5: PLAN SNAPSHOT IDENTIFYING THE GROUND LEVEL APARTMENTS IN TOWERS C3 AND C5 CONSIDERED IN FIGURES 3 AND 4.

45) The results provided in Figure 4 demonstrate that all the dining areas in the ground floor apartments in

this location fail to meet the desired 1% daylight factor. It is noted that these areas are located within the

kitchen and that if these were only kitchen areas I would consider this to be an adequate level of daylight

as the zones would be secondary living zones; not primary living zones.

46) On the levels above, the apartments in this portion of The Proposal are provided with an acceptable level

of internal daylight amenity.

47) My next area of concern was the lower levels of the C2 tower which face inwards towards the C4 tower.

These apartments are identified in Figure 6 and the daylight modelling results provided in Figure 7 on the

next page.

48) The results for these apartments demonstrate that the kitchen/dining areas on the lowest levels fall below

the desired 0.5% daylight factor, and some of the living room areas also fall below the desired 1%

daylight factor. This is not considered acceptable in terms of providing good internal daylight amenity to

these apartments.

49) I note that the apartments in this location improve significantly above Level 1 due to the corner of the

building between Tower C2 and C4 opening up at Level 3, providing much better opportunity for the

apartments on Level 2 and above in this location to gain daylight across the whole apartment.

50) As demonstrated in the full results provided in Appendix D, there are 3 apartments in this corner of the

building which are not provided with acceptable internal daylight amenity. To improve the daylight



amenity to these apartments would require further setback from the opposing tower, reduction in depth

of the apartment living zones by approximately 2m, or reducing the height of where the gap between

tower C2 and C4 opens up to be at Level 1 (rather than Level 3).

FIGURE 6: PLAN SNAPSHOT IDENTIFYING THE GROUND LEVEL APARTMENTS IN TOWER C2 CONSIDERED IN FIGURE 7.


51) The final area of concern identified with regard to the provision of good internal daylight amenity to

apartments within The Proposal are the lower level apartments in Tower C4 which face internally towards

Tower C2. These apartments are identified in Figure 8 and results for the worst case scenario provided in

Figure 9 on the next page.



FIGURE 8: PLAN SNAPSHOT IDENTIFYING THE GROUND LEVEL APARTMENTS IN TOWER C4 CONSIDERED IN FIGURE 9.




52) The results provided for these lower level apartments in Tower C4 demonstrate that for a few of the

apartments the dining area is not provided with the desired daylight levels. All other areas in these

apartments are provided with the desired level of daylight.

5.2 Neighbouring Dwellings Affected by The Proposal

53) The neighbouring developments which are most likely to be negatively affected by The Proposal, with

regard to internal daylight amenity, are the 497 Napier Street townhouse development and the 58

Queens Parade apartment development. Both of these developments have habitable rooms which have

windows facing towards the subject site.

497 Napier Street, North Fitzroy

54) On review of the approved design for the 497 Napier Street development, whereby there are multi storey

townhouses along the boundary between the two sites, I have determined that whilst there will be an

impact from The Proposal in terms of how much daylight will be received by the dwellings, the primary

windows to the affected rooms face in the opposite direction and thus the impact of The Proposal on the

497 Napier Street dwellings will be minimal.

58 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy

55) The apartment development at 58 Queens Parade has a number of apartments which take natural light

from a small light court which sits on the boundary between the two sites. This is not an ideal scenario,

as any development on the neighbouring site (such as that proposed for the 26-56 Queens Parade site)

will have a potentially significant impact on the internal daylight amenity afforded to those existing

dwellings.

56) In order to determine the extent of the impact that The Proposal will have on the current daylight provided

to the living zones and bedrooms, which take light from the light court on the boundary between the two

sites, I have modelled the internal layout of these existing dwellings as documented on the endorsed

town planning set of plans provided to me by Maddocks for the 58 Queens Parade site. The modelling

was undertaken under the existing conditions of the 26-56 Queens Parade site to understand the current

conditions, and then also with The Proposal in place so that a comparison could be made.

57) The modelled apartments are identified in a plan snapshot provided in Figure 10 on the next page.

58) The Proposal includes a fairly significant setback from the boundary adjacent to the light court serving

these existing apartments (approximately 11m). This setback is maintained from Level 1 up to Level 8 of

The Proposal.

