eb7’s letter on daylight, 5 October 2026

The document in full

Open the original PDF

Page 1

eb7 ltd 2 Floor, Chancery Exchange 10 Furnival Street, EC4A 1AB +44 (0)20 7148 6290 info@eb7.co.uk www.eb7.co.uk nd

Dominic Bush Greater Cambridge Shared Planning 5th October 2026 Dear Mr Bush Re: Daylight and Sunlight: 26/02109/FUL: Christs College Library, St Andrews Street, Cambridge CB2 3BU Demolition of 1970s library and replacement with new library and social and study spaces and including re-provision of bridge to the Bodley Library. Introduction I wrote to you on 16 October 2025 on behalf of the Christ’s Lane Action Group having reviewed the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing information submitted in support of the earlier application 25/02161/FUL in respect of the above site. I understand that application was subject to Judicial Review proceedings and has now been resubmitted, based on the same drawings and supporting reports, under application reference 26/02109/FUL. The daylight and sunlight report currently on the present register in relation to the current application is the Right of Light Consulting report of 8 September 2025 with its covering letter of the same date (register document 9423969, "the Daylight Report"); page references below are to that document. When preparing this updated review I have also had regard to the letter dated 1st August 2026 prepared by Turley ,which includes further comments in respect of the amenity effects of the proposals to Christ’s Lane. In addition I have considered the applicant's letter of 27 August 2026 on the revised National Planning Policy Framework (register document 9506331) which says nothing about daylight or sunlight – as such the policy basis the applicant relies upon in their daylight assessment remains that as set out in paragraph 3.2 of the Daylight Report. As the present application is a resubmission of the earlier scheme my comments of October 2025 continue to apply. I do not repeat those earlier points in full but my letter of 16th October 2025 should be read in its entirety as also applying to this application. A copy is enclosed, since that letter is not on the register of the present application. I write now in respect of two matters in particular:

1.

The effect of the new National Planning Policy Framework, which came into force after this application was resubmitted, and the shift in focus regarding impacts to non-residential properties. Copyright 2026 eb7 Ltd. Registered No: 06434420 VAT No: 918476001 Part of RSK Group Limited, registered in England at Spring Lodge, 172 Chester Road, Helsby, Cheshire, WA6 0AR. Registered No: 04944506

Page 2

2.

The second is that an appropriate shadow study, requested by my clients on multiple occasions, has still not been produced.

National Planning Policy Framework 2026 A revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 17 August 2026 and took effect on the same date. It is a material consideration in relation to this application and clearly is not referenced within the applicant’s supporting reports which were produced in 2025 or the Turley letter of 1st August sent prior to the publication of the updated NPPF. There are two material consequences in relation to daylight and sunlight arising from the revised Framework: -

Firstly the policy justification relied upon in the applicant’s daylight and sunlight report of 8th September 2025 has been withdrawn. Paragraph 3.2 of the Daylight Report cites paragraph 130C of the former Framework encouraging authorities to take a flexible approach to daylight and sunlight where this would otherwise inhibit the efficient use of a site. My earlier letter explained that the passage was expressly confined to applications for housing and was therefore not engaged by this proposal. This passage, and the direction to apply daylight and sunlight guidance flexibly in the interests of efficient land use, has not been carried forward into NPPF 2026. The justification set out in the applicant’s daylight and sunlight report can therefore be given no weight.

-

Second, Policy P3 of the NPPF 2026 (‘Living conditions and pollution’) does not limit the consideration of daylight and sunlight effects to residential receptors. It states development proposals should:

a) Provide healthy living conditions for occupiers and users in terms of having adequate access to light… b) Not give rise to, or contribute to, an unacceptable level of access to daylight and sunlight for neighbouring residents and occupiers… Adverse impacts of this nature should be avoided where possible, or else mitigated to an acceptable degree.”

