Following consultation in June 2018, the LI Technical Committee has issued an interim statement on progress of the Photography and Photomontage Technical Guidance Note (TGN)

Photography and Photomontage Technical Guidance Note update – interim statement (November 2018)

Following the issue of draft photography and photomontage guidance for consultation in June, the LI has received over fifty responses from practitioners and public authorities. The most common themes related to proportionality, with reference to LI Technical Guidance Note 02/17, Visual Representation of Development Proposals.

Many respondents were concerned that the document implied that the ‘highest levels of sophistication’ were required for all levels of LVIA and LVA, contrary to the principles expressed in TGN 02/17 and GLVIA3. There was also concern that the draft document cross-referenced SNH 2017 photomontage guidance when it should function in its own right.

The Technical Committee will retain the principles and substance of TGN 02/17, which will be incorporated into the photography/photomontage guidance in order to ensure that there will be no conflict. The new guidance note will consider the use, application and technical application of the range of approaches to visualisation.

The Committee has sought expressions of interest for a technical author of the final document. It is hoped to complete this work no later than Spring 2019.

In the meantime, although the consultation draft contains much substance that will appear in the final guidance, it should not be taken as de facto guidance from the Institute until the new TGN is issued.

Find out more: Visualisation – Photography and photomontage

1 COMMENT

  1. I have had a comment made to me by a Artas-ua.info Officer in the Northeast of England which I found interesting. He was concerned that there are no guidelines for imaging taken from moving vehicles, e.g video, particularly from Motorways and major trunk roads where proposed large scale infrastructure may cause distraction to drivers. He felt that sequential analysis, using average speeds and still imaging where the development may be seen as indicated by a ZTV was not sufficient. As such he felt that he could not correctly assess the magnitudes of change, sensitivity and impact on these types of receptor. The Scottish Borders Council did produce some useful tables for assessing these impacts, but it seems it may not be enough.

LEAVE A REPLY