59) An example daylight modelling result has been included as Figure 11 and 12 (on page 16) for a typical

level (Level 2) to show the impact that the current design of The Proposal will have on the existing

dwellings.

60) The impact on the amount of daylight in those existing apartments is more severe on the lower levels,

however in all existing apartments on Ground Floor to Level 4 there will be a reduction in daylight from a



level which I would consider acceptable (for Levels 1 to 4) to a level which does not meet the ideal

daylight level as outlined in my evidence for the new apartments.

61) I note that under the current conditions I do not consider the Ground Floor apartments (101 & 110) in

the 58 Queens Parade development to be provided with an acceptable amount of daylight to the living

zones.

62) In order to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the existing dwellings in the 58 Queens

Parade apartment development, which rely on this boundary for natural light, The Proposal would be

required to be reduced in height or the light court created via the 11m setback on the subject site would

need to be opened up by removing the apartments on the boundary along Queens Parade (e.g. C3 02

09 and C3 02 10 and those above).

63) If a reduction in height were to be considered, given the daylight modelling results for apartment 501

almost meet the desired daylight levels, I would suggest that to achieve a similar outcome to what is

predicted for Level 4 of the existing dwellings under the future condition, The Proposal would need to

have tower C3 reduced by 3 levels.

FIGURE 10: PLAN SNAPSHOT IDENTIFYING THE GROUND FLOOR APARTMENTS IN THE 58 QUEENS PARADE DEVELOPMENT BEING MODELLED.



FIGURE 11: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS FOR LEVEL 2 APARTMENTS IN THE 58 QUEENS PARADE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS.

FIGURE 12: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS FOR LEVEL 2 APARTMENTS IN THE 58 QUEENS PARADE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE FUTURE SITE CONDITIONS.



5.3 Interpretation of Daylight Modelling Results

64) The daylight modelling results presented within Appendix D are presented as daylight factors which

represent a percentage of the outside natural light level available in the sky by the analysis point (ie on a

typical cloudy day in Melbourne the natural light level provided by the sky is approximately 10,000Lux,

therefore a daylight factor of 1% is equivalent to 100Lux).

65) The analysis grid is made up of many analysis points. These points have a daylight factor calculated in the

model. These points are used to make a colour map of the results for easy interpretation.

66) The colour scale used in the results ranges from Blue and Purple (which is low and not ideal (<0.5%))

through to shades of Red and Orange (which is ideal for bedrooms and appropriate for kitchens (0.5%

to 0.9%)) and finally Yellow (which is ideal for all spaces including primary living spaces (over 1%)).

67) It is my opinion that, in a higher density residential development, if approximately 90% of the room area

meets the daylight factor of at least 0.5% in a bedroom or kitchen and 1% in a primary living space, and

that any space which falls under this daylight factor is not significantly under that daylight factor, then the

space being analysed is acceptable.

68) This is because in order to provide a high quality of natural light throughout a space, an even light spread

of an appropriate illumination level is desirable (ie it is preferable not to create glare due to very bright

and very dark areas in the same room).

69) In addition, this outcome will typically allow occupants to undertake most tasks without the need to turn

on lighting during the day, thereby increasing the energy efficiency of the apartment.

70) Further to this, it is my opinion that in areas which involve detailed tasks, such as kitchens and

bathrooms, that task-specific and energy efficient lighting designs should be provided to those areas of

the development. This is because of the fluctuating nature of natural light (eg. when a cloud passes in

front of the sun).

71) Whilst it would be optimal to provide all areas of a development with an abundance of natural light, the

most important areas of the development are, in my view, the primary living zones (the living room and

dining room if there is one) with a kitchen considered secondary to this, given that when utilised for the

designed purpose, a task-specific light would usually be operated anyway to ensure safety.



6. Document List

72) The following table outlines all of the documents used to undertake my assessment and form the

opinions outlined within this Expert Witness Statement.

