TALL BUILDINGS

HC Deb 25 May 1973 vol 857 cc909-19

2.2 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

The subject on which I wish to speak this afternoon is the skyline of tall buildings. Originally, I called it the ugly skylines of many tall buildings, but Mr. Speaker evidently did not like the partisan adjective and struck it out.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming to the House to reply to the debate, and I hope that he will be able to give us some information on this subject.

I do not intend to go into the desirability or otherwise of having tall buildings such as high rise flats or office blocks, nor their location, excepting in one instance, nor their design, except as it relates to the skyline.

Many skylines make these buildings more ugly than necessary because of what seems to be nothing but thoughtlessness on the part of all those concerned—planners, designers, local authorities and everybody else—but I was prompted to raise this problem partly by looking across the river from the Terrace of the House of Commons.

Looking at the Albert Embankment from Lambeth Bridge House southwards, there are 12 tall buildings, eight of them of more or less the same height. Every one has some kind of erection stuck on the roof. One seems to have a kind of terrace of cottages, coloured brown I think, and there is even a black box on top of one end of this terrace. The result is extremely unsightly, even at that distance from the Terrace of the House of Commons.

The Decca building, nearly opposite, seems to have a revolving horizontal propellor at one end which is floodlit at night. I should have thought that something like that would look more comely in the centre of the building, rather than at the end. Directly opposite the House, the new St. Thomas's Hospital is gradually taking shape, and one wonders what its skyline will be like when it is complete. So far the outlook is promising.

From the Committee Rooms on the Committee corridor, one sees tall buildings further east, with what I can only call enormous excrescences protruding from their roofs. I have not been able to identify what they are. They may even be grain elevators in the dock area, but at any rate they are hideous.

Many of these additions, particularly on high-rise flats, are possibly water tanks or coverings for lift machinery. I wonder whether they are shown on the plans at the time they receive approval by the planning authority, or whether the plans show only flat roofs and the excrescences are added afterwards. I cannot imagine how any planning authority could pass some of the ugly skylines that exist.

Most high-rise flats, not only in London but all over the country, have something spoiling the skyline. It is difficult to find any that have not. I quote the Alton Estate, Roehampton, as a particularly bad example. Its only saving grace is that the objects sticking up are painted white like the rest of the building. In many other cases the objects are painted black, unlike the rest of the building.

Some high buildings have pieces of black ironwork. Some council flats in Camden—in Adelaide Road, Hampstead —have black metalwork at one side of the roof, and they spoil an otherwise pleasant view looking northwards from Primrose Hill. It may be the ironwork of a communal television aerial. I do not know enough about TV to know whether that is so, but I think that it should be in the centre of the building and not on one side, so that at least the skyline is symmetrical. One wonders, too, whether they could not be painted at least approximately the same colour of the building on which they stand, rather than black.

Incidentally, I think it is one of those blocks that has blotted out what, up to two or three years ago, was one of the most attractive views in London. Looking up Park Street, Mayfair, and even further north, up Gloucester Place, one was formerly able to see a church spire on a hill, which is always a pleasing sight. I think that it is St. Peter's Church, Belsize Park, Hampstead. That is now hidden by one of these high-rise blocks. It is a great pity that that was allowed. The block could have been sited differently.

That view of a church on a hill from Central London always reminded me—though there is not really any comparison —of the wonderful views that can be obtained of the church of the Sacré Coeur de Montmartre from many parts of Paris. The comparison may not be valid, but it is a similar object. The only other similar view near London, but not visible from anywhere near the centre, is the church at Harrow-on-the-Hill. It is a great shame that the view up Gloucester Place is no longer what it used to be.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend's Department sets such a good example with its skyline. Seen from ground level it is perfect, with only a flagstaff at one end of each of the high blocks. It looks quite elegant. I have not looked at the building from the level of the roof. There may be things there which spoil the skyline, but perhaps my hon. Friend will assure us that that is not so. I hope he will be able to tell us that there are no blemishes on the roof of the Department of the Environment.

There are several tall buildings in my constituency which I should like to men- tion. Middlesex House, Ealing Road, to which those who come under the North Thames Gas Board pay their gas bills, could be vastly improved. There are large black erections which spoil the roof of this otherwise fairly white building. Harrow Technical. College could also look less ugly, and I hope that when the new Northwick Park Hospital is complete, if there are tall buildings they will have no blemishes.

The building constructed so skilfully from an engineering point of view on top of Wembley Central Station, under which anybody travelling on the line out of Euston goes, could have been made more symmetrical, but obviously it is too late to do anything about it now. Station House, on the corner of the North Circular Road and Harrow Road, could have had a more pleasing skyline. On the other hand, Wembley has a tall office block—York House—near Wembley Stadium—where an attempt has been made to conceal black erections on the roof by raising side walls. Unfortunately, the gaps in the side walls are a little too wide, and the unsightly erections can be seen through them.

