Sight Line and Story Pole Studies Explained

Quick answer: A sight line study answers whether a specific observer, standing or sitting at a specific place and height, can still see a specific thing once a proposal exists. A story pole study is the physical version: poles and netting erected on site to show the outline of a proposed building at full size. Both answer the same objection, which is loss of outlook or privacy, and both live or die on four stated facts: where the observer stands, how high their eye is, what they are looking at, and how the ground between the two was measured.

What a sight line study is

A sight line is a straight line from an eye to a target. The study draws that line through a measured section of the site and reports whether the line is clear, partly interrupted or blocked by the proposal.

It is a narrow product with a narrow answer, and that is its value. A rendering tells a board what a building looks like. A sight line section tells a board whether the neighbour at number 14 keeps the view of the ridge they currently have from the back of their kitchen. Boards and neighbours argue about the second question far more often than the first.

The usual targets are a landmark, a skyline, a ridge line, a water body, a street vista or simply open sky. Privacy work inverts the direction: the question becomes whether somebody on a proposed balcony can see into an existing bedroom, and the line runs the other way with the same geometry.

What a story pole study is

Story poles are physical. Poles are erected on site at the corners of the proposed envelope, usually with netting or a tape at the eaves and ridge heights, so anybody standing nearby sees the real outline at real size against the real sky.

Some jurisdictions require them. Where they are required, there is no substitute, and the visualization work supports rather than replaces them. Where they are not required, a simulated story pole study is often produced instead: the poles are modelled and composited into photographs from the same positions a physical set would be judged from.

The honest comparison is this. Physical poles are more persuasive to a neighbour and harder to argue with, because nobody can claim the camera lied. Simulated poles are cheaper, repeatable, can be produced for a dozen viewpoints in the time it takes to get one set of scaffolding permits, and can show the finished mass rather than an outline. A number of applicants do both, using the physical poles for the statutory requirement and the simulation for the printed material.

The four facts that make a sight line checkable

A sight line section without these is an illustration, not evidence.

• Observer position. A surveyed coordinate, shown on a key plan, not a description such as from the rear garden. Moving an observer two metres changes the answer.
• Eye height. Stated and justified. Standing adult eye height is commonly taken around 1.6 metres above finished floor or ground, seated considerably lower, and a first floor window position is set from the surveyed floor level rather than assumed. A study that quietly raises the eye height has changed its own answer.
• The target. Named and located. The ridge of the church tower is a target. The view is not.
• Ground and floor levels. From survey. Sight lines are brutally sensitive to level, because a line that misses a parapet by 300 millimetres passes, and the same line on an assumed level fails.

Put all four on the drawing. The sheet is what goes into the record, and the covering letter is not.

How the sections get built

The work is drawing rather than rendering, and it needs a model that is honest about three things.

The first is the proposal profile, including parapets, plant, lift overruns and anything above the stated roof height. A sight line tested against a building modelled to its parapet and built with a metre of plant above it will report a clear line that does not exist.

The second is the intervening ground. A rising site in front of the observer blocks lines a flat assumption leaves open, and a falling site does the reverse. Use the survey surface rather than a plane. The same point governs shadow work, and for the same reason: see sun path and solar access studies explained.

The third is everything already in the way. Existing buildings, boundary walls, garden structures and mature trees interrupt lines today. A study that removes them to make the proposal look worse is dishonest in one direction, and a study that invents them is dishonest in the other. Record what is there, dated, and say how it was measured.

The deliverable is usually a set of long sections, one per observer and target pair, each with the line drawn and annotated, plus a key plan. Where the result is close, an elevation from the observer position showing what the eye actually sees is far more convincing than a section, because a section asks a board to imagine the third dimension. See massing study, what it shows and what it proves.

Choosing the observer positions

This is where the credibility of the whole study is decided, and it is a judgement rather than a calculation.

Take the positions from the objections. Where written representations name addresses, rooms and windows, those are the positions to test. An applicant who tests the three places nobody complained about and omits the one place everybody did has produced a document that damages their own case.

Add the public positions a reviewer will think of: the footpath approach, the junction, the protected vista if the code names one, the park entrance. Then add the worst case rather than the average, because the board will find the worst case whether or not the study contains it, and finding it in the applicant document costs far less.

Test both storeys where the complaint is from an upper window, and test seated eye height where the room in question is a living room. A neighbour sitting in a chair sees a different thing from a neighbour standing at the glass, and the complaint usually describes the chair.

For privacy work the positions are the proposed balconies, terraces and habitable windows, and the targets are the existing windows and private gardens opposite. The useful output there is a plan showing the overlooked zone, with distances annotated, alongside the sections. See view analysis and view corridor studies.

