Don't Let the Sun go Down on Me

The developers of the RCS site have submitted a daylighting report prepared by Anstey Horne. To go by the Executive Summary it would appear that nothing is amiss:

"Considering the proposals as a whole we believe that the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing results for the scheme as designed are good given the city centre location"

But this disguises the true situation.  For example the bedroom of Flat 1, Basterfield House will have the Vertical Sky Component (That's your view of the sky) reduced to less than 50% of existing. Worse, the kitchen of Flat 12 will be reduced to 40% of its current VSC. BRE guidelines state that a reduction beneath 80% is likely to be noticeable, so these effects are likely to be highly significant.

The situation is obscured by the way that Anstey Horne have tabulated the results. The loss of daylight to each window is expressed using a random code number. So it is necessary to go to a set of abstract plans inserted at the back of the document to find out that, for example, F00, R7,W7 is the kitchen of my flat at Basterfield House. There is no need for this obfuscation – it would be perfectly possible to annotate the table so that it shows the address. So far I have yet to meet anyone on the estate (other than architects and even then...) who understands how to interpret the tables and diagrams.

So is it just one or two flats that are affected? I counted the number of windows where the VSC will reduce to less than 80% of existing (and breach BRE guidelines). Of the windows measured a total of 122 windows are losing more than the BRE guidelines.  Some rooms are losing 60-70% of their access to natural light.

My own kitchen at Basterfield House is losing 48% of its natural light. (In case you cared)

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Anstey Horne immediately proceed to try and establish wiggle room. The BRE guidelines should be “flexibly interpreted”. Lets take a look at how Anstey Horne wiggle.

Candle in the Wind - its so BRIGHT in here

1. The existing site is very open and we enjoy an unusual amount of daylight for London. Anstey Horne do not provide any justification for this; for example by measuring the actual light levels. The existing RCS site is two storey and clearly does not block the same amount of light as a 14 storey tower.  However the existing site was designed with due regard to the pattern of urban design established by  Chamberlin, Powell and Bon which sets the residential blocks East-West with open space to the North and South to allow light to penetrate the relatively deep plan. This gives the lie to the next argument that Anstey Horne adduce:

Rocket Man - you look familiar

2. If you were to build an imaginary mirror image of Basterfield House immediately on the other side of the access mews it would be more impactful on daylight levels than the CoLPAI proposals. Whilst perfectly true, this argument is meaningless and is used inappropriately. The access mews is not a public highway and was never designed as such. The proposal has been described by the developers as an “An Extension to the Golden Lane Estate”. There is no imaginary boundary that can be used for this purpose –  and the use of Appendix F of the BRE report is inappropriate in this case. The extension to the Estate needs to be designed with due regard to the existing buildings and following the urban pattern established by the original architects.

Can you Feel the Love Tonight?  No, I said Transgressions and I meant it.

3. These reductions are inevitable given that they currently face a low-rise site, and any meaningful development will result in BRE transgressions . 
This argument ignores the fact that the principal transgressor is the residential tower. There are several alternative schemes that have been brought forward that have development on the scale and density of the existing estate and that do not involve a residential tower. It would be more truthful to say that any over-development will result in BRE transgressions.

If There's a God in Heaven (What's he Waiting For?)

4. The majority of rooms that face the development are kitchens and bedrooms, which are considered to be less important than living rooms for daylight and sunlight.  
This is an “interpretation” of the BRE guidance, which in fact says that “sunlight is viewed as less important in bedrooms and kitchens where people prefer it in the morning rather than the afternoon”  It makes no mention of daylight in this connection and misses the point that the tower, being situated to the East of Basterfield House will rob daylight and sunlight precisely in the mornings, when people prefer it in the kitchen and bedrooms.

A Town Called Jubilee. Did someone mention a balcony?

5. The most sensitive neighbouring windows are effectively self – obstructing due to their own design, namely projecting balconies and bays. In other words, contrary to the assertion in (1) above, the affected windows already receive rather less light than they might expect. Anstey Horne go to the trouble of making all the calculations with a re-design of the Grade II and II* listed Golden Lane Estate Blocks, removing the access balconies.

They needn’t have wasted their time; It turns out that the  new tower still blocks so much light to the kitchens that they still fail to meet BRE guidelines even after Anstey Horne’s  imaginative architectural redesign.

Of course there are no “projecting bays” (They are confused with the South Elevations) and the bedroom windows are in fact flush with the face of the balconies, so there is no effect on those.

Don't Go Breaking my Heart

The fact is that no amount of wiggling can conceal that the proposed CoLPAI tower blocks extraordinary, excessive amounts of light from Basterfield House, Hatfield House, Banner Street and even the Community Centre, where one window apparently loses 79% of its natural light.

This is not a question of fine judgment,  of a balance of good and necessary evil, or of a small change that won’t be noticeable. This is a massive and permanent change to the character and quality of a large number of homes.