“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often,” said Winston Churchill. How would the London skyline fit with these words of wisdom? Its aspect continues to change and if recent surveys are to be believed, there is much change on the horizon. The GL Hearn London Tall Buildings Survey 2016 suggests there are as many as 436 tall buildings in the pipeline. In the boom period before the 2007 financial crash there was much enthusiasm in the City for taller, landmark buildings. The finances flowing through the capital provided the funds to deliver the Shard, the Walkie Talkie and the Cheesegrater, to name a few. Recent events have stifled some projects but there is now renewed enthusiasm to construct new tall buildings.
Skyline, views and vistas are things that everyone has an opinion on; some favour the glitz and glamour, the buzz and vibrancy associated with such buildings, not to mention their association with success and power. Others would rather preserve and conserve the more traditional built form.
These views are generally so polarised that little can be done to change minds; a recent Ipsos Mori poll revealed that six out of 10 Londoners supported putting a limit on the height of new skyscrapers with more than 50 floors. London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has promised new guidance. This may be more prescriptive than the current guidance.
It is, however, important that the aesthetic views of buildings and the skyline are not the sole drivers for deciding whether tall buildings should be permitted. The two fundamental drivers of success for the UK are the strength of the construction industry and adequate supply to meet housing demand to support all the industries in London and the South East.
Interplay with housing needs
London in particular suffers from a chronic undersupply of housing, which puts upward pressure on house prices and prevents many first-time buyers from getting on the property ladder. This has resulted in further polarisation of communities and a feeling of “them and us” between the “haves” and the “have nots”. These socio-economic drivers have been brought to the fore by the UK’s vote to leave the European Union and will play an increasing role in local planning decision making over the next few years.
The relaxation in planning rules allowed changes from office to residential uses. In part, this move addressed the housing shortage concerns, but it also means that, in time, there will be an increased requirement for offices, particularly in London.
Financial returns being a key driver in securing the construction of new buildings means that greater profit margins, driven by undersupply, should result in renewed enthusiasm to build in London. It would appear that investment funds and foreign money presently favour taller towers. That preference, combined with density requirements to deliver more dwellings per hectare in London, make these schemes attractive to fund.
The uniqueness of London
London is an unusual world city in that it has historic architecture and a vibrant modern economy and yet it has managed to retain its residents across the economic spectrum.
It is therefore not surprising to hear fervently held views on the impact of tall buildings. However, the chronic shortage of housing is accepted by all. Given the constraints of development opportunities within easy reach of good public transport, the pressure to deliver more dwellings per hectare will continue. Many world cities have higher densities than London but those that have achieved this are cities that were originally planned on that premise.
London boroughs have their own policies and with government finances being locally allocated it means that many of the boroughs are competing for the same investments to fund local services. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is no planned approach to a “London skyline”. The planning policies affecting London are protectionist in that they seek to protect views from various heritage sites, such as St Paul’s, rather than being aspirational or visionary.
Alternatives
There are other options available to the building of individual tall towers, none of which are likely to have much traction. London’s mayor could commission a holistic masterplan for London, crossing borough boundaries, which is visionary and aspirational for the skyline. He could promote the use of compulsory purchase powers across borough boundaries to enable a truly planned approach and achieve greater densities.
However, all this requires vision, a longer mandate than a four-year term and an affiliated political party in Westminster. Masterplanning across borough boundaries would require party political support across the political spectrum.
Greater densities could be achieved while still having control over the skyline, but only if development was centrally managed rather than based on the relatively finite resources of individual developers. One could imagine that landed estates such as Grosvenor or the Crown could achieve higher densities on a planned basis, but with properties often let for the longer term any such ambition would have to be very long term.
As we enter what appears to be a period of more polarised politics it is difficult to forecast anything other than market forces determining where and what form new development takes. London has thrived on being adaptable to socio-economic pressures and changes to the London skyline are probably still on the route to improvement.
Jay Das is head of the planning team at Wedlake Bell LLP
