Proposed Residential Development - Yarra City Council · provide an opinion in relation to internal...

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

26-56 Queens Parade Fitzroy North

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

VCAT Reference No P2079/2016

INTERNAL DAYLIGHT

FOR

GURNER 26-56 QUEENS PARADE PTY LTD

20 March 2017

File 1091A

26-56 Queens Pde, Fitzroy North VCAT Witness Statement 20 March 2017

File:1091A 2 ©Ark Resources

CONTENTS

1. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 4

3. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 4

4. RELEVANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 4

4.1. Yarra Planning Scheme Clause 22.17 – Environmentally Sustainable Development .......................... 4

4.2. Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS) ........................................................................... 5

5. INTERNAL DAYLIGHT LEVELS ....................................................................................................... 6

5.1. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6

5.2. Key Assumptions............................................................................................................................... 7

6. DAYLIGHT SIMULATION RESULTS ................................................................................................ 9

6.1. Daylight Modelling Scope .................................................................................................................. 9

6.2. Daylight Factor Benchmark Results ................................................................................................... 9

7. RECOMMENDED DESIGN AMENDMENTS ..................................................................................... 9

7.1. Overlooking Screens ......................................................................................................................... 9

7.2. Apartment C1 0103 & Above ............................................................................................................. 9

7.3. Planter Boxes .................................................................................................................................. 12

7.4. Overall Development Outcome ........................................................................................................ 12

8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 13

APPENDIX 1: VCAT PRACTICE NOTE 2 ................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX 2: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS .................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX 3: BEDROOM NUMBERING ..................................................................................................... 21

APPENDIX 4: LEVEL 1 FLOORPLATE DAYLIGHT CONTOUR PLOT – CIRCULATED PLANS ................ 22

APPENDIX 5: DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS FOR PROPOSED LEVEL 1 & 4 REVISIONS .............. 23

APPENDIX 6: REVISED DAYLIGHT MODELLING RESULTS .................................................................... 29



Issue Date Prepared Approved Status

A 20/03/17 JT JT VCAT

© Ark Resources 2017

The information contained in this document that has been produced by Ark Resources Pty Ltd is solely for the use of Ark Resources’ Client for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Ark Resources undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

All material contained in this report is subject to Australian copyright law. Copyright in the document is owned by Ark Resources Pty Ltd. No material from this document may, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, without prior written permission from Ark Resources.

Any enquiries regarding the use of this report should be directed to:

ARK RESOURCES PTY LTD ABN 29 086 461 369 Suite 8, 10 Northumberland Street South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia

P: +61 3 9636 0280 W: www.arkresources.com.au E: [email protected]



1. Scope

This Statement has been prepared in response to instructions from Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd to

provide an opinion in relation to internal daylight levels within habitable rooms in the proposed residential

development at 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North.

2. Sources of Information

In the course of undertaking this analysis, I have reviewed the following documents:

• Clause 22.17 Yarra Planning Scheme - Environmentally Sustainable Development

• Architectural drawing set issued by Koichi Takada Architects on 20 February 2017 and circulated to VCAT and all parties.

• City of Yarra Sustainable Design Assessment in the Process (SDAPP) Fact Sheet, Indoor Environmental Quality.

• 19-21 Judd Street, Richmond, VCAT Decision, G3 Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (Red Dot) [2016] VCAT 373 (9 March 2016)

• 14-16 The Esplanade St Kilda, VCAT Decision, Barana (St Kilda) Investments Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2016] VCAT 1510 (6 September 2016).

• IEQ-4 Daylight Technical Criteria, Green Star Multi Unit Residential Technical Manual, Green Building Council Australia.

• Technical Guidance for Daylight, Sustainable Built Environment, 2010.

• Council delegate report dated 19 December 2016, internal referral comments and City of Yarra letter dated 16 March 2017.

3. Qualifications and Experience

My qualifications and experience are set out in Appendix 1.

