Understanding AVR Levels

Not every planning viewpoint needs to communicate the same amount of information. Some views only need to establish where a proposal would appear. Others must show its visibility, architectural form or proposed materials.

AVR Levels provide a recognised way of defining what information an Accurate Visual Representation should contain. The classification runs from AVR0, which establishes the proposal’s location and size, to AVR3, which represents its architectural appearance and materials.

This article explains the four levels and how they relate to planning submissions. For guidance on selecting between line-based and rendered views, see Wireline or Rendered Verified Views?.

1 | What Does an AVR Level Describe?

AVR stands for Accurate Visual Representation.

The AVR0–AVR3 classification originates from the London View Management Framework. It describes the visual information provided about a proposed development:

The levels are cumulative: each adds information to the previous one.

They do not represent grades of technical accuracy. Positional accuracy depends on the photography, survey information, camera matching and 3D model used to prepare the view.

2 | AVR0: Location and Size

AVR0 is the simplest level. It identifies the location and overall extent of the proposed development without describing its detailed design.

The proposal may be indicated by a simplified outline, envelope or marker. Intervening buildings, vegetation and other foreground elements do not necessarily conceal the outline because the purpose is to establish the proposal’s complete position and size.

AVR0 can be useful for:

• identifying where a proposal falls within a wide or distant view;

• showing its maximum envelope;

• testing its relationship with a skyline; and

• early discussions where detailed design information is unavailable.

Its simplicity allows the viewer to concentrate on the development’s overall position.

3 | AVR1: Degree of Visibility

AVR1 shows the location and size of the proposal while also accounting for its visibility from the viewpoint.

It is commonly presented as a wireline aligned with the baseline photograph. Parts concealed by existing buildings, terrain or vegetation are removed or differentiated, allowing the viewer to see which elements would genuinely be exposed.

AVR1 is particularly effective for assessing:

• visibility above existing rooflines;

• the extent to which a proposal is screened;

• effects upon an established skyline;

• the relationship between separate building volumes; and

• cumulative developments represented by different line colours.

Because it omits materials and lighting, an AVR1 can make geometric relationships exceptionally clear.

4 | AVR2: Architectural Form

AVR2 adds architectural form to the information established at AVR1.

The proposal is generally shown as a solid or simply shaded model. This enables the viewer to understand its three-dimensional design without presenting a fully materialised building.

Depending on the development, an AVR2 may communicate:

• principal building volumes;

• façade articulation;

• windows and openings;

• balconies and recesses;

• roof forms;

• setbacks; and

• other significant architectural features.

AVR2 is useful when massing and design need to be understood but proposed materials are either not relevant or have not been developed sufficiently.

Although less frequently requested than AVR1 or AVR3, it provides a valuable intermediate representation.

5 | AVR3: Materials and Architectural Appearance

AVR3 adds proposed materials to the form represented at AVR2. It is normally delivered as a fully rendered photomontage.

An AVR3 may show:

• façade materials and colours;

• glazing and reflectivity;

• architectural details;

• proposed landscape;

• lighting and shadow; and

• the relationship between the completed development and its surroundings.

The render should respond to the conditions recorded in the baseline photograph. Materials, reflections and shadows must be integrated fairly rather than used to create an idealised marketing image.

AVR3 is particularly valuable where architectural appearance forms an important part of the assessment, including close townscape views, conservation areas and the settings of listed buildings.

Its usefulness depends on the quality and maturity of the design information supplied. Where materials remain uncertain, the limitations or assumptions should be stated clearly.

6 | AVR Levels and Technical Verification

AVR Level and verification method are separate considerations.

For example, an AVR1 and an AVR3 may be generated from exactly the same:

• surveyed camera position;

• baseline photograph;

• lens and camera parameters;

• surveyed control points;

• geolocated architectural model; and

• virtual camera alignment.

The difference lies in how that verified geometry is represented.

The AVR1 concentrates on visibility. The AVR3 communicates the proposed appearance as well. Neither label, by itself, confirms the quality of the survey, photography or camera matching.

A methodology statement should therefore document both the chosen AVR Level and the process used to produce the image.

7 | AVR Levels and Landscape Institute Visualisation Types

AVR Levels should not be confused with the Landscape Institute’s Visualisation Types 1–4.

The two systems address different questions:

• AVR Levels 0–3 describe what information about the proposal is shown.

• Landscape Institute Visualisation Types 1–4 describe the form, purpose and technical sophistication of a visualisation, including whether survey or scale verification is required.

A planning image can therefore have both classifications. For example, it might be described as an AVR1 wireline produced using a survey-verifiable Type 4 methodology.

Stating both classifications helps prevent uncertainty about the image’s content and technical basis.

8 | Using Different Levels in One Submission

A planning submission does not need to apply the same AVR Level to every viewpoint.

Different views may investigate different effects. A distant panorama may primarily test visibility against a skyline, while a nearby conservation-area view may need to communicate façade articulation and materials.

A coordinated package might therefore include:

• AVR1 views for distant or substantially screened locations;

• AVR2 views where architectural form is the principal issue; and

• AVR3 views where the proposal’s appearance must be assessed.

This is a proportionate approach rather than an inconsistency. Each view should contain enough information to answer its particular assessment question.

The practical choice between wireline and rendered representations is examined separately in Wireline or Rendered Verified Views?.