Where para 130C of the former Framework expressly related to housing delivery and ‘living conditions’ no equivalent qualifications appear in Policy P3. The retailers and coffee shops fronting Christ’s Lane are occupiers of neighbouring premises and the effects upon them therefore fall within the scope of the NPPF. The officer's report to the Planning Committee of 7 October 2026 ("the officer's report") does not make reference to Policy P3. Similarly, and as pointed out in my letter of October 2025, Policy 60 of the Cambridge Local Plan requires applicants to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on neighbouring buildings and open spaces in terms of overshadowing, and that there is adequate sunlight and daylight within and around the proposals. The officer's report records that "there has not been any assessment from the applicant with regards to Policy 60" (paragraph 13.17) and finds that "Policy 60 is not engaged" (paragraph 13.20). The applicant and the officer have however acknowledged the potential for shading and daylight / sunlight effects which should therefore be fully assessed.

Page 3

Additionally two further provisions also apply - Policy 58(e) of the Local Plan permits development only where it does "not unacceptably overlook, overshadow or visually dominate neighbouring properties". Policy 59(c) requires it to be "demonstrated that" "public spaces receive adequate sunlight", and Appendix F of the Local Plan, paragraph F.43, requires shadow studies "at different times of day and throughout the seasons". This test has been requested on multiple occasions but never provided by the applicant. Effects to the Retail Units on Christ’s Lane The Turley letter of 1st August 2026 maintains the applicant’s previous stance and seeks to dismiss the effects to the retail spaces as ‘nonsense’ and ‘not a material planning issue’. The letter attributes that view to the Council's Environmental Health Officer. The Council's Environmental Quality and Growth responses on this application (register documents 9468203 and 9499190) however states no view on daylight. The only documents on the register making these statements are the applicant's letter and its consultant's covering letter. This position is directly at odds with the express terms of Policy P3 of the NPPF and is not supported by the relevant sections of the Cambridge Local Plan which do not limit the consideration of amenity effects only to residential properties. The conclusions in respect of the earlier daylight and sunlight study must therefore be revisited particularly following the removal of paragraph 130C of the NPPF as the policy basis on which the applicant sought to support flexibility in the application of the guidance. The officer's report suggests the BRE guide is not applicable to these spaces as the "users" would only "visit for a short period of time before leaving" (paragraph 22.16). This does not reflect the wording in Section 2.2.2 of the BRE guide which refers to whether "occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight" and may extend to the people who work in the premises. The officer’s report also does not consider the effect of para.P3 of the NPPF in protecting ‘occupier’s and ‘users’ of premises. Despite the lack of detailed analysis the officer's report then finds that "the harm to their occupants is limited" (paragraph 26.16). This conclusion could only be supported if there has been substantive consideration of the technical work . Whilst the weight to be attached to any harm remains a matter for officers and members I would again highlight the extent of the effects. The Daylight Report itself states at paragraph 4.1.3: "Even though a number of the rooms/windows do not pass the numerical tests, this does not amount to non-compliance with the BRE requirements." The failures are therefore not in dispute. Thirty-six windows serving the retail units and coffee shops fall below the BRE targets. Eleven retain a Vertical Sky Component (VSC) of less than 5%, against a target of 27%, and six would receive virtually no sky visibility at less than 0.5% VSC. Twenty-six windows experience reductions exceeding 50% against the 20% guideline, four of them exceeding 90%. The windows serving the main frontage and entrance of the Starbucks unit (windows 7 to 10) experience reductions of 55%, 75%, 87% and 96% respectively. These are not marginal deviations but significant and noticeable changes to the naturally-lit areas of these units. Four of those rooms also fail the No-Sky Line test of daylight penetration set out in the BRE guide. Daylight may be adversely affected where the area of the working plane receiving direct skylight falls below 0.80 times its former value. At Appendix 2, page 31, the rooms behind windows 1 to 5, window 6 and windows 7 to 13 are at 0.55, 0.73 and 0.37, and the hallway behind windows 14 to 16 falls from 56% to 0%.