4. Relevant Policy Considerations

4.1. Yarra Planning Scheme Clause 22.17 – Environmentally

Sustainable Development

Several years ago, the City of Yarra developed a range of fact sheets as a guide to environmentally

sustainable design issues for Applicants. These are known as the Sustainable Design Assessment in the

Planning Process (SDAPP) Fact Sheets1. The SDAPP facts sheets include ‘best practice’ standards for

individual sustainable design issues and these benchmarks currently form the basis upon which the City of

Yarra assesses ESD performance outcomes for planning applications.

In order to formalise the process, the City of Yarra implemented an Environmentally Sustainable Design

Policy (ESD Policy) into the planning scheme. The local policy is at Clause 22.17 of the Yarra Planning

Scheme and is in in identical format to the local policies approved in late 2015 by the Minister for Banyule,

Moreland, Port Phillip, Whitehorse and Yarra Councils and the Policy approved in late 2016 for the Monash

Planning Scheme.

The ESD Policy nominates the following overarching objective in relation to environmentally sustainable

development:

1 www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=6247*



The overarching objective of this policy is that development should achieve best practice

in environmentally sustainable development, including from the design stage through to

construction and operation.

The Policy also cites objectives in relation to the following sustainable design issues:

• Energy Performance

• Water Resources

• Indoor Environment Quality

• Stormwater Management

• Transport

• Waste Management

• Urban Ecology

Of particular relevance to the scope of my assessment, the Policy specifies the following objectives in relation

to indoor environmental quality:

• To achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of building occupants, including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation, natural daylight and appropriate levels of lighting.

• To achieve thermal comfort levels with minimised need for mechanical heating, ventilation and cooling.

• To reduce indoor air pollutants by use of materials with low toxic chemicals, minimal off-gassing and production of allergens.

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

• To use flexible internal controls for any mechanical systems.

• To minimise noise levels and noise transfer within and between buildings and associated external areas.

The ESD Policy does not mandate performance outcomes or standards in relation to overall performance or

specific ESD issues however it does list a variety of ‘example tools’ for different development types which

may be used for the purposes of assessing developments to demonstrate that the objectives of the Policy are

met.

The ‘example tools’ for developments of 10 or more dwellings are BESS, Green Star, MUSIC and STORM.

4.2. Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS)

The Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard2 (BESS) is a sustainable design assessment framework which

has been developed by the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE). The BESS tool

was released in 2015 with the objective of replacing the STEPS tool and the Sustainable Design Scorecard

which were developed by Moreland and Port Phillip Councils and have been widely used for the past decade.

The BESS tool is nominated as a reference document in the ESD Policy and sets the following performance

standards for daylight within residential developments:

• At least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 1% to 90% of the floor area of each living area, including kitchens;

• At least 80% of dwellings achieve a daylight factor greater than 0.5% to 90% of the floor area in all bedrooms.

These daylight factor benchmarks are consistent with the ‘best practice’ standards set out in the Yarra

SDAPP documentation which underpins the Council’s assessment of sustainable design outcomes.

2 www.bess.net.au



Furthermore, I note that these BESS benchmarks for daylight were adopted by the Tribunal in recent

decisions3 in which internal daylight levels within apartments were a key issue.

It is notable that BESS stipulates that only 80% of apartments are required to comply with the ‘best practice’

daylight factor threshold. I interpret this as an acknowledgement of the daylight constraints which affect the

majority of infill apartment development sites due to factors including the existence of adjacent buildings, site

geometry, views, outlook, orientation, built form planning controls and equitable development considerations.

In my opinion, the 80% ‘best practice’ compliance requirement implies that whilst the majority of apartments

should achieve the ‘best practice’ standard, it is reasonable to have a proportion of apartments which have

‘adequate’ (as opposed to best practice) levels of daylight. The 80% proportion nominated in BESS is

arbitrary and, in my view, should therefore be considered as a guideline rather than a strict pass/fail criterion.