Document Title Revision Date

Koichi Takada Architects Plans – 26-56 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy

A002 Building Height and Massing A 20/02/2017

A010 Site Plan O 20/02/2017

A012 Existing Plan O 20/02/2017

A100 Ground Floor Level X 20/02/2017

A101 Level 01 X 20/02/2017

A102 Level 02 X 20/02/2017

A103 Level 03 X 20/02/2017

A104 Level 04 X 20/02/2017

A105 Level 05 X 20/02/2017

A106 Level 06 X 20/02/2017

A107 Level 07 X 20/02/2017

A108 Level 08 X 20/02/2017

A109 Level 09 X 20/02/2017

A110 Level 10 X 20/02/2017

A111 Level 11 X 20/02/2017

A112 Roof Plan X 20/02/2017

A200 South Elevation X 20/02/2017

A201 North West Elevation X 20/02/2017

A202 North East Elevation X 20/02/2017

A203 East Elevation X 20/02/2017

A204 West Elevation X 20/02/2017

A205 Existing Elevations – South and North O 20/02/2017

A206 Existing Elevations – North West and East O 20/02/2017

A207 Existing Elevations – West O 20/02/2017

A208 Heritage Façade Alterations O 20/02/2017

A302 Section C-C X 20/02/2017

A304 Section E Q 20/02/2017

A305 Section F Q 20/02/2017

A306 Section G Q 20/02/2017



IWOLFF Plans – 58 Queens Parade, North Fitzroy

Ground Floor Plan J 26.02.16

First Floor Plan I 26.02.16

Second Floor Plan I 26.02.16

Third Floor Plan I 26.02.16

Fourth Floor Plan I 26.02.16

Roof Plan I 26.02.16

South Elevation G 26.02.16

East Elevation G 26.02.16

North Elevation F 26.02.16

West Elevation G 26.02.16

Centrum Architects – 497 Napier Street, North Fitzroy

TP02 Ground Floor Plan October ‘98

TP03 First Floor Plan October ‘98

TP04 Second Floor Plan October ‘98

TP05 Third Floor Plan October ‘98

SDAPP IEQ Best Practice Guidelines

BESS Tool Notes

Green Star Multi-Unit Residential v1 Technical manual 2009

Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development 2004

7. Conclusion

73) In conclusion, the investigation I have undertaken predicts that The Proposal will not provide the desired

level of daylight to meet the policy objectives of 22.17 for 25 apartments. This is a relatively small

proportion of apartments given the size of The Proposal, however I am of the opinion that this is a

significant enough number of apartments to warrant improving the design of these apartments (or the

aspects of the building which impact on those apartments) so that they provide the future occupants an

acceptable level of internal daylight amenity which is more in line with the objectives of the Yarra City

Council local policy 22.17.

74) The investigation has also outlined that in the currently proposed form The Proposal will have a significant

impact on the internal daylight amenity of the 10 apartments which rely on the light court on the boundary

between the 58 Queens Parade development and The Proposal.



8. Declaration

75) I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of

significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Tribunal.

Lindsay Richardson

Director

Sustainable Development Consultants Pty Ltd



EXPERT EVIDENCE STATEMENT APPENDICES 26-56 QUEENS PARADE, NORTH FITZROY



Appendix A – Curriculum Vitae

Lindsay Richardson

ESD Consultant

Key Skills and Experience

Lindsay is an experienced environmental engineer who is a Director of Sustainable Development Consultants. He has been involved in numerous projects and is experienced in assessing and modelling the daylight impacts of developments and the predicted daylight levels within proposed developments. He has over 8 years’ experience with the daylight modelling program Ecotect and its application in projects required to achieve compliance with multiple council regulations as well as Green Star compliance.

Personal Details

Name: Lindsay Richardson

Date of Birth: 12/02/1984

Telephone No: Work (03) 9882 9967

Address: Level 2, 555 Riversdale Road, Camberwell, 3124

Email: [email protected]

Education

Bachelor of Engineering (Environmental) (Honours)

The University of Melbourne, Parkville 2002-2007

Career Profile

September 2007 – August 2011


ESD Consultant

Carry out projects including, for example, green building projects, daylight modelling, energy modelling, water strategies, sustainability management plans, and sustainability guidelines.

August 2011 – Present


Director

Manage the growth and development of an established sustainable development consulting firm. Generate new projects and respond to client needs and requests. Carry out projects including, for example, green building projects, daylight modelling, energy modelling, water strategies, sustainability management plans, and sustainability guidelines.