Page 4

The VSC and No-Sky Line tests are separate; passing one does not answer failing the other. The officer's report deals only with residential property telling members that "every one of the rooms assessed passed the test" and discounts the one residential failure because "the room it serves passes the NSL test" (paragraph 22.6). In reality there are material deviations from the BRE guidance in respect of both VSC and NSL tests to the non-residential properties that should be considered particularly given the application of the updated policy P3 of the NPPF. Overshadowing to Christ’s Lane: Outstanding Information My letter of 16 October 2025 requested an appropriate plan-view shadow study of Christ’s Lane, as had been sought by my clients on earlier occasions. No such study has been submitted. The officer's report states that "officers do not consider that a full assessment is required" (paragraph 22.20) while accepting that the building "would undoubtedly somewhat enclose part of Christ's Lane" (paragraph 22.21). The need for further analysis is dismissed "given the minor impact that the proposal is considered to have" (paragraph 22.20. The size of the impact is precisely what the study would show and why one is required prior to the committee making their decision. The case officer told the Committee of 29 October 2025 that "the proposed library shown here does have an impact, especially within this six o'clock image". An acknowledged impact with no plan, area or duration on the register is not the demonstration Policy 59(c) and paragraph F.43 require. The Council's minutes of the Development Control Forum of 29 July 2026 record the applicant's statement that the building "would not affect the light" (item 39); its own report and images show otherwise. The applicant has instead maintained that it is ‘not standard practice’ to assess shading to streets, while producing material which itself demonstrates that change occurs. The BRE guide specifically states 3.3.3 that the availability of sunlight should normally be checked for sitting out areas such as those between non-domestic buildings and in public squares, and at 3.3.12 that for critical areas, particularly in public open spaces, a more detailed study of sunlighting potential should be carried out by shadow plotting. Christ’s Lane contains the Art Benches installed by the City Council in 2023 and the external seating serving the Starbucks unit, in use until approximately 7pm. These are clearly sitting out areas between non-domestic buildings and fall squarely within the guidance. What has been provided in place of the required study is: -

An undated architect’s study accompanying the Turley note of 18 July 2025. This is an oblique perspective view at selected dates and times. It was not prepared in accordance with the BRE criteria, two of the three dates presented are illegible, and on the one date where the images can be interpreted it shows plainly increased shadow across the lane at 18:00 on the summer solstice. On the present register that study is document 9439767: perspective images at four times on three dates for "EXISTING", "PROPOSED - Baseline Chimney Height" and "PROPOSED - +1400 Chimney Height", with no author, date, plan, scale, shadow outline, area or duration. Neither proposed condition is identified as the drawings as amended in August 2025.

-

A 2+ hour sunlight-on-ground test in the Right of Light Consulting report of 8 September 2025. This is a single-date assessment on 21 March. It does not engage with the concern raised, which is that the additional shading arises in the later afternoon and evening and may be more evident at different times of the year. The conclusion of ‘no effect’ cannot be reconciled with the applicant’s own earlier images nor does it provide the detail required at 3.3.12 of the BRE guide.

What is required is a study plotting shadow paths in plan across the lane and the seating areas, at an adequate range of dates (as a minimum 21 March, 21 June and 21 December), at intervals through the

Page 5

day. This should illustrate both the existing and proposed condition to establish the duration as well as the extent of the additional shading. It should state, for each hour, the area of the lane in sun and the duration of sun at the seating areas, for the existing and the proposed condition. This is routine exercise for a specialist consultant and should have accompanied the original submission. Whilst the applicant asserts that no meaningful effect arises they do this without having provided appropriate evidence to confirm their position and indeed have provided images which confirm some additional shading. This detailed transient shading study should be required, and reviewed, prior to determination. Conclusion The 17th August introduction of the NPPF 2026 removes the policy basis on which the applicant has sought a flexible application of the BRE targets, and confirms that the relevant effects of the scheme on neighbouring occupiers are not confined to residential receptors. The significant daylight losses to the retail and coffee shop units along Christ’s Lane therefore remain a material consideration to be weighed in the determination, as does the effect of the proposals on the amenity of the lane itself. The overshadowing evidence necessary to fully assess the shading impacts has not been produced, notwithstanding repeated requests over the course of the applications. To prepare such a study is a simple request and the applicant’s failure to present this information is telling. Before the application is determined the Council is asked to do three things: 1.