There is no guidance in the Council’s ESD Policy, BESS, or any reference documents to assist in defining an

‘adequate’ level of daylight within the proportion of bedrooms or living rooms which do not meet the ‘best

practice’ benchmark (i.e. in cases where the threshold daylight factor is achieved for less than 90% of the

floor area of the room). In my opinion, the key test of whether daylight levels are adequate should be directly

related to the functions being performed within the space. In other words, if there is sufficient light within a

proportion of the room to enable the usual activities to be undertaken during daylight hours, then the daylight

levels within the room may, in my opinion, be regarded as satisfactory. I acknowledge that, at its core, this

approach requires a subjective assessment but that the daylight modelling results which are an objective

measure can be used as the basis for the analysis. I note that the Tribunal has endorsed this inherently

qualitative approach in several recent decisions including G3 Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC.

On a related topic, the BESS daylight factor threshold of 1% for living/dining/kitchen areas does not

differentiate between the different zones despite their very distinct functions. In my opinion, the emphasis

should be on providing a high level of daylight to the living and dining zones and I accept that seeking to apply

a daylight factor of 1% to 90% of the area of these zones is appropriate. However, due to the precise nature

of tasks undertaken in kitchens, many of these activities will require high levels of illuminance which can only

be provided with task lighting – particularly given that a significant proportion of meal preparation is not

undertaken during daylight hours. For these reasons, I believe that daylight levels within kitchens in the range

of 0.5% - 1% daylight factor are adequate, provided that effective (and energy efficient) task lighting is

installed to provide the high levels of illuminance when required.

Finally, it is my firm view that although daylight is an important determinant of internal amenity, a holistic,

balanced approach should be adopted which also considers other aspects of amenity including room size and

layout, orientation and balcony depth/size. Care needs to be taken to avoid a narrow interpretation and strict

adherence to the BESS daylight standards as this can readily lead to perverse outcomes such as, for

example, narrow/unusable balconies or the inappropriate location of kitchens which could have an adverse

effect on overall amenity. I do not support ‘technical fixes’ of this type and will apply this philosophy to my

interpretation of daylight levels.

5. Internal Daylight Levels

5.1. Methodology

Internal daylight levels have been estimated using the Radiance software which is widely used for lighting

simulation and is acknowledged within the sustainable design industry as an accurate modelling tool.

The assessment of compliance with the daylight benchmarks set out above has been undertaken using the

daylighting component of the IES Virtual Environment building simulation software which has a Radiance

interface.

3 G3 Projects Pty Ltd v Yarra CC (Red Dot) [2016] VCAT 373 (9 March 2016), Barana (St Kilda) Investments

Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2016] VCAT 1510 (6 September 2016).



In the absence of any guidance within the BESS documentation, the daylight modelling has been carried out

in accordance with the detailed technical criteria set out in the Green Star tool which is referenced in the

relevant BESS tool notes.

The daylight simulation is based on a ‘uniform sky’ model with a horizontal external illuminance of 10,000 lux

which approximates the conditions on a dull overcast day in Melbourne. Because the design sky assumed is

of uniform brightness, the results are independent of orientation and do not take into account the effects of

directional sunlight which occurs in partially cloudy or sunny conditions. The results should therefore be

considered to represent a ‘worst case’ scenario which will be exceeded 85% of the time during daylight

hours.4

The daylight factor is the proportion of external illuminance at a given point within a room expressed as a

percentage. In the 10,000 lux design sky model adopted for this analysis, the 1% and 0.5% daylight factor

thresholds are equivalent to 100 lux and 50 lux respectively.

5.2. Key Assumptions

The following assumptions have been made for the visible light transmission of glazing and reflectance values

assumed for the building’s internal finishes and are standard figures obtained from the Green Star Multi Unit

Residential Technical Manual.

Glazing Type Glazing Tint Visible Light Transmittance (VLT)

Label Colour %

Exterior Glazing Clear 75

Table 1: Glazing Visible Light Transmittance

Construction Element Surface Reflectance Description

Generic %

Floors 30 Assumes a light-coloured carpet

Walls 70 Assumes white paint

Ceilings 80 Assumes white paint

Overlooking louvres blades 10 Assumes charcoal aluminium blades

Table 2: Surface Reflectance

For the purposes of this daylight simulation, the adjacent buildings indicated on the Site Plan drawing and

sketch up model issued by Koichi Takada Architecture have been incorporated into the model.

