The controversial plans to build a 305-metre high tower in London, to be known as the Tulip, have been thrown out by the UK government.

The proposed tourist attraction, designed by Foster + Partners, has been rejected by the UK government over concerns, among others, of embodied carbon and the quality of its design, calling it a “muddle of architectural ideas”.

Plans to build the skyscraper right next to the Gherkin, also designed by Foster + Partners, were submitted in 2018 by Bury Street Properties, backed by the Brazilian banking dynasty Safra Group headed by billionaire Joseph Safra. The firm had also bought the Gherkin site for a reported £726m in 2014.

The Tulip was initially approved by the City of London Corporation in 2019 but London mayor, Sadiq Khan, threw it out saying it would result in “very limited public benefit” and dismissing the design’s “insufficient quality” and resulting “harm to London’s skyline”.

Following an appeal launched by the developer and a six-month public inquiry, during which the developer argued that the building would give the capital a much-needed boost following the pandemic, the government decided to call in the final decision.

The government’s decision, which ended a long-running saga of contradictory decisions on the fate of the planned development at Bury Street in London’s financial district, is subject to a right of appeal to the High Court.

The appeal was decided by Housing Secretary Michael Gove who concluded that the economic, tourism and educational benefits of the Tulip were outweighed by the harm it would cause “to the significance of designated heritage assets”.

In his decision letter, Gove argued that the Tulip would “seriously detract” from the value of the nearby Tower of London, partly because the Tulip would rise up into the sky directly behind the historic fortress when viewed from Tower Bridge.

He also felt that the Tulip’s design of the bud-shaped tower carried “significant weight” against it, adding that “the development would not amount to a design of outstanding quality and that the quality of design would not be nearly high enough as to negate its harm to the settings of heritage assets”.

“The extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft to transport visitors to as high a level as possible to enjoy a view,” the decision letter said.

Citing embodied carbon, a major contributor to CO2 emissions and, thus, to climate change, in a planning decision letter is a major breakthrough for the British government. This could be the result of discussions and outcome of COP26 and its focus on the built environment.

Currently, we consider only the ‘in-use’ costs of a building – heating, ventilation, lighting, water, waste, maintenance – and how to reduce these costs. However, there are also the ‘embodied energy’ costs that go into construction and demolition: quarrying, cement, smelting steel, brickmaking, shipping materials to site, putting them in place, taking them down again and disposing of them.  There’s little point building something that performs brilliantly in use if it takes decades or centuries to pay back the expenditure of energy that went into its construction.

Cement accounts for about eight per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions- Vincent Cassar

Concrete, for example, is made with cement, a material that singlehandedly accounts for about eight per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing embodied carbon is a particularly important strategy because it will help us meet large-scale emission reduction targets.

To cut embodied carbon in new construction, we need to reduce the use of the highest emitting materials like concrete, steel, aluminium and foam insulation. 

However, the simplest and most effective way to slash embodied carbon in the short term is to choose an existing building. Yet, as most of the building stock of the future is already with us and as demolition and rebuilding entail the throwing away of whatever went into making the original building, the latter is likely to be more attractive than the former.

There is the need to develop patterns of design and building to improve the quality of life of our communities and by learning from and advancing the local knowledge and traditional methods that have been adapted to climate and context over generations.

Britain’s engineers have already started urging their government to stop buildings being demolished. They say the construction industry should, where possible, reuse buildings, employ more recycled material and use machinery powered by clean fuels. They are also concerned about “embodied emissions” when constructing buildings and manufacturing materials, such as bricks, steel, cement  and concrete.

They also advocate several other built-environment suggestions, including the integration of circular design principles in all architecture, design and engineering degree courses; the introduction of mandatory product standards to reduce embodied emissions in construction materials; and the creation of markets for recycled construction materials through the introduction of tax adjustments and construction standards.

If built, the Tulip would have become the tallest tower in the City and the second tallest in London, just five metres short of the Shard on the other side of the river.

Its design includes a 12-storey glass dome on top of a concrete pole, with observation decks open to the public, bars and restaurants, as well as glass slides and bridges inside.

However, the decision letter notes that “conversely, the chosen purpose, form, materials and location have resulted in a design that would cause considerable harm to the significance of the Tower of London and further harm to other designated heritage assets”.

Welcoming the news, Historic England said: “We have long been of the opinion that the Tulip would be visually intrusive and highly incongruous from key viewpoints of the Tower, detracting from the experience of visiting the site for millions of tourists and Londoners.”

Vincent Cassar is chairman of the Planning Board, Planning Authority and also immediate past president of the Commonwealth Association of Architects.