Require a transient shadow study in line with the BRE specified above and have it reviewed before determination.

2.

If the Council applies flexibility to these targets explain how these have been derived under appendix F of the BRE guide and in light of the removal of paragraph 130C of the NPPF relied upon by the applicant to justify flexibility in the application of the targets.

3.

Commission an independent review of the Daylight Report by a consultant with daylight and sunlight expertise, including consideration of the degree of harm to the shop and café windows and effects on users and occupiers as well as a review of the shading effects required as per 1 above.

My clients maintain their strong objection to the scheme and their request that the applicant be required to reconsider the height and mass of the proposals. I trust the above is clear but please do not hesitate to contact me should you need anything further in respect of this matter.

Yours Sincerely

Jonathan Lonergan MRICS Director Encl: eb7 review of 16th October 2025 Schedule of impacts falling outside of BRE Guidance

Page 6

Appendix 1: eb7 review of 16th October 2025

Page 8

I have recently been provided with a further statement prepared by Turley dated 26 th September 2025, seeking to address the concerns in respect of daylight, sunlight and shading (alongside the multiple other planning issues flagged by my clients). Turley’s letter was supplemented by an updated technical report, prepared by Rights of Light Consulting and dated 8 th September. Policy Background and Assessment Methodology Both local and national planning policy advises that new development will only be permitted where it is shown not to cause unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight amenity or overshadowing to neighbouring properties. In respect of the current application Policy 60 of the Cambridge Local Plan addresses the potential amenity effects upon neighbouring properties as follows (emphasis added): “Any proposal for a structure that breaks the existing skyline and/or is significantly taller than the surrounding built form will be considered against the following criteria: d. amenity and microclimate – applicants should demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on neighbouring buildings and open spaces in terms of the diversion of wind, overlooking or overshadowing, and that there is adequate sunlight and daylight within and around the proposals;”. The submitted daylight and sunlight report correctly assesses the effects of the proposal against the nationally applied Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report 209,‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice’ (2022). The BRE document sets out a number of assessment criteria and target values which are explained within sections 3.4 – 3.6 of the applicant’s daylight and sunlight report. The report acknowledges a number of instances where the application fails to meet these targets but concludes the effects to be ‘acceptable’. Having reviewed the report in detail I have set out below a number of areas of concern or consideration in support of the objections raised by the Christ’s Lane Action Group. Impact to Public Realm and Lack of Appropriate Shading Study The submitted daylight and sunlight report, dated 16 thJuly, report sets out the assessment criteria for assessing shading to public amenity and open spaces at paragraph 3.6. Despite this the shading to Christ’s Lane is not considered in detail with that document. Shading to Christ’s Lane was subsequently acknowledged in a ‘Supporting Statement’ prepared by Turley and dated 18th July 2025. This statement notes the concerns raised by the local community but is not prepared by the daylight and sunlight expert despite being dated only 2 days after the primary daylight report of 16th July. It is unclear why shading could not have been fully addressed in the expert daylight / sunlight report rather than dealt with summarily in a non-technical note prepared by the applicant’s planning and heritage advisor. Shading to the lane and the need for building heights to respond appropriately to the context has also been recognised as wider consideration as the area has developed. For instance, when the Bradwell's Court planning application was submitted, a strong consideration by planning officers was that 'Building heights along Christ’s Lane will need to be designed to avoid Christ’s Lane becoming canyon-like and oppressive'.