Images of the 3-Dimensional model for the subject and adjoining sites are provided overleaf

4 Green Star Technical Criteria IEQ-4: Daylight, Multi Unit Residential Tool.



Figure 1: 3D image of development on subject and adjoining sites (view from North East)

Figure 2: 3D image of development on subject and adjoining sites (View from South)



6. Daylight Simulation Results

6.1. Daylight Modelling Scope

Daylight modelling has been undertaken for all bedrooms and open plan living/dining/kitchen areas of

apartments on level 1 which is the lowest representative level and the results are summarised in the tables in

Appendix 2. For ease of reference, a marked-up plan with all bedrooms labelled is included in Appendix 3

A daylight contour plot for level 1 which shows the distribution of daylight within apartments is also attached in

Appendix 4.

6.2. Daylight Factor Benchmark Results

The results of the daylight modelling of the VAT circulated plans demonstrate that:

• more than 90% of the floor area of all bedrooms except one on level 1 (the second bedroom of Apartment C1-0103) exceed the 0.5% daylight factor threshold for bedrooms and therefore meet the best practice benchmark;

• 50 of the 59 living/dining/kitchen areas on level 1 exceed the 1% daylight factor for living/kitchens and therefore meet the best practice benchmark;

• Apartment C1-0103 living/dining/kitchen and the north facing bedroom both fail to meet the best practice standard with just under 60% of the floor area of each room exceeding the relevant daylight factor thresholds; and

• the remaining eight living/dining/kitchen areas on level 1 exceed the 1% daylight factor threshold for between 77% and 89% of the floor area which is marginally below the 90% floor area coverage and thus do not achieve the best practice benchmark, and in fact five of the remaining eight exceed the threshold for more than 88% of the floor area.

In an overall sense, and noting the size of the proposed development, these results reveal a high standard of

outcome in terms of daylight best practice.

7. Recommended Design Amendments

7.1. Overlooking Screens

An analysis of the daylight modelling results reveal that the horizontal louvre screens which have been

detailed to the east, north and west facing apartments to prevent overlooking have a significant impact on the

daylight levels within rooms adjacent to these screens, principally due to the charcoal screen colour selected

as this has a very low surface reflectance of approximately 10%.

The daylight levels within all apartments with overlooking screens will be improved substantially by specifying

a lighter coloured louvre with a surface reflectance of at least 50% as this will result in light being reflected

from the louvres, increasing illuminance within adjacent rooms.

7.2. Apartment C1 0103 & Above

The daylight simulation also confirms that the daylight levels within apartment C1-0103 (level 1) are

constrained as this apartment is at the base of the internal finger of apartments protruding into the internal

courtyard. Analysis of alternative apartment layouts has led me to conclude that due to the proximity and

height of the adjacent building elements, the number of apartments in this location should be reduced from

four to three on levels 1, 2 and 3 in order to provide adequate daylight to the apartment located at the south-

eastern corner (i.e. C1-0103 and above). A revised apartment layout for this portion of the floor plate is shown

in Figure 3 below.

At levels 4 and above, the layout can revert to a four apartment plan provided there is no overhang to the

bedroom in the south-east corner of the internal ‘finger’. A proposed amended layout for levels 4 and above is

shown in Figure 4 below.



Figure 3: Circulated plan C1 0203 - 0211 and proposed revision (image on right) illustrating deletion of

Apartment C1-0102 and the rearrangement of neighbouring apartments



Figure 4: Proposed Level 4 Revision



Daylight simulation has been undertaken of these revised layouts and the results together with the relevant

plots are summarised in Appendix 5.

The results confirm that all the bedrooms of these revised apartments meet the best practice standard on

level 1 and level 4, however the living/dining/kitchen areas of apartments C1-0103, C1-0402 & C1-0403 are

marginally below the best practice threshold.

