1 picture = 1000 words

Peter Stewart, director of the design review (1999 - 2005), talks about the shortfalls of visual impact assessments.

I don't know what the definition of a 'visual impact assessment' is (it sounds like a phrase invented by a lawyer). I see quite a lot of them, though.

The relationship between words and pictures in explaining projects is worth thinking about. Both are necessary. Both words and pictures can evade or mislead as much as they can explain. But to make a bad project appear good through the use of misleading visual imagery is a fairly rare skill. Talk, on the other hand, is relatively cheap. And that is where the 'visual impact assessment' comes in.

At their worst, these documents do everything they can to avoid owning up to what a project will actually look like. I read one which assessed the 'visual impact' of a power station on an exposed coastal site. The assessment included identifying points along the coastal path from which views of the enormous buildings could be avoided by standing behind bushes. I wasn't reassured.

More recently, I read a document put forward in support of some modest structures which would appear within one of the more famous views in England. The document title, ' Statement of justification', caused alarm bells to ring - not terribly aspirational. (And for those who think it's not the job of the development control system to be aspirational, remember PPG1: Good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere'). There was one key question which anyone who knew the site would ask about the proposal; what would the famous view look like if these structures were built? Of the dozen or so illustrations in the document, none showed this. The photograph of the existing view was accompanied by a caption which did, however, contain the assertion that the view would not be affected by the new proposals. Why not show us a picture so we can decide that for ourselves, I wondered? Such a picture did exist - and of course when I saw it, it answered my question. To call the caption misleading would be charitable.

Other visual impact assessments' have proposed buildings of low quality (in private, we call them ugly', but have found this goes down badly when used in letters) - and explain how all will be well because they will be screened by new planting. The buildings are probably ones which applicants, users, planning officers and elected members will be ashamed of; but in a few decades when everyone involved is dead, the trees will have grown and the scheme will be fully hidden from view - at which time it will probably be knocked down. If a design for a building is ugly, I don't want someone to explain how they will mitigate its visual impact'; I want it replaced with a beautiful one. Then I won't mind looking at it. Like many people, I like trees, but I like buildings as well.

There are some simple tests. Is the project illustrated realistically in its context, so that a member of the public can form an opinion (and if not, why validate the application?). If the applicant has produced an A3 brochure explaining their project in its context, and the thinking behind it (and in my view this should be obligatory for schemes of any size), what is on the cover? If the applicants are proud if what they are proposing, there will be a picture of the project. If there isn't, they're probably ashamed of it.

Who reads visual impact assessments? As in so many documents of this kind, much of the text is usually at best superfluous and at worst drivel, cut and pasted from a previous project. I skim them, searching desperately for pictures - or text which says something illuminating . Members of the public don't read them. Elected members don't. I doubt whether many planning officers do. So what's the point? Give us - give the public - a good set of plans, sections, elevations and views which show the project honestly in its context, from the places from which most people will see it, and let us make our own minds up. If the words still have to be written, so be it. But when consultants are paid good money (by the applicants) to write words which explain why you're not going to be shown a proper set of pictures, then we are in the world of Alice in Wonderland.

To sum up: if you can, encourage applicants to do a few useful pictures of what they propose, instead of thousands of useless words. You won't get to go home any earlier, because you weren't reading them in the first place, but it will free up some shelf space.

Peter Stewart is an architect and director of the design review programme at CABE.