Page 9

The Turley note of 18th July makes a number of subjective statements and conclusions that are not supported by the shading assessment and evidence provided alongside the note. In particular the shading study supplied was not prepared in accordance with the relevant BRE criteria and, despite Turley’s statements to the contrary, it is evident that there will be additional shading potentially affecting amenity to the lane. The Turley statement suggests that a shading study was not necessarily required as the proposal is sited to the north of the Christ’s lane. They further suggest that Christ’s Lane is a narrow and transient space which one passes through. Taking these points in turn Christ’s Lane is aligned on a south west to north easterly axis. The proposals sit to the north west of the Lane and could clearly cause shading to the lane itself as well as the retail and residential units in the late afternoon hours. Indeed this is evidenced by the provision of an assessment undertaken by the architect during the ‘design evolution’ of the scheme such that the applicant and their team clearly had an appreciation that there may be potential shading impacts. On the latter point Christ’s Lane may have historically been used as a more transient passageway but now has also become an area of valued public realm where people are encouraged to dwell. This is confirmed by the presence of seating including the ‘Art Benches’ at various points along the lane. The Art Benches are understood to have been installed in April 2023 by the city council 'to help support local artists and brighten up the city. Community artists are able to display their work on the benches free of charge. The spaces clearly encourage the public to dwell in an area that will potentially experience additional shading as a result of the proposal. There is also seating within the lane for the Starbucks coffee shop. This seating is understood to be in use until approximately 7pm in the evening and again may be affected by additional shading. The statement produced by Turley was accompanied by an undated ‘Shading Study’ understood to have been prepared by the architects. Whilst Turley state the study shows ‘negligible impact on lighting levels within the lane’ it is clear that there are some changes. These changes are most clearly illustrated by the change in shading patterns extracted below showing darker shadows cast across the lane at 6pm on the summer solstice.

Figure 1: Extract of Applicant’s Shading Study Clearly Showing Additional Effects of Scheme The assessments of shading on other dates within the architect’s study appear inaccurate or difficult to judge. The image at 1800 on the equinox is presented in a pink blush and the images presented at 1800

Page 10

on the winter solstice are effectively pitch black. Whilst this may represent a post sunset condition it clearly is not an ‘accurate and objective’ assessment as suggested by Turley. The study presented does not accord with the BRE assessment criteria, shows only a limited angle of view, which appears to have been selected as favourable to the applicant and provides snapshots of selected dates including times where the shading effects are not legible. It is clear that the proposal will have some shading effects which may affect the use of the lane which is not simply a transient passageway. A more comprehensive shading study would be required to fully understand the effects to the space. This should be produced by a specialist consultant and provide transient shadow paths comprising adequate dates, times and angles of view to fully enable an assessment of these potential impacts and to fully consider the concerns regarding the effect to the valuable public realm raised by the local community. The latest additional documents, issued in September 2025, from Turley and Rights of Light consulting further seek to dismiss effects to the lane and state that ‘it is not standard practice’ to assess shading to streets. This is despite the concerns raised by local stakeholders Turley having previously engaged with these legitimate concerns in their letter and study of 18 th July. Notwithstanding the deficiencies detailed above, that earlier study clearly showed change in the shading patterns within Christ’s Lane (see figure 1). Whilst they now seek to present the shading as irrelevant this is at odds with the guidance set out in the relevant BRE document ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (2022)’ which notes: 3.3.3 The availability of sunlight should be checked for all open spaaces where it will be required. This would normally include: -

sitting out areas such as those between non-domestic buildings and in public squares.

My comments above specifically point out the characteristics of the lane as an area of public realm where people are encouraged to dwell. This includes the seating areas for the retail units and the areas of ‘Art Benches’ installed to the lane. These are areas for sitting out between non-domestic buildings and fall within the BRE guidance cited above. The additional technical report prepared by ‘Rights of Light’ consulting includes a test of 2+hour shading to Christ’s Lane and states that this shows ‘no effect’ to the sunlight on Christ’s Lane. The 2+hour test is a point-in-time study of a single date and thus ignores our concerns that the earlier study showed only a limited angle of view and snapshots of selected dates. The limits of the 2+hour study are illustrated in the applicant’s conclusion that there is ‘no effect’ despite the applicant’s own previous work showing the changes illustrated in figure 1 (above). Section 3.3.12 of the BRE guide also recognises the limitations of the 2+ hour March 21 st test and states (emphasis added): 3.3.12 For critical areas, particularly in public open spaces, it is suggested a more detailed study of sunlighting potential may be carried out….by shadow plotting. It is this shadow plotting, rather than the 2+ hour point in time study, that is required to fully assess the effects of the proposal. This should plot shadows across the areas of public realm and sitting out spaces at adequate dates, times and angles of view to fully enable an assessment of these potential impacts. Such

