Tulip carbon decision could change how big projects are assessed

建筑师、规划师和律师们表示，英国政府否决福斯特建筑事务所(Foster & Partners)设计的郁金香建筑的部分理由是，该建筑使用混凝土的“高度不可持续”，这可能开创了一个“改变游戏规则”的先例。

其他大型项目现在在规划时可能会面临更大的困难，它们的可持续性证书将受到严格审查。

In arulingthat was backed by Michael Gove and his housing minister Christopher Pincher, planning inspector David Nicholson noted that the Tulip would require the demolition of an office building less than 20 years old. The scheme replacing it would not be carbon neutral and would not achieve zero-carbon on site, although he acknowledged the designers had gone to “enormous lengths” to make its construction and operation environmentally friendly.

Nicholson described as “highly unsustainable” the 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”.

While surrounding office towers used similar quantities of concrete in their cores, this was easier to justify because of the buildings’ purpose, he said, adding: “At [Eric Parry’s consented] 1 Undershaft there would be more than 130,000sq m of highly valuable employment floorspace to justify the servicing.”

This is the first time we’ve seen excessive embodied carbon and an unsustainable whole lifecycle cited by ministers as a reason for refusing a major scheme

Henrietta Billings

Nicholson also questioned what would happen if the view from the Tulip were to be eclipsed in a few years by future towers. There would be little motivation for a redundant attraction to be disassembled by its overseas-based owner and no incentive for other developers to buy the site since it was too small for a normal office tower. This would potentially saddle the City with a “problematic” 305m shaft of degrading concrete, he said.

Nicholson’s report also listed as reasons for rejecting the scheme its design quality and the “considerable harm” it would do to the setting of the Tower of London World Heritage Site.

But it was the inclusion of carbon as a material consideration that has stimulated the most debate.

“This is the first time we’ve seen excessive embodied carbon and an unsustainable whole lifecycle cited by ministers as a reason for refusing a major scheme,” said Henrietta Billings, director of campaign group Save Britain’s Heritage and a qualified town planner.

“We hope it will mark a step change in the way large-scale proposals are assessed – including schemes involving wasteful demolition.”

Rab Bennetts, co-founder of Bennetts Associates, said relying on objectivity rather than hype made the ministers’ decision a big step in the right direction for a city that had pledged to be net-zero carbon by 2030.

”They need to establish policies to make this happen,” he said. ”The refusal of the Tulip on embodied carbon grounds sets a huge precedent, but this isn’t about refusal for all new construction. Each significant new development will have to do the numbers to prove its case, with justification for any demolition and whole lifecycle figures for new-build.”

A source at a large practice with a number of UK towers under its belt called the decision a milestone and, while sympathising with Fosters, privately described the precedent set as “very positive”.

Responding to news that the Tulip team is locked in discussions over whether to go back to the drawing board in a bid to rescue the £500m project, the source added: “Wouldn’t it be a turnaround if Fosters were able to come back with a sustainable building that turned the ruling back on the planners by forcing them to approve non-standard construction materials.”

Charles Russell Speechlys的合伙人、规划律师莉迪亚•奥哈根表示，这一决定“可能是高层建筑面临更困难时期的一个迹象”。她补充说:“随着最近新伦敦规划的采用和即将到来的开发商税，通过规划系统管理高层建筑可能会变得越来越困难。”