Separate an empty layer from an unsuccessful request
An online screen can show no building outline because coverage is missing, a request failed, the source was temporarily unavailable or the dwelling is newer than the imagery. These situations produce similar pictures but need different follow-up. Record the source and response state instead of a single “no house” label.
If a layer failed to load, repeat the check or seek another source before drawing a geometric conclusion. If the source loaded and genuinely contains no outline, use current site information to identify the dwelling. The absence of a feature is evidence about that source, not automatically evidence about the property.
Check what the address pin represents
An address point may mark the parcel frontage, entrance or another representative location. It need not sit in the centre of the roof. A workflow that assumes it must lie inside a roof polygon can reject an obvious house; one that accepts any nearby polygon can choose a shed or a neighbour.
Check the address, parcel, street frontage and roof together. Where the candidate is ambiguous, keep the identity unresolved rather than moving the pin until the result becomes favourable. A relocation needs a reason and a saved comparison with the original position.
Inspect the whole roof, not just the largest segment
Tree shadows, roof colour and changes in roof direction can split one dwelling into several detected shapes. Selecting a neat rectangle may omit the wing that occupies the proposed access corridor. Conversely, joining every adjacent shape may incorporate a veranda, garage or neighbouring structure.
A useful review overlays the candidate boundary on imagery and compares it with photographs or a measured plan. Record which parts are roof, which parts are enclosed dwelling and which are uncertain. Roof geometry supports screening; it does not establish wall positions or construction setbacks.
Turn uncertainty into a task
Distinguish “not assessed”, “source unavailable”, “candidate house uncertain” and “identified house, proposed layout constrained”. These labels tell the owner whether the next step is a data refresh, a photograph, a survey or a design revision. One generic fail result gives no such direction.
Do not upgrade a result just because a second automated method agrees with the first. Both may use the same aerial image or mistaken parcel. Seek an independent record that addresses the disputed fact, and preserve the original result so a later reviewer can see what changed.
Confirm the relevant dimensions before committing
Check the actual boundary, house wall, eaves, service corridor and access width that control the proposal. An apparently generous garden can have a constrained service route or a fence that does not follow the title line. The site evidence pack should describe the remaining work explicitly.
Carry the corrected geometry into the designer’s current revision and ask which dimensions require formal confirmation. For planning information, refer to the actual zone and overlay provisions; for building and siting, use the project assessment. A repaired map is an improved concept input, not a permit.
Planning property report and VicPlanSmall second homes: planning and building framework
Documents to take to the next conversation
- Saved original result with source date and any failed-layer status.
- Photographs or an independent plan identifying the existing dwelling.
- Disputed boundary, eaves and access dimensions listed for measurement.
- A revised concept with the change and its reason recorded.
Questions owners ask
Does a missing footprint mean no house exists?
No. It may reflect missing coverage, a failed request or an identification problem. Check the source state and independent site records before drawing that conclusion.
Can roof outlines determine buildable setbacks?
Roof outlines help screen a concept. Wall positions, legal boundaries, siting requirements and project-specific approvals need separate verification.