This concept of tall buildings is one that London's Mayor finds very attractive. Favoured sites are major transport nodes. Although this principally means railway termini, practically any tube station might be regarded as such, and this could lead to the pepperpotting of towers all over London, and a consequent free-for-all for property developers. What is needed from the Mayor is a definite policy, not arbitrary choices.

The threat posed to the historic skyscape and fabric of London by these tower blocks is immense. Although views of St. Paul's are already offered a degree of protection, clusters of 200 metre-plus towers will detract from other aspects of the historic skyline which remain unprotected. Foremost among these is the Royal Parks, which have suffered since the 1960s from the construction of high rise buildings around them, and remain unprotected.

Furthermore, towers rip through the existing fabric, and alter the way in which people use the area. One only has to look across the channel to Paris to see the effect which the 1970s' Montparnasse tower (incidentally, at a major railway terminus) had on the arrondisment, tearing the heart out of the local community, and creating a series of bland, unused and unloved plazas in the surrounding area.

Do we really want to see this happening all over London? SAVE thinks not. There is a case for tall buildings within the existing clusters in the City and Docklands, but in the absence of any proper guidelines and policy, London will suffer severely. We await the Mayor's overdue Spatial Development Strategy. No decisions should be made which might pre-empt this. To repeat the assertion made in our previous newsletter, the longer the issue of tall building policy is left open, the more proposals will slip through the planning system.

The Sky is not the Limit: The height of towers in London is constrained by the flight paths into Heathrow and London City airports. The Civil Aviation Authority has set a limit of 1000 ft for buildings in central London. Any proposal approved for buildings above that height will be refered to the Secretary of State at the DETR as dangerous.

Hyde Park is not Central Park: The beauty of the Royal Parks, admired around the world, is the sense of rus in urbe, of apparantly boundless countryside within the capital. Though punctured in certain places by the towers of the Hilton and Royal Lancaster hotels and Knightsbridge barracks, the horizon in many parts of the Royal Parks remains filled with trees, not buildings, providing beauty, air, and space that all Londoners can enjoy. This is a precious asset which must be protected, ideally by seeking World Heritage status for the Royal Parks which they surely deserve.

Safeguard the protected views: Central London has a limited number of protected views, several of them from vantage points at the heights above the central plain - from Hampstead, Highgate and Greenwich. It has been suggested that the dome of St. Paul's is insignificant from these veiws - this is simply not true.

No license to print money: Any planning pernission to build a high rise tower in place of much lower buildings increases the value of the site and constitutes a vast planning gain. Developers who are given such permissions must be made to make a permanent and substantial contribution to the public realm in terms of amenity. In many cases tight sites make the creation of outdoor space impossible (and piazzas are rarely desirable beneath towers). The gain must be provided by public space and amenities within the building at both lower and upper levels, secured in such a way that the local authority is bound in law to ensure public access is maintained.

Say where the towers should go: If London is to have more high rise buildings, it is essential to identify in advance a select number of sites - in the City and Canary Wharf for example, where high rise building will be considered - to prevent a rash of applications all over London which will have a blighting effect on surrounding areas.

Uphold the protection of listed buildings: There are a sufficient number of sites in the City and Docklands where towers can be built without involving the demolition of buildings of special historic and architectural interest.

Every Borough does not need a virility symbol: There is a danger that London Boroughs, left to themselves, will compete with each other in approving tower proposals. The greater attraction of London as a World City is that is has so many exceptionally pleasant and attractive residential areas, where people can live in tranquil surroundings, with their own gardens, hardly concious that they are in a busy city. Great caution must be exercised on any tower proposal overlooking a residential area, and wide ranging consultation carried out.

Local Views: Towers can intrude on views which are much valued by local people - across a local park, square or green, or behind a church spire, or a well frequented pub, as well as larger and more obvious landmarks.

Environmental Impact Studies: Every tower proposed must be subject to an independent Environmental Impact Study, commissioned at the developer's expense, but not edited or censored by him. This must address the questions of viability, shadowing and microclimate, especially downdraughts created by around high rise buildings. Every proposal should be subject to rigorous wind tunnel tests to determine the impact on neighbouring streets and open spaces.

The first of these welcome concessions is a cut the level of VAT payable on residential conversions from 17.5% to 5%. This should make the prospect of converting former industrial buildings and other non-residential buildings into residential accommodation more attractive to both individuals property developers.

Secondly, he has proposed provision for a 100% capital allowance to renovate empty flats over shops. This should encourage owners to bring these underused and undervalued spaces back to life, although it will do nothing to encourage mixed use in new developments.

The proposed cut in VAT on repairs to "listed buildings used as places of worship" has been replaced with a grant to help repairs, which should consist about two thirds of the VAT bill in the repairs. The advantage of this grant over a simple cut in VAT is that it would have taken between three and five years for Brussels to clear the proposed cut, whereas the grant will hopefully be more immediate. However, while welcoming this measure, we have to wait for the small print to come through, as the phrase "listed buildings used as places of worship" has yet to be clarified: does it include needy redundant churches and religious buildings, or solely those with congregations?