Page 11

an assessment is not possible based on the additional information September 2025 information provided by the applicant with both the written and technical responses not engaging with the detail of the concerns previously raised. Effects to Retail Units In addition to the effect to the public realm the daylight and sunlight report identifies widespread and significant daylight effects to the windows serving the retail premises along Christ’s Lane. The submitted daylight and sunlight report acknowledges these effects but deals with them summarily at paragraph 1.1.15 stating (emphasis added): 1.1.5 The ground and first floor of the neighbouring property are non-domestic, which in our opinion do not have a requirement for daylight or sunlight. Even though a number of the rooms/windows do not pass the numerical tests, this does not amount to non-compliance with the BRE requirements. Whilst it is acknowledged that the BRE guide focuses on the potential effects to residential properties section 2.2.2 of the guide notes ‘the guidelines may also be applied to any existing non-domestic building where the occupants have a reasonable expectation of daylight’. In respect of Christ’s Lane the affected uses comprise retail frontages and two Coffee Shops – including a Starbucks unit directly opposite the proposals that has seating areas close to the windows overlooking the lane benefitting from both outlook and natural light. Given the significance of the loss to these spaces it cannot be automatically assumed that they do not have a requirement for natural daylight. In total 35 windows serving the retail and coffee shops along the lane are identified as suffering losses beyond the BRE targets. A number of these are very severe impacts representing both major reductions from the pre-existing condition and very poor retained amenity levels. 11 windows retain exceptionally poor VSC levels of less than 5%, compared with an absolute target of 27%, and two windows would experience no sky visibility at all with the development in place. 25 windows experience reduction factors exceeding 50% with the proposal in place, compared with the BRE guideline target of 20% reduction. Four windows experiencing over a 90% reduction in VSC daylight levels. The effect to the Starbucks unit is particularly severe with the windows identified as 7-10 in the analysis serving the main frontage and entranceway to this space. These windows experience reductions of reductions of 55%, 75%, 87% and 96% respectively. The primary window 7 experiences a reduction from more than 20% VSC to less than 10% which will be a significant noticeable effect. The remaining windows retain VSC levels of less than 2% which is exceptionally low and will not assist in mitigating the effect of the proposals. The effects noted above represent significant deviation from the BRE targets and may materially affect the use of the spaces despite the non-residential uses. This is particularly the case given the already constrained position and outlook across the lane. The nature of the units, and in particular the coffee shops, means they may have a reasonable expectation and reliance on daylight amenity and these effects should be a consideration when weighing the acceptability of the scheme.

Page 12

The latest statements in September by Turley and Rights of Light consulting acknowledge that the BRE guidance may be applied to non-domestic buildings but state the effects to the retail frontages on Christ’s Lane are ‘not a material planning consideration’. Ultimately the weight to be given to such effects is a matter for planning officers and committee members although I direct them to the very significant impacts noted above. Effects to Residential Amenity and Accuracy of Modelling The daylight and sunlight study submitted by the applicant identifies the flats at Bradwell Court as the sole residential receptor relevant for detailed assessment. The report presents the Vertical Sky Component and No-Sky Line analysis in detail at appendices 1 and 2. A deviation from the BRE guidelines is noted in respect of ‘VSC’ levels to window ‘76’ of the daylight study. This window is correctly identified as serving the main living / kitchen /dining space of Flat 7 Christ’s Lane and I have had a specific dialogue with the owner of this flat whist preparing my review. It is acknowledged that window 76 already has a lower VSC level due to being recessed beneath the roof line of Bradwell Court. The window does however experience a further 33% reduction in VSC when compared with the BRE target 20% reduction factor. Whilst the effect of the overhang above this window is noted to increase the sensitivity of the window the effect to this space cannot be dismissed. Paragraph 2.2.7 of the BRE guide states that VSC changes exceeding 0.80 times the former value will mean that the area lit by the window is likely to appear gloomier, and electric lighting will be needed more of the time. This represents a critical concern for the occupier of flat 7. In addition to the impact upon this main living space the owner of flat 7 has also identified an error in the technical modelling upon which the daylight /sunlight analysis is based. This is illustrated by the image below:

Figure 2: Window map extract showing window 39 In the image window 39 can be seen to extend only to the level of the first floor retail. In reality the window continues to serve the upper floor area as shown below:

Page 13

Figure 3: Photo illustrating window 39 extending to upper floor level The position of window 39 is relevant in the assessment of the neighbouring window 76 which is recessed behind window 39. Further sky visibility may be received to window 76 through this aperture and any additional benefit or reduction cannot has not been quantified if window 39 is not accurately modelled. The inaccuracy in modelling an area where there is acknowledged to be a deviation from the BRE targets is of concern. This is particularly the case as it is understood that ensuring an accurate assessment was raised as a key consideration between officer’s and the applicant team during pre-application discussions. When Turley noted they did not have accurate plans of Bradwell Court the officer recommended that neighbours be approached at the consultation event to confirm the layouts and / or grant access to their flats. I understand that the applicant did not contact neighbours or seek access to any of the flats to validate the findings of their survey. In addition to above it is notable that the drawings at appendix 1 of the daylight & sunlight report, which show the existing and proposed condition alongside the context, contain no spot heights of the site levels or the proposed scheme. These are essential for confirming the accuracy of the report and cross-checking against the levels shown on the submission drawings. Given the issues noted above updated modelling should be provided prior to the determination of the application. This should rectify the issues identified in respect of window 39 and ensure that drawings are provided that confirm the accuracy of the 3d modelling work. In their latest submission, the applicant has acknowledged the previous inaccuracies in their daylight / sunlight modelling and states that the testing has now been appropriately amended. I do not have access to the applicant’s modelling in order to confirm this, but given these discrepancies, the Local Planning Authority may also wish to commission a more detailed technical review to confirm the accuracy of the assessments. Inaccurate Policy Justification In addition to the technical considerations noted above I have reviewed the narrative set out within the daylight and sunlight report. This seeks to justify the effects of the scheme and a flexible application of the BRE targets.

Page 14

Paragraph 3.2 of the daylight / sunlight report cites the National Planning Policy Framework in support of this approach with the extract at 3.2,2 stating: “Local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight’. It is clear from the passage highlighted above that the flexibility encouraged in the NPPF relates to the optimisation of land use for housing delivery. Housing does not form part of the current application and the NPPF is therefore not engaged in this regard. Despite submitting an updated daylight / sunlight report in September, the applicant’s consultant has not addressed the inaccurate policy justification cited in support of their proposals, which is repeated in Paragraph 3.2 of the updated report. Additional Harm versus Previously Consented Scheme When instructing my review Christ’s Lane Action Group have stressed that they do not object to all potential development of the library buildings. It is the particular impacts resulting from the scale of the current design which they strongly disagree with. It is relevant that the application site has previously benefitted from, consents relating to 2011 and 2016 planning applications (LPA refs: 11/0495/FUL and 16/0405/FUL respectively), for an earlier development proposal. This earlier scheme proposed a more uniform roof profile to Christ’s Lane and materially lower parapet than that currently proposed. The community have also commissioned CreateStreets to develop alternate proposals that have also been presented to the LPA. This scheme limits the above-ground bulk and massing similar to the earlier consented schemes and presents a more uniform and sympathetic frontage to Christ’s Lane which would have a lesser impact on the public amenity, local retail and residences. The Christ’s Lane Action Group believe that the earlier consents and CreateStreets proposals are a more considered response to the site and relationship with Christ’s Lane. They respectfully request that the planning authority compel the applicant to reconsider the current proposals and submit a revised application more in line with the principles of height, mass and subsequent amenity effects of these alternative options. Conclusions This practice has undertaken a review of the daylight, sunlight and shading assessments submitted by the applicant in support of the proposals at Christ’s College Library. My review has highlighted the limited consideration given to concerns raised in respect of the public realm within Christ’s Lane, impact on retail / coffee shops within the lane and the amenity to local residents. Additionally I have identified technical and policy inaccuracies within the submitted information. Of particular relevance are the significant daylight effects to the lower floor retail elements and shading impacts to the public realm. These are dealt with summarily and, in the case of shading, are addressed through a study that has not been prepared by an expert, does not accord with the BRE assessment criteria and cannot be clearly interpreted. In respect of the impact to residential amenity my review has identified incorrectly modelled windows, in areas where effects beyond the BRE targets are noted, and a lack of detail within the report upon which to confirm the wider accuracy of the daylight study.