In order to accurately determine the distribution of daylight within each of the Iiving rooms which do not

comply with the best practice standard, I have prepared detailed threshold plots which show the area of the

room which exceeds the 1% daylight factor and also the illuminance levels at multiple points distributed

throughout the respective rooms. Images of these plots are also provided in Appendix 5.

I have reviewed these plots in detail and note that, in all cases, the illuminance levels in the specific living and

dining areas exceed 1% daylight factor and are significantly higher than this for a large proportion of the room.

The daylight levels within kitchen zones are only marginally less than 1% and are generally 0.9% at the rear

of the kitchen which is furthest from the apartment glazing.

These plots confirm that under the ‘worst case’ daylight simulation model, the daylight levels within kitchens in

these apartments are generally in the range of 110 - 90 lux. These light levels will, in reality, be exceeded for

85% of daylight hours due to the variation in sky conditions which occurs throughout the year. In my opinion,

the light levels demonstrated in the plots will enable residents to perform the majority of simple kitchen

activities without artificial light during daylight hours.

Effective task lighting providing a benchtop illuminance of 250– 300 lux will be needed to perform intricate and

precise tasks in all kitchens (i.e. even those which comply with the BESS daylight standard). Therefore in my

opinion, the daylight levels achieved within all the kitchens is adequate, having regard to the tasks and

activities usually undertaken.

7.3. Planter Boxes

The planter boxes located adjacent to windows and at balcony edges will also have an impact on daylight

penetration however this appears to be relatively minor. For the sake of completeness, I have also assessed

the impact of deleting the planter boxes from apartments C2-0108, C3-0101 and C4-0111 which have

living/dining/kitchen areas slightly below the best practice threshold. Modelling of this change confirms that

these apartments will also comply if this change is adopted.

7.4. Overall Development Outcome

I have summarised below the changes set out above and which I recommend will optimise internal daylight

levels:

• Specify light coloured louvre screens to prevent overlooking (minimum surface reflectance 50%)

• Delete apartment C1-0102 and revise layout of apartments C1 -0103 to C1 0411 (3 apartments on each of levels 1-3, refer again to Figure 3);

• Revise layout of apartments C1 -0403 to C1 0411 (4 apartments on level 4 and above, refer again to Figure 4); and

• Delete planter boxes to apartments C2-108, C3-101 and C4-0111 (as indicated in Section 7.3 above).

A summary of the daylight modelling results for Level 1 and Level 4 incorporating all the changes described

above is attached in Appendix 6.

If all the changes above are adopted:

• on Level 1 all habitable rooms will meet the best practice standard with the exception of the living/dining/kitchen of Apartment C1 0103 which is only marginally below the threshold required; and

• On Level 4: all habitable rooms will meet the best practice standard with the exception of living/dining/kitchen areas of apartments C1-0402 & C1-0403 which are marginally below the best practice threshold.



I have reviewed the floor plans for the upper levels of the development however I have not undertaken

daylight modelling of apartments on these levels. Based on my experience and the daylight simulation results

for the apartments on level 1 and my assessment of level 4, I do not consider the upper level apartments to

have any significant daylight constraints which prevent them from achieving the best practice benchmark.

Accordingly, I consider that the development will achieve compliance with the BESS daylight standard for

bedrooms and living/dining kitchen areas.

8. Conclusion

In my opinion, the internal daylight levels achieved within habitable rooms in the proposed development are

consistent with a high standard of internal amenity. All bedrooms and the overwhelming majority of

living/dining areas analysed attain the daylight best practice standard adopted by the City of Yarra and I am

satisfied that the daylight levels within all kitchens will be adequate to undertake most activities during daylight

hours.

This is a substantial project of over 300 apartments and it exhibits a high order of compliance with daylight

best practice standards.

I note also that the daylight simulation is based on a uniform sky model, and therefore the detailed plots do

not account for direct sun. They instead represent internal conditions on a dull overcast day, and in my

opinion represent a satisfactory level of illuminance for the areas in question.

Jan Talacko

Director



Appendix 1: VCAT Practice Note 2

Name

Jan Talacko

Director

Ark Resources Pty Ltd

Address

Suite 8

10 Northumberland Street

South Melbourne

VICTORIA 3205

Qualifications

My qualifications and membership of professional associations are as follows:

▪ Master of Environmental Science, Monash University

▪ Green Star Accredited Professional

▪ Member, Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency, NatHERS Technical Advisory Committee

▪ Member, Australian Building Codes Board Energy Efficiency Reference Group

▪ Member, BDAV Energy & Sustainability Hub Advisory Board

▪ Member BESS Technical Reference Group

Experience

I have approximately 22 years’ experience as a sustainable development consultant including:

▪ 5 years with Ecosound Solutions;

▪ 17 years with Ark Resources Pty Ltd.

Areas of Expertise

I have substantial experience and expertise in residential and commercial energy efficiency strategies, residential and commercial water cycle opportunities, operational waste management and environmental assessment of material use in construction. I have also prepared ESD guidelines and assessment tools on behalf of Federal and State Government Departments and Local Government Authorities including the development of the STEPS sustainability assessment tool for Moreland City Council, the VicBEST tool for the State Government and Sustainable Design guidelines for the Yarra City Council. I have undertaken numerous peer reviews of development proposals for Government Statutory Authorities, Local Government & private sector clients.

Expertise to Prepare this Assessment

My experience and expertise over the past 20 years as detailed above includes numerous assessments in relation to ESD outcomes for residential, commercial and industrial developments, including energy, water cycle and materials issues. I am therefore well qualified in terms of being able to provide a detailed expert assessment in relation to the proposed development.

Instructions

In February 2017, I was instructed by Property & Planning Partners to review the proposed scheme for the development at 26-56 Queens Parade, Fitzroy North in relation to internal daylight levels within habitable rooms and provide advice in response to concerns raised by Council.



Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

Refer to Section 2 on page 1 of the report.

Documents Taken into Account

See above.

Identity of Persons Undertaking Work

Roberto Padovani

Radiance daylight modelling was undertaken by Roberto Padovani, ESD Engineer, Ark Resources. Roberto is a Mechanical Engineer having graduated from the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. He also holds a Masters in Environmental Engineering with the University of Melbourne and accreditation with green building bodies such as AIRAH, LEED (Green Associate), NABERS and Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA).

Roberto is a sustainable building specialist with 20 years’ experience as a mechanical design engineer, project manager and environmental consultant in the manufacturing and sustainable building industry. He has international experience in ESD design, sustainable buildings, façade optimisation, building simulation, HVAC design and green building certification. Roberto has extensive experience in building simulation such as energy modelling, daylight modelling, shading analysis, natural ventilation analysis, thermal comfort analysis, CFD modelling, renewable energy simulation and thermal simulation of building façades.

I have reviewed the daylight modelling undertaken by Roberto and am satisfied with the method and the accuracy of the simulation and I therefore adopt the results.

Summary of Opinions

Refer to Section 8 on page 13 of the report.

Declaration

I declare that I have made all the enquiries 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.

Jan Talacko



Appendix 2: Daylight Modelling Results

LEVEL 1 LIVING/DINING/KITCHEN

Apartment Level % Greater than DF of 1

VCAT drawings (10% visible light reflectance louvers)

C1 – 0101 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0102 Level 1 89.2

C1 – 0103 Level 1 57.0

C1 – 0104 Level 1 100

C1 – 0105 Level 1 98.5

C1 – 0106 Level 1 98.5

C1 – 0107 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0108 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0109 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0111 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0101 Level 1 98.7

C2 – 0102 Level 1 99.2

C2 – 0103 Level 1 94.2

C2 – 0104 Level 1 90.0

C2 – 0105 Level 1 96.5

C2 – 0106 Level 1 96.3

C2 – 0107 Level 1 86.9

C2 – 0108 Level 1 88.8

C2 – 0109 Level 1 94.3

C2 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0111 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0112 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0101 Level 1 89.7

