The Risks Developers and Architects Take When Verified Views Are Done Poorly
The risk of getting Verified Views wrong is procedural, financial, and reputational.
At best, weak visual evidence leads to delays. Planners request clarification. Consultees raise objections. Additional work is commissioned under pressure.
At worst, an inspector may give the visual material little or no weight. This can materially affect outcomes at committee or appeal, particularly where visual impact is central to the case.
There is also reputational risk. Teams that submit poorly controlled Verified Views are remembered.
For architects and developers, the cost of doing Verified Views properly is almost always lower than the cost of fixing them later.
A careful workflow removes risk by:
Treating Verified Views as evidence, not imagery
Locking down methodology before modelling begins
Coordinating photography, survey, and visualisation from the outset
Producing outputs that withstand scrutiny without explanation
Good Verified Views do not persuade. They do not embellish. They simply show the proposal as it would be seen, and then step out of the way.
For more information on AVRs, check out our other journals below:
