Original source · versioned page text
MCU18.0166 - Response to Information Request
Attached to the e-mail MCU18/0166 - Response to Information Request.
The original of this document is very large (15.2 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
6.3. Field of view analysis 6.4. Viewpoint assessment
The following viewing locations were selected as
There are physical parameters of human sight
representative of the range of views to the
which can assist in the appreciation of what can
project:
be seen and perceived at different distances.
The relationship between the size of the object • Viewpoint 1: Views from Tablelands Road
and the distance can be analysed in terms of the (View from 250, 268 and 226 Tablelands
human eye’s vertical and horizontal field of Road)
view. • Viewpoint 2: Views south from Tablelands
It is important to note that this analysis does not Road (2a numbers 374 and 382 Tablelands
take into consideration the factors which Road and 2b numbers views)
influence the visual absorption of an object into
• Viewpoint 3: View south from Cooran
the view and the visual compatibility of a
Tablelands Lookout
proposal to the surrounding landscape.
However, it will assist in defining a reasonable • Viewpoint 4: View northeast from Risley
study area and explain some of the findings of Court
this assessment. • Viewpoint 5: Views north from Brewers
For this project, only the change in the vertical Road
field of view would be relevant, as the width of
• Viewpoint 6: View north from King Road
the proposal is not substantial.
• Viewpoint 7: View north from Queen Street
Assuming the proposal would have a height of
35 metres, the lower 15-18 metres of which The location of these viewpoints is identified on
would be enclosed by existing trees, it can be Figure 6-3 Viewpoint location plan.
assumed that there would be a 20 metre The following sections summarise the daytime
vertical element potentially visible. visual impact for each view, based on site visit
This would be 10% of the vertical field of view at observations.
1.2km, and a 5% change in the vertical field of
view at 2.4km. 10% is not likely to be noticeable
and 5% is considered to be an imperceptible
change in the view.
These scenarios would only be relevant if the
monopole rose above the skyline or contrasted
with the surrounding landscape in any view.
Whereas in situations where the monopole
would be viewed against a background, these
distances would be less.
IRIS Visual Planning + Design Page 17
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.