C3 – 0102 Level 1 94.6

C3 – 0103 Level 1 96.4

C3 – 0104 Level 1 100

C3 – 0105 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0106 Level 1 99.0

C3 – 0107 Level 1 96.6




VCAT drawings (10% visible light reflectance louvers)

C3 – 0108 Level 1 88.8

C3 – 0109 Level 1 100

C3 – 0110 Level 1 100

C3 – 0111 Level 1 100

C3 – 0112 Level 1 100

C3 – 0113 Level 1 91.8

C4 – 0101 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0102 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0103 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0104 Level 1 94.5

C4 – 0105 Level 1 100

C4 – 0106 Level 1 88.1

C4 – 0107 Level 1 82.4

C4 – 0108 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 Level 1 100

C4 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0111 Level 1 77.0

C5 – 0101 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 Level 1 100

C5 – 0103 Level 1 100

C5 – 0104 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 Level 1 100

C5 – 0106 Level 1 95.3

C5 – 0107 Level 1 100

C5 – 0108 Level 1 96.6

C5 – 0109 Level 1 95.3

C5 – 0110 Level 1 97.0

C5 – 0111 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0112 Level 1 100

Table 1: Level 1 Living/Dining/Kitchen Daylight Factor



LEVEL 1 BEDROOMS5

Apartment Level Percentage floor area with DF > 0.5%

C1 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C1 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0103 B1 Level 1 95.0

C1 – 0103 B2 Level 1 58.2

C1 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0104 B2 Level 1 N/A

C1 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0106 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0107 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0109 B1 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0109 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0110 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0111 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B3 Level 1 100

C2 – 0106 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0106 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0107 B2 Level 1 93.0

C2 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

5 Please refer to the floor plans attached in Appendix 3 for the location of bedrooms.




C2 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0109 B1 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0109 B2 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0110 B1 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0112 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0102 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0102 B2 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0103 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0104 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0106 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0107 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0109 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0111 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0112 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0113 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0101 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0102 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0103 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0104 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0104 B2 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100




C4 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0111 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0107 B1 Level 1 96.5

C5 – 0108 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0109 B1 Level 1 95.0

C5 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0110 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0111 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0111 B2 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

Table 2: Level 1 Bedroom Daylight Factor



Appendix 3: Bedroom Numbering

Level 1 Floor Plan



Appendix 4: Level 1 Floorplate Daylight Contour Plot – Circulated Plans

Level 1 Daylight Contour Plot



Appendix 5: Daylight Modelling Results for Proposed

Level 1 & 4 Revisions

LEVEL 1 REVISED LAYOUT


Latest Set

Living/Dining/Kitchen

C1 – 0101 Level 1 90.4

C1 – 0102 Removed

C1 – 0103 Level 1 75.8

C1 – 0111 Level 1 100

Bedrooms

C1 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0101 B2 Removed

C1 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0103 B2 Level 1 100

LEVEL 4 REVISED LAYOUT


Latest Set

Living/Dining/Kitchen

C1 – 0401 Level 4 97.0

C1 – 0402 Level 4 84.5

C1 – 0403 Level 4 88.0

C1 – 0411 Level 4 100

Bedrooms

C1 – 0401 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0402 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0403 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0403 B2 Level 1 100

C1 – 0411 B1 Level 1 100



CONTOUR PLOT LEVEL 1 REVISION



CONTOUR PLOT LEVEL 4 REVISION



LIVING/DINING/KITCHEN DAYLIGHT SENSOR THRESHOLD PLOTS

Threshold Plot Apartment C1 -0103



Appendix 6: Revised Daylight Modelling Results



VCAT drawings (10% visible light

reflectance louvers)

Incorporating Revisions

Comments

C1 – 0101 Level 1 98.0 90.4 Layout redesign

C1 – 0102 Level 1 89.2 Deleted N/A


C1 – 0104 Level 1 100

C1 – 0105 Level 1 98.5

C1 – 0106 Level 1 98.5

C1 – 0107 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0108 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0109 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0111 Level 1 98.0 100 Layout redesign