I have skimmed through various documents provided for me by the Library—documents such as the Greater London Development Plan, studies made by the GLC, and articles of various kinds. Little official guidance seems to be given by the Government, the GLC or any other body about the details of the skyline problem. But London planning regulation No. 7 lays down that the location and effect on the skyline of tall buildings should be taken into consideration. This, clearly, has not been done in many cases. The GLC study of July 1972 says that the silhouette of tall buildings should be taken into consideration, but that, again, seems to have been ignored, though I do not think it has statutory authority.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the position. I hope that he will agree that this kind of ugliness is completely unnecessary and that his Department will be able to persuade the GLC and other local authorities not to allow any more ugliness of this kind. I also hope that he will be able to persuade the owners of these buildings to improve their skylines by fencing in ugly structures.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I am glad to have been able to provide the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) with an audience that he might not otherwise have had today, and I think that I can claim to be the only Member present, besides himself, who is here voluntarily. However, the hon. Member has raised some important issues.

The time has come seriously to reconsider the desirability of high-rise buildings, particularly for residential purposes. I know what the problem is in congested city centres where we want to rehouse people and also provide a certain amount of open space. The planners thought that high-rise buildings were the solution, but it is a very curious thing that no matter what tests we apply, or whatever kind of tenant we consider suitable for a high-rise block, we come up against serious difficulties. Some local authorities take the view that only older people who are not likely to have children should live at the top of high-rise buildings, but old people do not like to be cut off from the ground to that extent, and if a lift breaks down or there is some technical fault they are completely cut off. They could even starve to death—if kind neighbours were not willing to come to the rescue. On the other hand, the putting of young married couples at the top of a high-rise building creates other problems. If the children are playing outside the building they are a considerable distance from home. Moreover, their mothers cannot see them from the windows, as they could from old-fashioned houses.

The time has come for the Government to give some guidance to local authorities on the subject of high-rise buildings. I have raised this matter before in the House. It may well be that it would be better to spread people out rather than push them up into the sky.

That leads me to remind the Minister that I have advocated a much bigger bite being taken into land which is at present zoned as green belt but which has no immediate amenity value. I know that a few acres have been taken out for housing purposes but I think that we should go a good deal further than the Government are apparently willing to go. For instance, at Kingston there are two or three golf clubs very close together, and I ask myself whether, by a little judicious planning, one or two golf clubs might not be sufficient for that part of the world, so that the rest of the land could be used to accommodate the many thousands of people in serious need of accommodation who are at present living in the so-called stress areas.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity of dealing with the points that his hon. Friend and I have raised.

2.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

The effect of high buildings is a perennial topic of interest and concern. It has been raised on several occasions in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) himself put down a Question on it in August last year, but further debate and discussion is always useful, and I welcome very much the fact that my hon. Friend has raised this matter today. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who is always keenly interested himself in matters affecting London.

In general, an official attitude towards high buildings must depend very much on circumstances. Total prohibition might be appropriate and entirely desirable in an historic town where architectural preservation and retention of small scale is important, but in other towns a carefully planned pattern of high buildings might be desirable to give point to otherwise flat and uninteresting surroundings. Relative scale is very important. A building regarded as tall in a Cotswold market town would not necessarily be considered as such in an urban business centre.

My hon. Friend's principal concern is the changing skyline of London and it is shared by the hon. Member for Brixton. Tower blocks are now present for all to see, and few have escaped public controversy. The traditional pattern of London, dominated by churches and public buildings, has gone; which often gives rise to deep regret. No real coherent pattern seems as yet to have emerged in its place, but the tall building in London is still a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1930s there were virtually no high buildings in London; after this they began to appear gradually.

The rate of building increased appreciably after the 1939–45 war, and continued apace throughout the 1950s and '60s. This is not surprising in view of the shortage of land in urban areas, which inevitably leads to pressure for building upwards rather than outwards. There are also other reasons—perhaps prestige for a company head office, or perhaps because it is the fashionable architectural planning solution. But there are design reasons, too. A high building may be necessary to provide good lighting and working conditions for a given amount of floor space. Equally, a high building can release space at ground level for public movement, amenity or recreation.

To turn to the procedures for planning control, planning permission for high buildings is primarily a matter for the local planning authorities. It is important that the local planning authorities should evolve their own policies in the light of their particular circumstances.

In London the current regulations provide that the London boroughs must refer to the GLC any planning application for a building exceeding 150 feet in height in respect of a specified area in central London or exceeding 125 feet elsewhere in Greater London. The GLC may give a direction as to how such an application should be dealt with, taking into account the suitability of the site for a building of the height proposed and the effect which it would have on the skyline. The Secretary of State can become involved if the development proposed represents a substantial departure from the development plan or if it is the subject of an appeal. An application can also be called in for the Secretary of State's decision if it threatens to be highly controversial or if it is considered to have an effect which is regarded as being national rather than local in importance.

Mr. Lipton

Called in by whom?

Mr. Eyre

By the Secretary of State.

Special provisions exist for the consideration of any proposed development in the vicinity of a Royal Palace or Park. In such cases the local planning authority is obliged to consult the Department before granting planning permission for any development within half a mile of any Royal Palace or Park which might adversely affect its amenity. The Depart- ment naturally aims to secure modifications to any scheme which might have this effect.

