Environmental Impacts Explained
The basics
View impact objectives and controls are almost always found within Development Control Plans.
Development standards within LEPs – the ‘Height’ standard for example - can, however, include objectives about minimising view impact.
Will there be a view impact?
If view loss is an issue, well prepared DAs will include a view impact analysis. This might be found either as part of the package of architectural plans or as a separate ‘view impact’ report. If there is no ‘view impact report’ the statement of environmental effects should also include a section assessing the view impact against the relevant controls.
The two most common techniques for explaining view impact visually are:
CAD (computer aided design) modelling.
Height poles.
CAD modelling
Most architectural plans these days are designed using CAD and this technology is also used for preparing view impact diagrams. Photographs are taken from affected properties and then a 3D computer model of the proposed development is generated and superimposed on the photo to show how much view is retained and lost.
There is some scope for distortion and error – the generated image has to be calibrated against known (surveyed) points on the photographic image and the ‘fit’ does depend on how close the photograph is to ‘what the eye sees.’ Generally speaking, however, this technique provides a more accurate representation than other methods and provides a good way for neighbours to understand not only view impact, but also how the new building will appear from their perspective.
Things to look out for – CAD modelling
The applicant will need access to your property to take the photographs upon which the images will be generated. The approach might come from the applicant or (if the DA is already lodged) Council’s assessment officer might make contact.
You are not obliged to permit access (see Should I speak to the Applicant) however, from the perspective of everyone involved, including yourself, it is desirable that the view impact is determined factually and accurately. This way there is no need for debate/interpretation as to “what the impact is”, rather the debate can appropriately focus on “whether the impact is reasonable”.
Another point to bear in mind is that - particularly if the conversation over view impact is started early - there may be greater potential for the applicant to design or move parts of the building to minimise the impact. If the applicant is not in a position to understand the impact it is much less likely that a meaningful exercise in minimising the impact will occur.
Before the applicant’s team arrives:
Ensure the applicant confirms the names and roles of the people who will attend. These are likely to include the photographer who might also be the view impact specialist or architect and/or town planner.
Request that the applicant provide you with a copy of the view impact images for your property when they are prepared.
Read the view impact objectives and controls in the development control plan and understand what they require and provide for. Many DCPs will identify the location/s from which view impact should be considered.
Be clear in your own mind what parts of your property concern you in terms of view loss so that you can ask for a view diagram to be prepared from that point. Be guided here by what your DCP says, but if there’s another area of your property that is particularly important to you (but not one mentioned as relevant in the DCP) by all means ask that this be included in the view analysis - but be reasonable about how many additional viewpoints you ask for.
If you have a floor plan of your property or even a hand drawn sketch, this will be useful in marking where the photographs should be taken.
On the day:
It’s a very good idea to have at least one other person attending; a family member, friend or perhaps a town planner you have engaged.
Take notes of where the photographs are taken (or mark these on your plans). If the DCP says sitting and standing views are relevant, make sure that the photographer takes shots from both positions.
If it’s a day of poor visibility (ie one that significantly affects the quality of your view) ring the applicant and ask if another day can be arranged. Again, be reasonable; the weather doesn’t have to be perfect, just good enough.
After the DA submission:
Make sure that relevant images prepared for your property have been included in the View Impact Analysis forming part of the DA documentation. If important ones are missing, ask council’s assessment officer to require they be submitted.
Height poles.
Poles are installed to demonstrate the height of the proposed new development at various points. Sometimes string lines or tapes will be used to connect these points to provide a more visually accessible representation of the proposed built form. This is a less common method these days and is really only suitable for lower rise and less complex developments, such as dwelling houses.
Things to consider – height pole method.
Probably the most important thing to check/ask for is the surveyor’s report which will be a copy of the site survey with the position of the poles marked, as well as their height. Ideally a transparency of the roof plan will be superimposed so that the points marked can be better translated to the form of the proposed building.
Due to physical constraints of the site it is not uncommon that a pole will be erected ‘out of place’ for example it might be secured to the side of an existing building because there is nothing else to secure it to. There is nothing untoward about this providing that the correct position is marked on the survey plan which can then be correlated with the architectural plans to work out where the proposed building will actually sit.