C2 – 0101 Level 1 98.7

C2 – 0102 Level 1 99.2

C2 – 0103 Level 1 94.2

C2 – 0104 Level 1 90.0

C2 – 0105 Level 1 96.5

C2 – 0106 Level 1 96.3

C2 – 0107 Level 1 86.9 92.3 Louvre colour change

C2 – 0108 Level 1 88.8 90.8 Planter box deleted

C2 – 0109 Level 1 94.3

C2 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0111 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0112 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0101 Level 1 89.7 91.7 Planter box deleted

C3 – 0102 Level 1 94.6

C3 – 0103 Level 1 96.4

C3 – 0104 Level 1 100

C3 – 0105 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0106 Level 1 99.0







Comments

C3 – 0107 Level 1 96.6

C3 – 0108 Level 1 88.8 100 Louvre colour change

C3 – 0109 Level 1 100

C3 – 0110 Level 1 100

C3 – 0111 Level 1 100

C3 – 0112 Level 1 100

C3 – 0113 Level 1 91.8

C4 – 0101 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0102 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0103 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0104 Level 1 94.5

C4 – 0105 Level 1 100



C4 – 0108 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 Level 1 100

C4 – 0110 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0111 Level 1 77.0 100 Planter box deleted &

louvre colour change

C5 – 0101 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 Level 1 100

C5 – 0103 Level 1 100

C5 – 0104 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 Level 1 100

C5 – 0106 Level 1 95.3

C5 – 0107 Level 1 100

C5 – 0108 Level 1 96.6

C5 – 0109 Level 1 95.3

C5 – 0110 Level 1 97.0

C5 – 0111 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0112 Level 1 100

Table 1: Revised Level 1 Living/Dining/Kitchen Daylight Factor








Comments

C1 – 0401 Level 4 95.3 97.0

C1 – 0402 Level 4 97.0 84.5


C1 – 0411 Level 4 100 100

Table 2: Revised Level 4 Living/Dining/Kitchen Daylight Factor

LEVEL 1 BEDROOMS6





Comments

C1 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C1 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100 Deleted N/A

C1 – 0103 B1 Level 1 95.0

C1 – 0103 B2 Level 1 58.2 100 Layout redesign

C1 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0104 B2 Level 1 N/A

C1 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0106 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0107 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0109 B1 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0109 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0110 B2 Level 1 98.0

C1 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C1 – 0111 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

6 Please refer to the floor plans attached in Appendix 3 for the location of bedrooms.







Comments

C2 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0105 B3 Level 1 100

C2 – 0106 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0106 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0107 B2 Level 1 93.0

C2 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C2 – 0109 B1 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0109 B2 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0110 B1 Level 1 98.0

C2 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

C2 – 0112 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0101 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0102 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0102 B2 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0103 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0104 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0106 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0107 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0109 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100







Comments

C3 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0111 B1 Level 1 98.0

C3 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

C3 – 0112 B2 Level 1 100

C3 – 0113 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0101 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0102 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0103 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0104 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0104 B2 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C4 – 0107 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0108 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0108 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100

C4 – 0110 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0111 B1 Level 1 100

C4 – 0111 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0101 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0102 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0103 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0104 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 B1 Level 1 100

C5 – 0105 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0106 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0107 B1 Level 1 96.5

C5 – 0108 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0109 B1 Level 1 95.0







Comments

C5 – 0109 B2 Level 1 100

C5 – 0110 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0111 B1 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0111 B2 Level 1 98.0

C5 – 0112 B1 Level 1 100

Table 3: Revised Level 1 Bedroom Daylight Factor

LEVEL 4 BEDROOMS





Comments

C1 – 0401 B1 Level 4 - 100 Layout redesign





Table 4: Revised Level 4 Bedroom Daylight Factor

Proposed Residential Development - Yarra City Council · provide an opinion in relation to internal...

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Residential Development - Yarra City Council · provide an opinion in relation to internal...