Understanding AVR Levels

Not every planning application requires the same degree of visual detail in a Verified View. Some projects simply require a precise confirmation of where a proposed envelope will sit within the urban grain, while others must illustrate fine architectural detailing, material reflectivity, and contextual integration.

The Accurate Visual Representation (AVR) framework provides a recognised, standardised classification system for defining these varying levels of visual detail. Ranging from basic outline profiles to photorealistic renders, each AVR level serves a specific function within Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs), Townscape and Visual Impact Assessments (TVIAs), and local authority planning determinations.

This guide outlines the technical specifications of AVR0, AVR1, AVR2, and AVR3, clarifying their application under UK planning policy.

1 | What Are AVR Levels?

A common point of confusion when commissioning verified visualisations for planning applications is selecting the appropriate AVR level.

The numerical tags - AVR0, AVR1, AVR2, and AVR3 - are frequently mistaken for a hierarchy of accuracy. They do not denote quality or precision. Every Accurate Visual Representation is generated using an identical technical methodology. Ground control survey points, full-frame digital photography, EXIF data analysis, and camera matching remain strictly identical across all categories.

The distinction lies entirely in the level of architectural geometry and surface rendering displayed. The framework operates as an additive layering system: each level incorporates the spatial coordinates of the former while introducing incremental design information.

2 | A Common Misunderstanding in Planning Submissions

It is a misconception among project teams that an AVR1 photomontage is inherently less accurate than an AVR3 render.

Both visualisations place the development in the exact same spatial location within the baseline frame. Both rely on the same surveyed camera node coordinates, calibrated lens parameters, and georeferenced BIM/CAD models. An AVR1 wireline outline maps the exact perimeter of the model; an AVR3 image renders the physical materials onto that same verified geometry.

3 | AVR0 - Location and Maximum Extent

AVR0 represents the most basic classification within the framework, functioning as a spatial verification tool rather than an architectural representation.

Typically presented as a 2D or 3D wireline overlay, an AVR0 defines:

• The maximum building envelope and boundary parameters.

• Overall Ordnance Datum (AOD) heights.

• Theoretical spatial extent relative to surrounding context.

AVR0 visualisations omit façade details, fenestration, and surface treatments. They are primarily deployed during feasibility studies, pre-application scoping, and Protected Vista assessments to evaluate skyline intrusion before detailed design freeze.

4 | AVR1 - Visibility and Massing

AVR1 builds upon the baseline position of AVR0 by establishing line-of-sight occlusion and contextual visibility.

In an AVR1 photomontage, the proposed building is presented as a solid massing model. Existing background and foreground elements - such as adjacent structures, street furniture, and mature tree canopies - accurately mask the proposed geometry where obstruction occurs.

This level focuses on:

• Quantitative visual exposure.

• Scale, massing, and volumetric fit.

• Silhouette impact on designated townscape views or heritage settings.

By omitting surface textures, an AVR1 maintains focus strictly on townscape massing and visual screening. It is widely used in TVIAs for testing tall building proposals against viewing corridors.

5 | AVR2 - Architectural Form

AVR2 introduces three-dimensional architectural geometry without material texturing.

Rendered using neutral, untextured shading (often white or mid-grey), an AVR2 illustrates:

• Structural articulation and roof profiles.

• Recessed façades, balconies, and fenestration patterns.

• Primary shadow casting and form depth.

AVR2 bridges the gap between analytical massing studies and photorealistic photomontages. It is suitable for applications where the volumetric form and fenestration pattern are fixed, but final exterior material palettes remain subject to planning conditions.

6 | AVR3 - Fully Rendered Representation

AVR3 is the most comprehensive classification in the framework, combining verified positional geometry with realistic material rendering.

AVR3 photomontages incorporate:

• Detailed material mapping (e.g., masonry, cladding panels, structural glazing).

• Surface textures, opacity, and glass reflectivity.

• Environmental lighting and sun angles matching the EXIF metadata of the baseline photo.

• Proposed hard and soft landscape mitigation.

The resulting image offers an objective representation of how the built scheme will appear in its baseline context, making AVR3 crucial for applications in Conservation Areas, listed building settings, and sensitive townscapes.

7 | Comparative Matrix of AVR Levels

The table below illustrates the structural progression across the four AVR classifications:

Read next: How Verified Views Are Produced.

8 | Why Different AVR Levels Are Used in Planning

Requiring AVR3 photorealism for every viewpoint in a TVIA is often unnecessary and can increase submission complexity without adding technical value.

For instance, when assessing whether a proposed parapet breaks a distant protected horizon, an AVR1 massing or AVR0 wireline provides a clearer, unobscured answer than an AVR3 render. Conversely, when determining whether a proposed façade harmonises with a Grade I listed streetscape, an AVR3 rendered image is essential to evaluate materiality and reflection.

The AVR framework allows design teams and LPAs to tailor the technical presentation to the specific planning question raised by each viewpoint.

9 | Determining the Required AVR Level for an Application

The appropriate AVR classification depends on several key factors:

• The statutory designation of the site and surrounding visual receptors.

• Local Planning Authority validation requirements and SPG guidance (e.g., the London View Management Framework).

• Recommendations from landscape, TVIA, or heritage consultants.

• Pre-application feedback from planning officers.

Many major planning applications feature a combination of AVR levels - using AVR1 for long-range strategic vistas and AVR3 for close-range streetscape views.

Read next: How Verified Viewpoints Are Chosen.