Where it fits in the approvals package

Sight line work is normally commissioned alongside massing, solar and view analysis, because the same context model carries all four and the four answer the four standard objections: it is too big, it takes my light, it takes my view, and it looks into my house.

Build the model once, with real heights, a real ground surface and a stated true north, and all four products come out of it consistently. Build four models separately and the applicant ends up presenting four documents that disagree, which is the quickest way to lose a board that was otherwise minded to approve.

The sequencing that works is massing first, while the envelope can still move cheaply, then sight line and solar work once it is settled, then presentation imagery last. Running the pretty views first is common and expensive, because they get redone after a sight line test forces a setback or a lower parapet. See planning a rendering around a hearing date and the land entitlement process guide.

How it gets used in the room

Sections are technical documents and most of the people in a public meeting cannot read one. That is not a reason to skip them, because the record needs them, but it is a reason to pair them.

What works in front of a board is the paired image: this is what the observer sees today, this is what the observer sees afterwards, taken from the surveyed position at the stated eye height, with the section available behind it for anybody who wants to check. The image persuades and the section proves, and a package with only one of the two is weaker than it needs to be.

Say out loud which positions were tested and why those positions. An applicant who explains their own selection criteria before anybody questions it is treated as an honest witness. An applicant who is asked why a position was omitted, and has no answer, loses the room regardless of what the geometry said. See visuals for hearings versus community meetings and winning neighbour support before a hearing.

What it costs and how to scope it

There is no published rate for sight line or story pole work, because the cost sits in the context model, the survey information and the number of observer and target pairs rather than in drawing the lines. Three sections from one observer on a flat site with good survey data is a small job. Eighteen pairs across two storeys on a sloping site with no survey is not.

Published figures on the 3D rendering cost page cover visualization deliverables, and they are the right reference where the package includes presentation imagery: standard exterior stills run $750 to $1,250 and upwards, premium exteriors $1,250 to $2,500 and upwards. Study work itself is scoped after the site, the objections and the survey information are reviewed.

Four lines make quotations comparable: the observer positions and their eye heights, the targets, whether survey information exists or must be commissioned, and whether paired images are wanted alongside the sections. Leave any unstated and you will be priced for different jobs.

The honest summary

Sight line work is the most checkable product in an approvals package and the easiest to quietly bias, because the answer depends entirely on choices that are invisible in the output: where the observer stands, how high the eye is, and which level the ground was taken from.

So state all of them. Take the positions from the objections rather than from convenience. Model the plant above the parapet. Use the survey surface. Pair the sections with an image from the same eye. A study built that way answers the only question that really matters in the room, which is whether anybody else could run it again and get the same result.

Rendimension has produced this work since 2004, architect led, across more than 1,000 projects. See shadow study deliverables and what reviewers check and visual evidence for land use attorneys.

Frequently asked questions

What is a sight line study?

A drawn test of whether a specific observer, at a stated position and eye height, can still see a stated target once a proposal exists. The deliverable is normally a set of long sections through the surveyed site with the line annotated, plus a key plan locating every observer.

What is a story pole study?

Poles and netting erected on site to show the outline of a proposed building at full size, so neighbours see the real mass against the real sky. Some jurisdictions require them. Where they are not required, poles are often simulated and composited into photographs instead.

Are simulated story poles as good as physical ones?

They are cheaper, repeatable and can cover a dozen viewpoints, and they can show the finished mass rather than an outline. Physical poles are harder to argue with because nobody can claim the camera lied. Where a code requires poles, simulation supports them rather than replacing them.

What eye height should be used?

Standing adult eye height is commonly taken around 1.6 metres above the surveyed ground or floor level, with seated height considerably lower. Upper floor positions are set from the surveyed floor level rather than assumed. Whatever is used must be stated on the drawing, because changing it changes the answer.

How are the observer positions chosen?

From the objections first: the addresses, rooms and windows named in the written representations. Then the public positions a reviewer will think of, such as the footpath approach or a protected vista. Then the worst case, because the board will find it whether or not the study includes it.

Why does the ground surface matter?

Because sight lines are extremely sensitive to level. A line that clears a parapet by 300 millimetres passes, and the same line run on an assumed flat plane fails or passes for no real reason. The survey surface is the only defensible basis.

How is privacy tested?

The geometry is the same but the direction reverses: the observer sits on the proposed balcony or habitable window and the targets are the existing windows and private gardens opposite. The useful output is a plan of the overlooked zone with distances annotated, alongside the sections.

How should this work be scoped?

Name the observer positions and their eye heights, name the targets, say whether survey information already exists or must be commissioned, and say whether paired images are wanted alongside the sections. Cost sits in the context model and the number of pairs, not in drawing the lines.