It’s a regular Friday afternoon, 4:30 pm or thereabouts, and I’ve just been on the phone with a couple of clients checking in on their completed visualisation packages.
As soon as I’m off the phone, I see a missed call from a planning law firm. The message reads: “A 3D company who took it upon themselves to complete the visual impact evidence photomontages for a multi-storey residential development has pulled out from doing the project because of their problems with the capacity to deliver this work. Please call at your earliest convenience.”
The anxiety starts to build—what is it, and can we help them? I called back and heard a crazy story about how, at the eleventh hour, the 3D company, which had been waiting for a couple of weeks, suddenly pulled the plug and cancelled the project for various reasons, including internal capacity challenges.
Due date, I ask? Two and a half weeks from now.
It’s not the sort of phone call to look forward to on a Friday afternoon – but here we are, and our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to solve our client’s problem. Here is a project that generally should take on a comfortable pace of 5-6 weeks, but the VCAT hearing date is set in stone and can’t be postponed – it’s five weeks from now. The evidence must be circulated amongst all objectors and other stakeholders ten business days before the hearing and not a minute later. So 4 pm COB on the 11th day before the hearing or bust.
The client is desperate, the planning lawyers are desperate, and we are about to pick up a burning grenade. This story’s plot is starting to sound like a plot for a “Mission: Impossible” sequel, right?
Is this situation preventable? Could something be done with more strategic planning ahead? Absolutely.
In this article, we’ll describe how you, as the developer or the planning legal team, can avoid a crisis like this.
To date, we’ve undertaken 718 projects, and around 30-40% of them have been visual impact photomontages used as evidence in a VCAT or similar panel mediation. We completed most of these projects within a well-planned timeframe, but in some cases, we had to expedite the photomontages for various reasons. But in all cases, if we are to take something on, we do our utmost to deliver it by the 4 pm crunch time and communicate with extreme ownership and accountability at every step so everyone knows where things are.
Graphic Visual of Deliverables – Gantt Chart of Elements
The planning lawyers running the case must circulate all evidence, including visual impact photomontages, no later than ten business days before the project hearing start date. The Practice Note PNVCAT2 stipulates this specifically regarding expert evidence. When the report is filed outside the time limit, the Tribunal may refuse to allow it to be relied upon. The consequences are dire if the 3D consultants miss the timing of the ultimate delivery – potentially tens of thousands of dollars down the drain and a critical piece of planning evidence for the appeal not present!
The deadline is the ticking time bomb, and the key constraint is not only on our work but also for all evidence to be circulated.
Ultimately, as the visual impact photomontages are generally the last piece of evidence to be produced, we find that we are scrambling most of the time to complete them and take into account the latest architectural and landscape plans, which are regularly tweaked based on advice from various planning consultants as the hearing date approaches.
Initial Inputs & Photomatching
The starting point of our work is always clearly defining the existing context. Typically, the urban planning witness provides instructions on where the camera points must be positioned based on the context of the photos. The locations themselves are significant – sometimes there are trees or other obstructions, and when the planner gets a chance to inspect the views, they are in the way, so the camera point locations need to be varied – so decision-making around the camera point locations becomes a critical milestone in the production process. The general objective of the camera points is typically to present the proposal in its neighbouring context and allow the tribunal members to assess it relative to what is already present.
But this stage also presents a new logistical challenge—if the urban planning witness cannot be on-site to direct the locations, the photographer may not obtain the correct photos on the first visit and then may need to reshoot, which could create further delays when every day counts. So, some aspects need to go right in the beginning to set up a smooth start for the project.
After many years of experience, we’ve created a lot of checklists and systems to initiate the project set-up with the best chances of success for the camera point instructions for the photographers and consultants that follow along afterwards to offset the chances of mistakes being made early in the process.
Immediately thereafter, the surveyors need to be on-site to obtain the 3D point cloud survey, which locates the tripod locations of the camera points and ties it into an existing feature-level site survey that the architects typically obtain at the outset of the planning process. Within that 3D point cloud, we also get information on hardscape points of the existing context – we collect around 30-40 points to assist with the photo-matching process. We then reconstruct the entire scene in virtual space and complete the photo-matching for the proposed building within the selected backdrop photos.