Appendix B – SDAPP IEQ Best Practice Guidelines









Appendix C – BESS IEQ Tool Notes

IEQ Section

Australians spend on average 90 percent of their time indoors, therefore the quality of the indoor environment is vital to our health and wellbeing. Building design and material choices impact on indoor environment quality and are considered during the early design stages, making IEQ a core category of the BESS tool. Design for IEQ will also deliver other benefits such as reduced energy use for heating, cooling and lighting.

In the IEQ category, BESS includes actions regarding daylight, ventilation, solar access and thermal comfort. Information required and points available are dependent on type and scale of the project. IEQ considerations that are not captured in BESS but are also important include:

Acoustic privacy

External views

Air quality

Toxicity of materials, e.g. Low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints, sealants and adhesives

IEQ 1.1

Daylight Access - Living Areas

Applies to

All residential development

Objective

To provide a high level of amenity and energy efficiency through design for natural light.

Summary

Points are awarded where at least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 1% to 90% of the floor area of each living area, including kitchens. Additional points are awarded where 100% of dwellings comply. This can be demonstrated by using the in-built BESS daylight calculator or by alternative daylight modelling where the alternative methodology is accepted by Council.

Documentation & evidence required

If using the BESS daylight calculator:

References to floor plans and elevations showing window sizes and sky angles

If using an alternative daylight modelling program:

A short report detailing assumptions used and results achieved.

Other Considerations

Daylight modelling using third party software may be more appropriate than the BESS daylight calculator where neighbouring properties are too close to allow for vertical sky angle to be calculated.

Lightly coloured materials will improve reflectivity. Consider using lightly coloured materials surfaces near windows, such as window sills and jambs.

Specify glazing with high Visual Light Transmittance (VLT) and combine this with shading systems such as blinds, overhangs or retractable awnings, rather than using heavily tinted glass.

Light shelves can increase daylight penetration by 'bouncing' light deeper into a room

Further Information



Moreland Apartment Design Code

IEQ 1.2

Daylight Access - Bedrooms

Applies to

All multi-residential development

Objective

To provide a high level of amenity and energy efficiency through design for natural light.

Summary

Points are awarded where at least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 0.5% to 90% of the floor area in all bedrooms. Additional points are awarded where 100% of dwellings comply. This can be demonstrated by using the in-built BESS daylight calculator or by alternative daylight modelling where the alternative methodology is accepted by Council.

Documentation & evidence required

If using the BESS daylight calculator:

References to floor plans and elevations showing window sizes and sky angles

If using an alternative daylight modelling program:

A short report detailing assumptions used and results achieved.

Other Considerations

Daylight modelling using third party software may be more appropriate than the BESS daylight calculator where neighbouring properties are too close to allow for vertical sky angle to be calculated.

Lightly coloured materials will improve reflectivity. Consider using lightly coloured materials surfaces near windows, such as window sills and jambs.

Specify glazing with high Visual Light Transmittance (VLT) and combine this with shading systems such as blinds, overhangs or retractable awnings, rather than using heavily tinted glass.

Light shelves can increase daylight penetration by 'bouncing' light deeper into a room

Further Information

Moreland Apartment Design Code



Appendix D – Detailed Daylight Modelling Results

The following results are the daylight modelling results for all tested apartments with The Proposal.

FIGURE 13: LEVEL 1 TOWER C1 AND C3 (SOUTH)





FIGURE 16: GROUND FLOOR TOWER C2 (SOUTH)



FIGURE 17: LEVEL 1 TOWER C2





FIGURE 20: GROUND FLOOR TOWER C3 (NORTH)



FIGURE 21: LEVEL 1 TOWER C3 (NORTH)





FIGURE 24: GROUND FLOOR TOWER C4








FIGURE 28: GROUND FLOOR TOWER C5










The following results are the daylight modelling results for all tested apartments in the 58 Queens Parade development under the current conditions and the future conditions (for comparison).

FIGURE 32: APARTMENT 101 AND 110 OF 58 QUEENS PARADE – CURRENT CONDITIONS

FIGURE 33: APARTMENT 101 AND 110 OF 58 QUEENS PARADE – FUTURE CONDITIONS

















Documents

VCAT Expert Witness Statement - Daylight - 26-56 Queens ......26) The modelling was undertaken using an overcast design sky for Melbourne. 27) Daylight factors are a percentage (%)