Sun on ground studies for playgrounds and play space

A play space sunlight study asks a different question from a daylight assessment of windows. Here the test is how much of the ground receives direct sun, for how long, on a defined date, and whether that meets the amenity standard the authority applies. BRE guidance on site layout planning takes 21 March as the assessment date and looks for at least half of an amenity area to receive at least two hours of sunlight. Play space is judged against that, and then against a second set of standards about quantity, location and usability that has nothing to do with sunlight at all.

Schemes fail when they satisfy one and ignore the other.

Why play space attracts a separate test

Communal amenity space in a residential scheme is a general amenity question. Play space is a policy category with its own quantum requirement, its own age band breakdown and its own expectations about overlooking, access and equipment.

The result is that the sun on ground study has to do two jobs. It has to show the sunlit proportion of each amenity area, which is the BRE test. And it has to show that the specific areas counted as play space in the policy calculation are usable, which means sunlit for a meaningful part of the day rather than lit only at the edges at eight in the morning.

A courtyard that passes the BRE test on aggregate can still deliver a play area in permanent shade, because the sunlit half is the half nobody is playing in. Test the play space as a defined polygon, not as part of the wider courtyard. The same problem in a residential courtyard is set out in courtyard blocks and sunlight to shared amenity space.

Policy standards for sunlit play area

Two layers apply. The BRE criterion sets the technical benchmark for amenity space: at least half the area receiving at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March. Local policy then sets the quantum and quality standards for play.

In London, the Greater London Authority's play and informal recreation guidance sets a quantum of 10 square metres of play space per child, with the child yield calculated from the scheme's unit mix using the published population yield method, and it sets distance thresholds by age band, with doorstep playable space for the youngest children expected close to the home. Check the current version, because the guidance and the yield calculator are both revised.

Outside London, standards sit in the local plan or an open space supplementary planning document, and they vary. Read the policy rather than assuming a national figure exists, because there is not one. Where the authority has no play standard, the BRE amenity criterion and the design policies do the work.

The interaction worth naming early is this: the quantum standard tells you how much play space is needed, and the sunlight test tells you where it can go. Solve them together at massing stage.

Assessment dates and times used

Report hourly sun positions across the assessed day, and present the results as a plot showing the area receiving two or more hours of sun, expressed as a percentage of the play space polygon. Half-hourly steps give a smoother boundary and are worth the extra computation on a tight courtyard.

Two modelling points affect the answer. Include the surrounding context buildings as well as the application scheme, because an existing block to the south does more than your own massing. And include trees where they are retained and mature, since a canopy that will shade the play area in summer is part of the condition being assessed.

Wind and shelter alongside sunlight

Sunlight without shelter is not comfort. A roof terrace play space that passes the sunlight test can be unusable because it sits in an accelerated flow between two blocks.

Where a scheme is tall enough to need a Wind Microclimate Assessment, ask the consultant to report the wind comfort category at the play space itself rather than averaged across the site. Play areas need a comfort category suitable for sitting or standing, which is a more demanding category than a through route. Where the result falls short, the fixes are local: a screen, a hedge, a change of level or a relocation of the play area to the sheltered corner.

Tall building schemes also need the two studies read together, because the massing move that improves sunlight often worsens downdraught.

Equipment, surfacing and shade provision

Full sun all day is its own problem. Rubber impact-absorbing surfacing gets very hot in direct summer sun, and a play area with no shade is a play area nobody uses in July.

So report shade alongside sun. Show the areas that are shaded at midday on 21 June, and where none exist, propose shade: tree planting with a stated species and mature canopy size, a pergola, a canopy structure, or the building's own overhang. Councils increasingly ask for this, and offering it is better than being asked.

Equipment and surfacing should be specified to the relevant British Standards for play equipment and impact absorbing surfacing, and the drawings should show the free space and falling space around each item. A sunlight study that shows a sunlit area which the equipment layout then fills with a climbing frame footprint has not helped anyone.

Natural play, meaning mounding, logs, planting and water, reads differently in the sunlight study because it is not a flat polygon. Say how you have treated it.

Presenting results to a play space standard

Structure the Overshadowing Study so the play space appears as its own reported area.

1. A plan defining every amenity and play polygon, numbered, with its area in square metres.
2. The child yield calculation and the resulting play space requirement, cross-referenced to the Play Space Assessment or open space evidence.
3. Sun on ground plots at hourly or half-hourly steps on 21 March for each polygon.
4. A table giving, for each polygon, the area receiving two or more hours of sun and that area as a percentage.
5. A shade plot for 21 June with the proposed shade measures marked.
6. A short conclusion stating compliance or the extent of shortfall, in the policy's own terms.

Where a polygon falls short, say by how much and what has been done about it. Committees respond badly to a report that reaches a favourable conclusion without showing the failing area, and the presentation principles in presenting daylight results a committee can read apply here as well.

Securing the outcome by condition

The sunlight result depends on things that can change after permission: tree species and sizes, canopy structures, level changes and equipment positions. Expect a landscape condition and welcome it.

Ask for the condition to require a detailed landscape and play scheme consistent with the approved sun on ground study, with a management and maintenance plan covering the shade planting. Where the sunlit area depends on a retained tree, the tree protection condition matters to the amenity case as well as to the tree.

One honest caveat for clients. A sun on ground study models geometry, not use. A play area that passes every test can still be unpopular because it faces the bin store or is overlooked by nobody. The sunlight study is a necessary condition for a good play space and never a sufficient one.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which amenity and open space documents a residential scheme is likely to need, then have the modelling carried out by a suitably qualified consultant.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.