View Loss and Visual Impact Assessment in NSW

Visual Impact Assessment

When a proposed development changes an existing view from a neighbouring property, the planning question is not simply whether some of that view will be lost. In NSW, private-domain view loss may need to be considered through the principles of view sharing, including the framework established by the NSW Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council.

In Brief

View loss occurs when a proposed development blocks or reduces an existing view or part of its composition. In NSW, private-domain view loss can be considered through the concept of view sharing and the planning principle established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140. The assessment considers the view affected, where it is experienced from, the extent of the impact and the reasonableness of the proposal causing that impact.

What does view loss mean?

View loss generally refers to the extent to which a proposed development blocks or reduces access to an existing view or part of the composition of that view.

This might involve the loss of a broad outlook, part of a landscape or water view, a landmark, a land-water interface or another element that forms part of the existing visual experience from a property.

The existence of some obstruction does not, by itself, determine the planning outcome. The nature of the affected view, where it is experienced, the extent of the change and the proposal responsible for that change may all be relevant.

Where view loss forms part of a wider Visual Impact Assessment, visual evidence can help document the existing view and the change that may result from the proposed development.

Is view loss the same as visual amenity?

No. View loss and visual amenity are related, but they are not interchangeable terms.

View loss focuses on the loss or obstruction of an existing view or elements within that view. Visual amenity is broader and concerns the quality and experience of the visual environment for people who live in, work in, visit, travel through or otherwise use a place.

A development can therefore change visual amenity without removing a particular view. Conversely, the loss of part of an existing view may become a specific planning consideration requiring more focused assessment.

For the broader concept, see What Is Visual Amenity in a Visual Impact Assessment?

What is view sharing?

View sharing recognises that new development and existing properties may have competing interests in relation to available views. The planning task is therefore not necessarily to preserve every existing view unchanged, but to consider whether the resulting sharing of views is reasonable in the circumstances.

This distinction is important. A proposal that removes part of an existing view is not automatically unacceptable simply because view loss occurs. Equally, the fact that development is expected in an area does not mean that the effect on neighbouring views can always be disregarded.

In NSW, the Tenacity planning principle provides an established framework for considering this question in relation to views from the private domain.

View loss is not assessed simply by asking whether part of an existing view disappears. The nature of the view, where it is experienced, the extent of the change and the planning context can all matter.

What is the Tenacity planning principle?

Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 established a planning principle used in NSW when considering view sharing and the impact of development on views from neighbouring private property.

Rather than treating the existence of view loss as the conclusion, the principle provides a structured way to consider the circumstances of the affected view and the development causing the change.

The framework is commonly understood through four sequential considerations: what view is affected, where that view is experienced from, how extensive the impact is and whether the proposal causing the impact is reasonable.

1. What view is affected?

The first consideration is the nature and composition of the existing view.

Not every view contains the same visual elements. A view may include water, landscape, built form, landmarks, skyline elements or combinations of these features. Whether the view is broad or partial can also be relevant.

The Tenacity principle itself identifies distinctions between different view features and compositions. The purpose of documenting the existing view is therefore not simply to establish that a view exists, but to understand what is actually present and what part of that composition may change.

Clear photography and accurate identification of the affected view can be particularly important at this stage.

2. Where is the view experienced from?

The location from which the view is experienced is also relevant.

For private-domain view loss, this can require understanding which parts of a neighbouring property have the affected view. Views from living areas, kitchens, bedrooms, balconies, private open spaces or other parts of a dwelling may not necessarily be considered in the same way.

The orientation of the view can matter as well. The Tenacity framework distinguishes, for example, between views obtained across different property boundaries and can also consider whether a view is experienced from a standing or sitting position.

This is one reason why a meaningful private view-loss assessment may require inspection or evidence from the affected property rather than relying only on observations from the development site or public domain.

3. How extensive is the view loss?

The next consideration is the extent of the impact created by the proposed development.

This should not necessarily be reduced to a percentage of the image that becomes obstructed. The importance of what is lost, the remaining view and the parts of the property from which the change is experienced can all affect how the impact is understood.

For example, losing a relatively small part of a view may have different implications if that part contains a distinctive feature than if the same proportion affects a less significant part of the composition.

Under the Tenacity framework, the extent of view loss is commonly considered qualitatively rather than relying solely on a numerical measure.

4. Is the proposal causing the view loss reasonable?

The fourth consideration moves beyond describing the view loss and considers the proposal responsible for it.

Relevant matters can include the proposal's relationship with applicable planning controls and whether a different or more skilful design could achieve the development's objectives while providing a better view-sharing outcome.

This means two proposals creating a similar physical obstruction do not necessarily present exactly the same planning question. The design and planning circumstances that produce the impact can also be relevant.

The final planning determination rests with the relevant consent authority or decision-maker. A visual assessment can provide evidence and analysis to assist that decision; it does not replace it.

Is there an automatic right to retain an existing view?

The NSW view-sharing framework does not operate on the basis that every existing view must remain completely unchanged whenever development occurs.

The concept of view sharing exists precisely because development can result in competing use of a view. The assessment therefore considers the extent of the impact and whether the resulting outcome is reasonable in the particular planning circumstances.

Substantial view loss can still be an important planning issue. The point is that the presence of view loss does not determine the outcome independently of the wider assessment.

Project-specific planning controls, development standards, local provisions and other relevant planning considerations may also need to be taken into account.

Can photomontages help assess view loss?

Photomontages and other appropriately prepared visual material can help show how a proposed development may alter an existing view.

An existing photograph can document the current composition of the view, while a proposed representation can help illustrate which elements may remain visible, become partially obstructed or no longer form part of the view.

The usefulness of that evidence depends on how reliably the viewpoint, photography, project geometry, image alignment and presentation represent the assessed conditions.

For more on their role, see When Are Photomontages Used in a Visual Impact Assessment?

For the quality of that evidence, see What Makes a Photomontage Reliable for Visual Impact Assessment?

Does any view loss mean a development is unacceptable?

No. The existence of view loss does not automatically establish that a development is unacceptable.

The purpose of the assessment is to understand what is being lost, who experiences that view, where it is experienced from, how extensive the effect may be and the planning circumstances in which the impact occurs.

A minor change to one part of a view and a substantial obstruction of an important view from principal living areas are clearly different circumstances. Likewise, the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact forms part of the NSW view-sharing framework.

The role of visual evidence is to make those circumstances clearer so they can be considered within the relevant planning process.

How does view loss fit within a wider Visual Impact Assessment?

View loss can be one component of a broader visual assessment, but it should not be treated as another name for visual impact generally.

A wider VIA may consider visual receptors, representative viewpoints, existing visual conditions, the proposed visual change, visual amenity and other matters relevant to the project and assessment methodology. A private-domain view-loss assessment asks the more specific question of how existing views from affected properties may change.

The scope should therefore respond to the project itself. Some proposals may require focused private view-loss analysis, while others may involve broader public-domain visual effects or a combination of visual considerations.

Understanding that distinction helps ensure the visual evidence answers the planning question actually relevant to the proposed development.