Michael Gove has rejected controversial plans by Marks & Spencer to demolish and then redevelop its flagship store on London’s Oxford Street, a proposed scheme that found itself at the centre of real estate’s “retrofit or rebuild” debate.
A decision notice said the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities disagreed with the Planning Inspectorate that the scheme should be approved and “does not consider that there has been an appropriately thorough exploration of alternatives to demolition” for Orchard House at 456-472 Oxford Street, W1.
M&S chief executive Stuart Machin described the decision as “a short-sighted act of self-sabotage”, adding: “Oxford Street, which is in desperate need of regeneration, has become the victim of politics and a wilful disregard of the facts.”
The decision notice said: “[Gove] does not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that refurbishment would not be deliverable or viable and nor has the applicant satisfied the secretary of state that options for retaining the buildings have been fully explored, or that there is compelling justification for demolition and rebuilding.”
It added: “The proposal would in part fail to support the transition to a low-carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings.”
Machin countered: “The suggestion the decision is on the grounds of sustainability is nonsensical. With retrofit not an option – despite us reviewing 16 different options – our proposed building would have ranked in the top 1% of the entire city’s most sustainable buildings. It would have used less than a quarter of the energy of the existing structure, reduced water consumption by over half, and delivered a carbon payback within 11 years of construction. It is also completely at odds with the inquiry process where the analysis on sustainability, including from independent experts Arup, was accepted.”
He continued: “There is no levelling up without a strong, growing capital city, but the ripple effect extends well beyond Oxford Street. Towns and cities up and down the country will feel the full effects of this chilling decision, with decaying buildings and brownfield sites now destined to remain empty as developers retreat. The nation’s fragile economic recovery needs government to give confidence to sustainable regeneration and investment as well as following due process, in London and across the UK… We have been clear from the outset that there is no other viable scheme – so, after almost a century at Marble Arch, M&S is now left with no choice but to review its future position on Oxford Street on the whim of one man. It is utterly pathetic.”
Gove’s decision notice acknowledged the chance that M&S will now vacate the site. “The secretary of state notes that M&S has stated that it will not continue to occupy and trade from the store for very much longer if permission is refused. Whether or not M&S leaves the store following the secretary of state’s decision is a commercial decision for the company. However, taking into account the locational advantages of the site, the secretary of state does not agree with the inspector that redevelopment is the only realistic option to avoid a vacant and/or underused site.”
At Save Britain’s Heritage, a charity that produced a critical report on the scheme during the public inquiry, director Henrietta Billings said: “This is a hugely important decision that rightly challenges the way we continually and needlessly knock down and rebuild important buildings across our towns and cities. Repurposing and converting buildings we cherish and saving thousands of tonnes of CO2 in the process is a no-brainer. This is a massive positive step and we salute the secretary of state.”
Real estate leaders reacting to the news included General Project’s Jaob Loftus, who said: “The most sustainable building is one that already exists. This is simple to grasp, but currently there is no incentive for developers to choose reuse over demolition, other than an ambition to ‘do the right thing’. There are, at this stage, no set rules – no ‘referee’ – to determine how to balance one scenario against the other. The government intervention in this case is testament to the complexity of the debate…
“But while the key argument is about carbon emissions, the underlying consideration is one of our ownership of, and responsibility to tackle, the climate crisis. The science of carbon payback used to justify demolition and new-build does not tackle the problem today, it merely passes it on to the next generation. The carbon emissions of new schemes like this one will exist for hundreds of years.”
Loftus added: “We are better equipped than ever before to reformat old buildings to exceed modern-day energy standards and reimagine them to be better for people and the planet. I hope that M&S now takes stock and looks again at the enormous potential in this building, which has fantastic character and value, and with creative reuse could be a beacon of sustainability, while remaining commercially viable.”
London Property Alliance chief executive Charles Begley said the organisation supports a retrofit-first policy but said such decisions “cannot be binary”. He said: “While the secretary of state’s decision sends a political message, it does not provide the substantive planning policy guidance that the property sector and local councils need to make finely balanced decisions around upgrading or demolishing poorly performing buildings.”
Gove called the scheme in for review last summer, after Westminster approved the plans. Since then it was the subject of a public inquiry between October and November.
M&S now has six weeks in which to appeal.
To send feedback, e-mail tim.burke@eg.co.uk or tweet @_tim_burke or @EGPropertyNews
See also: Real estate on what comes next after M&S rejection
See which agents are doing the most deals in the London submarkets with our On-Demand Rankings >>
