Shadow Study Deliverables: What Reviewers Check

Quick answer: A shadow study is rejected or accepted on its paperwork far more often than on its geometry. The deliverable a reviewer expects is a sheet set: a key plan, an existing condition series, a proposed condition series at matching dates and times, a stated basis block, a legend, and an exclusions note, issued in a format the office can actually open and stamp. This page is about the package rather than the sun angles, because the angles are usually right and the package usually is not.

Why the package fails more often than the model

Most study work that comes back for revision does so for clerical reasons. The sheets arrive without a key plan, so nobody can tell which direction the images look. The proposed series is dated differently from the existing series, so the two cannot be compared. The images are beautiful and 4,000 pixels wide and the submission portal caps uploads at a size the file blows past. None of that is geometry, and all of it costs a cycle.

A planner reviewing a submission is working through a checklist with a deadline. Anything that forces them to ask a question instead of ticking a box becomes a request for further information, and a request for further information moves the application to the back of a queue. The package is therefore worth as much attention as the model.

The underlying sun geometry, the dates, the time basis and the way the four verifiable statements get written are covered separately in sun path and solar access studies explained. Treat that page as the input and this one as the output.

What a complete sheet set contains

A package that gets accepted first time normally has all of the following, and in this order.

• Cover sheet with the basis block. Site address, project name, issue date, revision number, and the basis statement: latitude and longitude, how true north was established, the dates tested, and whether times are standard or daylight saving.
• Key plan. A site plan with the site outline, the surrounding properties named or numbered, north shown, and the extent of the study area marked. Every later sheet refers back to it.
• Existing condition series. One frame per tested date and time, site as it stands today.
• Proposed condition series. The same frames, same viewpoints, same dates, same times, with the proposal in place.
• Comparison or difference sheets. Where the code asks for them, the additional shadow shown as a distinct tone over the existing shadow.
• Legend and exclusions note. What each tone means, and what the study does not include.

The series pairing is the part reviewers care most about. Existing and proposed frames must be the same frame. Same camera or same plan extent, same scale, same date, same clock time, same labelling. If a reviewer has to hold two sheets side by side and work out whether they match, the study has failed at its only job.

Sheet composition that survives printing

Plan based shadow sheets are the workhorse. A reviewer looking at a plan with hourly shadow outlines across a day can read the whole story in one glance, which is why most codes ask for plans rather than perspectives.

Lay them out so each frame carries its own label inside the frame, not in a caption below it. Date, clock time, and existing or proposed. Sheets get printed, cropped, photocopied and pulled apart in a meeting, and a frame that loses its label becomes evidence of nothing.

Keep the scale consistent across the whole set, state it, and include a graphic scale bar rather than only a ratio, because the ratio stops being true the moment somebody prints the sheet at a different size. The same applies to the north arrow: it belongs on every plan sheet, not only the key plan.

Where the package includes perspective frames, they sit alongside the plans rather than replacing them. A perspective shows a neighbour what the afternoon looks like from their garden. A plan shows a reviewer how far the shadow reaches. Both are useful and they answer different questions.

Annotation a reviewer looks for

The frames themselves are rarely annotated enough. The items that get ticked off are these.

Affected properties identified. If the study covers the three houses to the north, name or number them on the key plan and reference those numbers in the frames. A reviewer should never have to count properties.

Sensitive receptors called out where the code names them. Many codes protect specific things: a school yard, a public park, a plaza, a garden with a stated sunlight requirement, an existing solar array. If the code names a receptor, the sheet should name it too, and the frames should show it.

Durations stated where the code states a threshold. A code that asks for a minimum number of sunlit hours wants a number, not a picture. Put the number on the sheet, per receptor, existing and proposed, and show the working.

Tree and vegetation treatment declared. Whether deciduous canopy was modelled in leaf, out of leaf, or omitted entirely, said in words on the sheet rather than left for a reviewer to infer from the images.

Context extent declared. How far out the surrounding buildings were modelled, and from what source. A study that models two neighbours and stops is not wrong, but it must say so, because a reviewer who notices the third neighbour missing and finds no note assumes it was hidden.

The exclusions note, and why it protects the applicant

Every study has limits. The ones that get challenged are the ones that pretend otherwise.

A short note listing what the study does not account for is the single cheapest piece of credibility in the package. Typical contents: weather and cloud are not modelled, so results show clear sky geometry; reflected and diffuse light is not quantified; vegetation is shown as described above; interior daylight levels are not assessed; the surrounding context is as surveyed on a stated date and does not include unbuilt approvals.

Applicants resist this because it reads like an admission. In practice it does the opposite. A reviewer who finds the limits written down treats the rest of the document as honest. A reviewer who finds a limit themselves, unstated, starts testing everything else. The same logic governs sight line work, where the choices are even more sensitive: see sight line and story pole studies explained.

Formats, naming and submission mechanics

This is the dullest part of the deliverable and the one that most often causes a resubmission.