The particular problems facing London have been appreciated by the local authorities, and in the early 1960s the then London County Council evolved a code of principles against which a high building should be judged. These principles covered particularly the protection of the skyline and traditional views, the effect on the immediately adjacent area, and the quality of architectural design and external finish.

Subsequently, when submitting its Greater London Development Plan in 1969, the Greater London Council made clear its view that high buildings constituted one of the most powerful visual elements in the metropolitan scene, and proposed a policy for controlling their location. This involved designating three types of area: first, where high buildings would be inappropriate; secondly, where the location would be particularly sensitive to the introduction of high buildings; and, thirdly, where a more flexible approach would be possible. The Lay-field Panel agreed that inappropriately sited high buildings could affect wide areas and cause "visual" blight; its comments on the GLC's proposed policy are being considered most carefully in the Department in common with all the other aspects of the Greater London Development Plan.

The problems of high buildings have also exercised the Royal Fine Art Commission. Many of the cases submitted to the commission concerned high buildings, and their effect on the urban scene, open spaces and Royal Parks. The commission is always a ready source of advice and assistance, and its views are most helpful to Government, local authorities and developers alike.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South raised several specific points. He particularly mentioned the view from the House of Commons Terrace, and his strictures are noted. The effect of the various buildings along the South Bank has always been a matter of keen debate. My Department shares the anxiety which is often expressed to ensure that riverside views are protected. The question of Thamesside development is very sensitive. I should mention in this connection the Secretary of State's decision last month to "call in" the planning application for the 372 feet high hotel on the South Bank behind the National Theatre.

I am aware that opinions differ on the development of St. Thomas's Hospital. Proposals for stage 2—which is now under consideration—were the subject of wide consultation and were given planning clearance by the Greater London Council. A model of the scheme was put on display in the Palace of Westminster on two separate occasions, in 1966 and 1969, so that hon. Members had an opportunity to make their views known.

My hon. Friend referred in strong terms to the damage to the views from Primrose Hill. I can only agree that the tower block flat development is prominent there.

My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of disguising machinery and other fittings on top of high-rise buildings. Some "machinery" is essential for ventilation, lifts, water tanks and so on. Most architects are sensitive to the need to conceal roof-top plant, and this can easily be done by adding screen walling. But there has been a phase of architectural fashion when angular shapes enclosing tanks and plant have been deliberately designed to provide skyline interest to blocks of flats. To answer my hon. Friend's specific question, these matters come within the purview of the local planning authority.

I much appreciate the kind remarks my hon. Friend made about the Department of the Environment buildings in Marsham Street. I have heard different views expressed. I have not so far had an opportunity of going on the roof of those buildings, but I will certainly do so as soon as possible and let my hon. Friend know the position about the fittings up there.

Turning to future trends, it is interesting to note that in the last few years in the country as a whole there has been a marked change in the attitude towards high-rise housing. The proportion of new dwellings built by local authorities in England and Wales in blocks of 15 or more storeys has declined from almost 10 per cent. in 1966 to less than 2 per cent. in 1970, and the trend is still decreasing. This bears out the view expressed by the hon. Member for Brixton. I have heard many complaints similar to those he voiced about the accommodation of older people and young couples with children in high-rise buildings.

It is clear from what has been said that in London a considerable amount of control and supervision is already exercised over the design and siting of high buildings. In recognition of the concern which tall buildings can cause, the Department took steps to include a provision in the 1973 Town and Country Planning General Development Order which requires public advertisement to be made by notice on the site and in the local newspapers of any proposed development more than 20 metres high. I am told that the Treasury building—the Bryden building—across Parliament Square is approximately this height.

Are more rigorous controls and more comprehensive guidance required? This is open to doubt. So much must depend on individual and local circumstances. Any detailed advice would need to go well beyond the general principles already well known to most local planning authorities, and even then that guidance could not be guaranteed to cover the whole range of possible situations.

What is important is that local planning authorities should consider the possible effect of a high building, not only on the immediate locality but also on the wider surrounding area and on the skyline itself. Great care and sensitivity are required by the local authorities in exercising their responsibilities.

However this may be, it would not be right to suggest that high buildings are universally to be deplored; in the urban situation today they are in many cases appropriate and meet an essential practical need, including the improvement of working conditions.

Developers and designers have a special responsibility when proposing to erect such a structure. Overall design, silhouette, materials and finish must be of high quality. The developer and the local authority have a joint responsibility to ensure that the public are fully acquainted with the details of the proposal. Models and photomontage are very useful for this purpose.

Efforts are being made in London by the local authorities to refine their policies and methods of control. They have access, where necessary, to expert bodies such as the Royal Fine Art Commission for advice. The Department will certainly do whatever it can to assist and encourage their efforts. But it would be wrong for central Government to attempt to undermine the public responsibilities for planning control which have properly been placed on these local authorities.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this interesting and important matter today.