Policy Exchange report says tall buildings do not deliver high densities as claimed, and that boom in high rises has not helped address housing crisis
Policy Exchange has released a new report criticising what it describes as Britain’s “mania for tall buildings”.
Authored by Ike Ijeh, a former architecture critic for Housing Today’s sister publication Building Design, the report said far from helping address the UK housing crisis, tall buildings have in fact “made it worse”.
The right-leaning thinktank said its research indicates that the 68 new residential towers in London since 2000 have provided more than 22,000 housing units, of which only 6% were affordable, and 0.3% designated as social housing.
The report also challenged the belief that high-rise buildings are the best solution for achieving high densities in cities.
Instead, it points to academic research that suggests mid-rise developments are often more efficient in optimising density and housing supply.
>>See also:‘Bonkers’ plans to build 42-storey tower above listed Birmingham building refused
Ijeh said the thinktank’s research indicated that despite the proliferation of tall buildings, London’s density levels remain lower than cities like Paris and Barcelona, which have embraced mid-rise development.
The report also highlighted democratic concerns regarding public involvement in decision-making processes related to tall building development.
Policy Exchange is calling for a new clear Tall Buildings Policy to prioritise beauty and design quality, protect heritage, and give the public a greater voice in decision-making processes.
The report’s recommendations:
1. The government should enact legislation mandating that all local authorities in England and Wales considering planning applications for multi-storied buildings over 60m (197ft) in height must first have an approved Tall Buildings Policy. Compliance with Tall Building Policies will become a mandatory, statutory planning requirement for any tall building proposal over 60m across England and Wales.
2. A Tall Building Policy could either be integrated into the Local Development Plan or established as a separate, enforceable document. Local councils failing to develop this plan would forfeit the authority to consider planning applications for tall buildings over 60m in height. Councils not desiring tall buildings within their jurisdiction would be exempt from requiring a Tall Building Policy.
3. Similar to local development plans, a Tall Building Policy would need approval from the planning inspector before becoming enforceable. To obtain approval, a Tall Building Policy would be mandated to:
- Explicitly demonstrate adherence to six Requirements: Location, Beauty, Heritage, Views, Public Consultation, and Alternative Viability.
- Define specific areas suitable and unsuitable for tall buildings.
- Establish a three-tier protected views system akin to historic building grade listings.
- Require public votes on tall building proposals, detailing voting procedures and majority thresholds.
- Introduce guidelines for beauty and design quality.
4. Tall buildings should be prohibited from Conservation Areas, with a protective buffer zone implemented around them. Exceptions would only apply to Conservation Areas with existing tall buildings at the time of their designation.
5. All tall building proposals should undergo a mandatory public vote as part of the statutory consultation process and before submitting the planning application. Although non-binding, the outcome of the vote must be considered by the local authority in granting planning permission.
6. In London, the Greater London Authority would be responsible for producing the Tall Building Policy. Tall building proposals in London would be subject to a ‘Local Lock’, requiring majority support from both the Borough and London as a whole to demonstrate public approval.
7. To promote mid-rise housing, permission-in-principle should be automatically granted to qualifying alternative mid-rise housing schemes. Tall building developers should be obligated to demonstrate that their proposed developments offer greater density than alternative mid-rise housing.
No comments yet