Visual Amenity Evidence Production
At this point, creating the actual photomontages is similar to a typical render visualisation process—we need to detail the project’s 3D model and produce three versions of the photomontages per the VCAT Practice Note PNVCAT2.
The versions are as follows:
- With proposed vegetation and landscaping – To assess the overall proposal when the building is completed and down the track when the proposed vegetation has taken hold and can soften some of the architecture. We often present vegetation at 75% of full maturity, as plants and trees typically take 5-10 years to reach this level.
- Without proposed vegetation – To assess how much the proposed vegetation will obscure the building, we present an option of the images with the proposed vegetation removed so only the building forms are shown montaged into the selected backdrop photo.
- Outlined transparent montage—The last variation of the images is an image showing the proposed building in transparent form with the edges outlined on top of the existing photo. In the past, this version would help to demonstrate the accuracy of photo matching. However, with our proprietary methodology of using 3D point clouds, this version is a bit redundant – but it gives a visual indication of how the current ground level matches up to where the building sits.
Key Insights to Visual Impact Evidence
So, back to our story on how it went with our “Mission Impossible” project – after a few terse conversations, we realised that if it’s not going to be us, there probably wouldn’t be an outfit to take on the challenge.
That day, we needed the initial set-up elements to complete the improbable so that everything would go right.
Fortunately, the architects had already constructed the original model in 3D Revit format – so that would help, as the conversion between Revit and 3D Studio Max (which we use as the industry standard software) is reasonably straightforward. The conversion’s main steps are to remove many superfluous objects that Revit often adds as part of their library but are completely irrelevant in 3D Studio Max, add weight to the model, and slow down the rendering process.
Our modeller worked tirelessly overnight to process the architects’ 3D model. By the next day, the photographer was on-site with the planning witness, and as soon as we had the photos, the planning lawyers had a chance to review them. In the meantime, the surveyors were out to obtain the 3D point cloud survey. In parallel to all this, so as not to lose any time, the render team started working through the material specifications and the building textures and collecting vegetation elements as per the formal landscape plans.
By the end of the first week, we had completed the photo-matching process, and by then, the model was ready for rendering over the weekend.
The project reached its peak stress by Wednesday of the second week. By then, all 3D photomontages had to be rendered to high resolution, and all relevant consultants confirmed all manner of materiality and vegetation accuracy. Along the way, the barrister on the team reviewed the statement of methodology report, as the objecting parties would scrutinise every word and image circulated.
But like in every “Mission: Impossible” movie, somehow miraculously, things clicked into place, and by Thursday, we were ready to submit the project deliverables for final approval. By late Friday night, all consultants confirmed, and again, after a busy weekend of rendering and packaging the final presentation documents, the planning lawyers were ready to circulate all of the amenity evidence to all stakeholders and objectors.
Get Your Visual Amenity Right—On Time for VCAT
Being highly organised in the visual impact evidence photomontages is not an option; it’s a critical necessity. It’s like being in a Michelin-starred restaurant—everything has to work out just right.
Many plates (3D visualisation/photography/3D survey processes) are all spinning at once, people and objects rapidly moving between stations, and time is loudly ticking until the food (3D photomontages) is ready to be tasted.
So, not only are we looking to optimise every part of the internal process, but we must also not drop any plates in the meantime or allow anything to slip through the cracks—the vegetation height must be just right, the location of the camera points properly thought out, and many more critical elements so that the tribunal members understand the rationale of the proposed photomontages.
We are also typically the last domino in the evidence development process – we need finalised copies of documents from all manner of consultants, and they, in return, need to be able to review our work so everything aligns before circulation. So, the nature of the project design review makes things even trickier, as quite often, there are changes to be implemented based on advice from urban planning witnesses, and the temptation for the clients is to delay engaging the visual impact evidence team until all design changes have been finalised.
Our advice is the opposite—we can complete a lot of prework ahead of time to expedite things. Photography and 3D surveys, which consume a lot of time, can happen independently. Then, it’s much better to have that extra time up your sleeve, just in case the urban witnesses decide to revise or add camera points or if anything else comes up.
But if that time crunch is unavoidable, we’re always up for the job. We just won’t have that extra little time to polish things up to the level we would ideally prefer. Ultimately, as soon as the 4 pm deadline hits, the package of montages will be circulated no matter what.
To your development success,
Stan Zaslavsky.