For the above reason, as well as the difficulty in fixing poles for what are often quite complex forms, this method often requires quite a significant degree of interpretation and greater scope for error than CAD modelled images.
In order to prepare a view impact analysis, the applicant will still require access to your property and similar considerations apply as for CAD analysis. In addition, however:
Ask the applicant to provide the survey report showing the position of the height poles.
If you cannot understand the form of the proposed building, ask if the applicant’s architect/town planner might attend to assist in explaining it.
If you have difficulty understanding the shape of the proposed building from the poles this it might be worthwhile for you to secure independent professional assistance ie a town planner or architect.
Apartment buildings
If you live in an apartment building it is usual for view diagrams to be prepared for representative units, rather than for every unit in the block.
What if there’s no ‘view impact study?’
You’ve read the statement of environmental effects and this says the proposed development doesn’t give rise to view impact. You think it does. What next?
phone the council assessment officer, explain why you believe there’s a view impact and ask them to visit your property.
ask if a professional view study will be requested – and if this is agreed, request an extension of time for you to consider the study and make your submission.
you can send in a photograph of your ‘view’, notated to show why you believe there is an impact. The site survey is your friend – find levels or work out dimensions that you can use or pro rata to work out an indicative height and position of the proposed building. Don’t forget the effect of perspective – objects further away will appear smaller. Unless the site survey is comprehensive and the proposed building is simple in form this is a task where assistance from a professional – an architect or town planner - might be helpful.
How is view loss assessed?
View impact is one of the most complicated aspects of development assessment. It involves questions of reasonableness and of balancing the interests of a property owner to build or extend against the interests of neighbours who enjoy views that will be affected.
A council assessment officer will have regard to:
the DCP’s view loss controls, including their objectives. Most DCPs rely on the concept of ‘view sharing’ and will require impact to be minimised whilst allowing reasonable new development to occur. Some – in highly urbanised environments where view protection becomes particularly challenging – will not have a specific control at all.
the proposal’s performance in terms of compliance with controls relevant to view impact – most commonly these are ‘Height’ and ‘Setbacks.’
the results of any view impact assessment, or if one has not been provided, their own assessment using benchmarks interpreted from the site survey.
DCP view impact controls often reference what is known as the NSW Land and Environment Court’s ‘Tenacity’ principle, which is quoted below. It provides a formal ‘four step’ structure around what otherwise tends to be a very fluid assessment – it does not, however, ‘replace’ the specific DCP control if one exists.
View impact can arise from increases in height and or setback/siting
The ‘Tenacity’ view sharing principle
(Source: NSW Land and Environment Court’s Planning Principles)
“The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.
The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.
The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.
The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”
Some DCPs will also include view impact controls for view from public places. The NSW Land and Environment Court also has a planning principle which addresses this impact (from para. 39 onwards).
Bear in mind:
Greater weight will be placed on the ‘unreasonableness’ of an impact arising from a non compliance if the control/standard has the ‘minimisation of view impact’ as an objective.
A non compliant proposal will not necessarily be deemed ‘unreasonable’ if that non compliance has no bearing on the impact – for example if the western end of the building is non compliant but your view impact arises from the compliant eastern end.
The concept of reasonableness is not limited to compliance but also whether or not the design minimises impact (or adopts ‘skilful design’ as per Tenacity’s fourth principle). If a proposed house is designed with 3.5 metre floor to ceiling height and significantly impacts views the applicant may well be asked to moderate these ceiling heights or make other design amendments, even if the building height is compliant.
The assessment will take into account the applicant’s reasonable expectation of amenity as well as neighbours’ reasonable expectations toward view retention. A consent authority is unlikely to require the ceiling heights of a proposed residential flat building to be reduced below the minimums set by the ADG, for example, in order to retain views.
The assessment will balance the objective of view minimisation with regard to:
other planning considerations the consent authority is obliged to consider. It may allow some concessions on other controls, for example, if that produces an overall better development but it is unlikely to require redesign to protect views where that amendment gives rise to other kinds of unreasonable impact (for example, in terms of landscape, heritage and so on);
the effect on all neighbouring developments. A setback is unlikely to be increased, for example, if that means the relocated building will overshadow or take views away from another neighbour.
