Warrington Place

In 2019 GV8 (trading as BPG3 at the time) was engaged by Davy to assess the daylight sunlight levels associated with a proposed development at Warrington Court, Dublin 2. The proposed development related principally to the delivery of 4,248 m2 of new office space organised over six storeys.

‍

Located on a prominent site to the south of established residential terraces, one of the key challenges faced on this project was the need to contextualise the significance of the transient overshadowing that would register on neighbouring gardens. Using detailed supplementary analysis, which considered the overshadowing state on every day of the year, GV8 was able to show that reasonable levels of sunlight access would be retained in all cases.  

‍

Key Services Provided Included:

• Vertical Sky Component (VSC) testing to assess loss of skylight access to neighbouring accommodation.

• Annual Probable Sunlight Hours (APSH) testing to assess the loss of sunlight to neighbouring accommodation.

• Sun on Ground (SOG) testing to assess the loss of sunlight to neighbouring recreation spaces.

• Production of supplementary shadow casting imagery.

‍

Having reviewed GV8’s assessment of impact to neighbouring properties the Board’s planning inspector concluded that:

‍

“The methodology, and the selection of assessment points employed in the daylight assessment and sunlight assessment to internal habitable rooms are considered reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of establishing potential for overshadowing and obstruction of daylight at Powerscourt and Warrington Place properties. The supplementary statement submitted with the response to the appeal has been noted with regard to consistency with the guidance in Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice. (P.J. Littlefair) BRE.

‍

The location of rear garden/courtyard space at No 60 Powerscourt has limited access to sunlight and is additionally overshadowed by the rear extension to the property. Where predevelopment access to sunlight falls short of the advisory targets as is indicated in the result for four of the thirteen rear gardens where shading is predominantly caused by other factors, the estimation as to the year round average sunlight is accepted as justification that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect. The proposed development is satisfactory in this regard.”

‍