Years from now, London's skies could be full of suits

Enthusiasts for more Canary Wharf-style developments are on the march again. But they will be opposed, reports Mark Rowe

Coming to a capital city near you: the skyline of Manhattan, Chicago or Singapore. An influential report lands on the Government's desk early next year which could re-shape the city skyline of London.

The report, "High Buildings and Strategic Views in London", could lead to the construction of buildings more than 100m high in dominant parts of the capital, including eastern parts of the City of London and the South Bank.

The debate over whether London should have more high-rise buildings has been simmering for years. Plans to build the Millennium Tower, designed by Sir Norman Foster, and remodel Britannic Tower in the City of London were faced down amid fierce opposition this year.

English Heritage argued the Millennium Tower represented a "quantum leap" in terms of scale which would overwhelm the character of London. At 90 storeys and 400m high, the Millennium Tower would have dwarfed London's tallest building, Canary Wharf, at 244m, and the 180m-high NatWest Tower. In comparison, The Empire State Building in New York, is 381m tall.

Supporters of high buildings argue that a dramatic skyline of futuristic buildings helps create the image of a vibrant city where it is good to do business. Such multi-storey blocks can combine office, retail and residential occupants.

Opponents, on the other hand, point out that London has thrived until now with relatively few high-rise buildings. The report, to be delivered to the Government in February, is expected to air the arguments on both sides.

The policy for building skyscrapers in London was last amended in 1987 by the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC), the statutory planning body for the capital. Under those current guidelines, no building can be built that would restrict a view of St Paul's Cathedral or of the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben.

The new report, which will affect future policy, was commissioned by LPAC, the Government Office for London, English Heritage, the Corporation of London and a number of boroughs within the capital and involves research by property and building groups.

The new guidelines, according to Robin Clement, LPAC's deputy chief planner, could seek to enable more high-rise towers to be built outside the small area that would restrict views of St Paul's and Westminster.

"The new guidelines won't allow companies to build high buildings wherever and whenever they want," said Robin Clement. But the report is expected to be relaxed enough to to rule out banning all buildings over a certain threshold height.

The debate on London's skyline is a crucial one, said Mr Clement. "London has been successful as a relatively low-rise city up till now. The question is whether that will remain true in the future."

However, another group contributing to the report, the London Office Review Panel, an umbrella association for property groups, is strongly in favour of more skyscrapers.

The panel suggested that "the principle for tower buildings in London ... should be sustained and reinforced" and that further towers would "enhance the skyline of the City of London and reinforce its international identity". Other areas of the capital could be considered "where clusters of towers might be appropriate".

But there is already enough space in London to accommodate new firms. The capital has 50 million square feet of land available for new office buildings, of which only 10 per cent has been taken up by developers.

"There is no evidence of a market-led demand for tall buildings. We have to ask whether the case is being driven by architectural or economic arguments," said Philip Davies, regional director for London for English Heritage.

"Tall buildings are seen by some as a signature of a successful city which is economically forward looking," he said. "But London has advanced as a world city despite having comparatively few high-rise buildings."

One of the major contributors to next month's report, London Property Research, agrees. Its report states that "there is sufficient office development to meet any foreseeable scale of demand".

LPR's managing director Geoff Marsh said: "There is not a case for high buildings in terms of London maintaining its internationally competitive role.

"It is not true that without high buildings London will become second class in comparison with Paris or Frankfurt," he said.

"Nor is it true that tall buildings equates automatically with first class economies. You just have to look at the Asian markets crises recently to realise that." Yet high-rise offices are good earners for companies and developers, according to Michael Soames, president of the British Council of Offices, a common interest group of developers and building owners.

"Tall buildings are popular with developers and firms. You get more rentable space per square yard if a building goes straight up."

Tradition may dictate which way the Government decides to move, he warned. "Some companies still feel they have to be in, or very close to, the City of London. In that case, because conservation restrictions around the City stop you building outwards, the only way is up."

But such a move could be counter-productive, according to Mr Davies of English Heritage. "London is still a low-rise city. Heritage and open spaces are among the many reasons why business and tourists come to London. High-rise buildings could destroy the qualities that attract many people."

Ultimately, designers and planners have to decide whether a skyline of high buildings will please the eye. "It is part of the criteria that the buildings must be of particularly high quality," said Mr Clement. "The question is how to determine what is good."

"The problem is that London's present high buildings are not of high quality," said Mr Marsh of London Property Research. "It comes down to image and corporate vanity. Companies like to have the best views."