Page 16

Appendix 2: Schedule of impacts falling outside of BRE Guidance

Page 17

Deviations from BRE Guideline 'Vertical Sky Component' Test

Property

Floor

Window

Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court

Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground First First First First First First First First First First

2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49

Room Use Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Hallway Hallway Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail

VSC Before

VSC After

Loss

Ratio

5.2% 16.9% 20.8% 6.4% 9.1% 4.5% 6.1% 4.3% 1.4% 13.7% 14.4% 22.8% 20.8% 7.7% 12.1% 20.1% 21.8% 22.7% 22.4% 21.9% 21.9% 20.6% 29.9% 20.6% 25.6% 28.3% 31.0% 32.9% 29.9% 32.0% 19.9% 29.9%

2.5% 12.2% 9.4% 1.6% 1.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 5.9% 5.3% 3.4% 2.0% 6.2% 7.6% 8.5% 9.9% 11.7% 13.5% 14.1% 19.2% 12.1% 8.8% 13.5% 14.1% 11.6% 13.0% 10.3% 14.0% 12.2%

2.7% 4.7% 11.4% 4.8% 7.9% 4.3% 5.8% 4.0% 1.4% 13.6% 14.1% 16.9% 15.5% 4.3% 10.1% 13.9% 14.2% 14.2% 12.5% 10.2% 8.4% 6.5% 10.7% 8.5% 16.8% 14.8% 16.9% 21.3% 16.9% 21.7% 5.9% 17.7%

0.48 0.72 0.45 0.25 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.25 0.44 0.17 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.44 0.53 0.62 0.68 0.64 0.59 0.34 0.48 0.45 0.35 0.43 0.32 0.70 0.41

BRE test (VSC ≥27% or ratio ≥0.8) Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE

Page 18

Deviations from BRE Guideline 'Vertical Sky Component' Test Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court

First First First First First Second Second Second Second Second

50 51 52 53 54 78 82 83 84 85

Retail Retail Retail Retail Retail Living/Dining/Kitchen Hallway Hallway Hallway & Staircase Hallway & Staircase

30.9% 31.7% 29.1% 30.6% 29.0% 5.1% 15.2% 15.5% 15.2% 15.0%

16.3% 13.9% 16.1% 19.3% 19.1% 3.4% 10.6% 10.7% 9.7% 9.5%

14.6% 17.8% 13.0% 11.3% 9.9% 1.7% 4.6% 4.8% 5.5% 5.5%

0.53 0.44 0.55 0.63 0.66 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.64 0.63

Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE

Page 19

Deviations from BRE 'No-Sky Line' Test

Property Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court Bradwells Court

Floor Ground Ground Ground Ground

Room (windows) Windows 1 to 5 Window 6 Windows 7 to 13 Windows 14 to 16

Room Use Retail Retail Retail Hallway

NSL Before 20% 22% 49% 56%

NSL After 11% 16% 18% 0%

Loss 9% 6% 31% 56%

Ratio 0.55 0.73 0.37 0.00

BRE test (ratio ≥0.8) Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE Below BRE

Open the original PDF