Issue flat PDF at the sheet size the office asks for, usually a stated paper size, with every sheet in one file in sheet order rather than a folder of loose pages. Keep the file under whatever the portal accepts, which is frequently far smaller than the first export. Raster images inside the sheets rarely need more than printing resolution, and the difference between a sensible export and a careless one is often a factor of ten in file size.

Name files so a human can file them without opening them: project, document type, sheet range, revision, date. Revisions get a new number and a revision note on the cover, never a silent replacement, because a reviewer comparing an old printout against a quietly updated file will stop trusting the set.

Where an animation is requested, supply it in a common codec with a frame counter and a visible clock, and still supply the stills. Nobody can stamp a video. The video persuades a room and the stills go in the record.

Keep the native model and the source survey archived alongside the issued set. If the application is appealed or questioned a year later, the ability to reopen the exact model that produced sheet 7 is worth more than anything else in the file.

How the package gets used in a hearing

The sheet set is a record document. In the room, what works is a short selection of it: the key plan, the worst case frame existing, the same frame proposed, and the duration numbers if the code uses them.

Four frames and a plan will hold a board's attention. Forty will not, and a presenter who pages through forty loses the room before reaching the point. Put the full set in the record, present the selection, and say that the rest is submitted. See visuals for hearings versus community meetings and winning neighbour support before a hearing.

Say which frame is the worst case and why, before anybody asks. An applicant who presents their own worst case is believed about everything else. One who presents only the flattering frames, and gets asked about December at four o'clock, has lost more than the argument about December.

Where it sits with the other studies

Shadow work shares its context model with massing, view and sight line work, and the saving from building that model once is substantial. It also keeps the four documents consistent, which matters because a board that spots two of an applicant's own documents disagreeing stops reading all four.

The sequence that works is massing first, while the envelope can still change cheaply, then shadow and sight line testing once the envelope is settled, then presentation imagery last. See massing study, what it shows and what it proves, view analysis and view corridor studies and planning a rendering around a hearing date. The wider approvals sequence is set out in the land entitlement process guide.

What it costs and how to scope it

There is no published rate for shadow study packages, because the cost sits in the context model, the survey information, and the number of frames rather than in the sun calculation itself. A single plan series on one date with good survey data is a small job. Four dates, three times each, existing and proposed, plus perspective frames for six receptors, is a different order of work.

Published figures on the 3D rendering cost page cover visualization deliverables and are the right reference where the package also includes presentation imagery: standard exterior stills run $750 to $1,250 and upwards, premium exteriors $1,250 to $2,500 and upwards, and animation work $3,500 to $15,000 and upwards. Study packages are scoped after the code requirement, the receptors and the survey information are reviewed.

Five lines make quotations comparable: the dates and times required by the code, the receptors, the sheet size and format the office wants, whether existing and proposed are both required, and whether survey information exists or must be commissioned.

The honest summary

A shadow study package is a record document first and a picture second. Pair every proposed frame with an identical existing frame, put the basis on the cover, label inside the frames, name the affected properties, state the exclusions, and issue it in the format the office asked for at a size the portal accepts.

Do that and the geometry gets to be the thing under discussion, which is the point. Skip it and a correct study spends a cycle being returned for a missing key plan.

Rendimension has produced this work since 2004, architect led, across more than 1,000 projects. See also visual evidence for land use attorneys.

Frequently asked questions

What does a shadow study package contain?

A cover sheet with the basis block, a key plan, an existing condition series, a matching proposed condition series, comparison sheets where the code asks for them, and a legend with an exclusions note. The existing and proposed frames must match exactly in viewpoint, scale, date and clock time.

Why do shadow studies get returned for revision?

Usually for clerical reasons rather than geometry: no key plan, existing and proposed series tested at different dates or times, missing north arrow or scale bar, unlabelled frames, or a file that exceeds what the submission portal accepts.

Should the frames be plans or perspectives?

Plans are the workhorse because a reviewer can read how far a shadow reaches in one glance, and most codes ask for them. Perspectives are useful alongside plans for showing a neighbour what an afternoon looks like, but they do not replace the plan series.

What belongs in the exclusions note?

That weather and cloud are not modelled so results show clear sky geometry, that reflected and diffuse light is not quantified, how vegetation was treated, that interior daylight was not assessed, and that the surrounding context is as surveyed on a stated date without unbuilt approvals.

Does an exclusions note weaken the submission?

No. A reviewer who finds the limits written down treats the rest of the document as honest. A reviewer who discovers an unstated limit starts testing everything else in the package, which is far more expensive.

What file format should be issued?

Flat PDF at the sheet size the office asks for, all sheets in one file in sheet order, sized under the portal limit. Raster images inside the sheets rarely need more than printing resolution. Where an animation is requested, supply it with a visible clock and still supply the stills.

How much of the package should be presented at a hearing?

A short selection: the key plan, the worst case frame existing, the same frame proposed, and the duration numbers if the code uses them. The full set goes into the record. Paging through forty frames loses a board before the point is reached.

How should a shadow study be scoped for quotation?

Name the dates and times the code requires, the receptors to be assessed, the sheet size and format the office wants, whether both existing and proposed series are required, and whether survey information already exists or must be commissioned.