The fate of the M&S building on Oxford Street has been long awaited with the original application being validated in July 2021, but today that decision has been made, with the Secretary of State rejecting plans for its demolition.
M&S proposed to rebuild their flagship store, demolishing the 1929 art deco Marble Arch store on Oxford Street, replacing it with a new 10-storey retail and office block. The retailer argued that the redevelopment was needed to help revive the shopping district and help the company meet its net-zero targets, bringing it up to modern energy standards.
The original application was granted approval by Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority. However, the application was called in by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, who raised concerns relating to the environmental impact of its demolition.
Throughout the Public Inquiry, which took place last year, the proposals faced fierce backlash from heritage and climate professionals and campaign groups such as SAVE Britain’s Heritage. Campaigners argued that the loss of 40,000 tonnes of embodied carbon combined with the harm on the setting of the surrounding heritage assets should lead to its refusal.
After months of deliberation, the decision was made to go against the Inspector’s recommendation and refuse permission. The Secretary of State found ‘less than substantial harm’ to the surrounding heritage assets, in particular, the adjacent Grade II* listed Selfridge’s building. In accordance with policy, this carries great weight in the decision making process.
In spite of the M&S store being rejected for listing, the Secretary of State also found that the building carried significant value in its own right and in its context and that the harm its loss would cause would also hold substantial weight in the decision. Quoting the decision notice, the Secretary of State “considers that the proposal would overall fail to conserve the heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.”
Deliberation was given to matters concerning the sustainability of the proposals with an understanding being reached that the new proposals would utilise the latest technologies to create a highly sustainable new build. However, the Secretary of State argued that there should be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings as reflected in planning policy and concludes that a strong reason would be needed to justify demolition and rebuilding. The Secretary of State also deemed that not enough consideration had been given to alternate proposals which would see the retrofit of the existing building.
Through the Inquiry, the Secretary of State found that the substantial amount of carbon that would go into the construction of the proposed building would impede the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy and fail to support the low-carbon future.
Whilst public benefits were found in the creation of a coherent new building and additional employment, this did not hold enough weight to outweigh the harm. Overall, the Secretary of State found that the conflicts with the local and national planning policies and material considerations indicate that permission should be refused.
So what does this decision mean and why is it important?
This landmark decision demonstrates a clear drive to place the climate crisis and the UK’s net-zero ambitions to the forefront of decision making. It is evident from the decision notice that the future sustainability aspirations of a new building failed to outweigh the loss of an existing one. Whilst this sets a clear precedent for the retention of our existing buildings, the decision notice states that each application should be assessed in its own right and unique set of circumstances.
The decision of each application will be based on the context of the relevant local and national policy. Whilst the emerging Westminster City Plan places great emphasis on the refurbishment of existing buildings, this is not always the case with other, decidedly outdated local plans across the country. The planning policy urgently needs to reflect the UK’s net-zero targets to ensure the retention of our existing built form is prioritised in decision making. Further reform to taxes and legislation is also needed to encourage developers to reuse and retrofit their existing buildings, with works to existing buildings still facing VAT costs compared to the exemption given to new builds.
Whilst much of the focus on the M&S case has been on the sustainability arguments and loss of embodied carbon, the decision notice emphasises the great weight placed on the conservation of our heritage assets. This decision is significant in putting the established legislation and policy into practice through refusing a scheme that would see the loss of a non-designated art deco building and cause harm to its surrounding heritage.
This decision places a clear emphasis on the retention of our existing buildings, calling for us to rethink the need for demolition and look for ways to value our heritage through creative reuse and retrofit scheme which not only conserves our historic buildings but help us move towards a net-zero future. It is undoubtedly a landmark case, however time will tell as to its impact throughout the sector and the future of inner city development. Whilst this case has placed great emphasis on the retention of our existing buildings, demolition proposals still continue to gain consent throughout the UK’s cities, with a greater push being given to densification and effective plot use. It will be interesting to see the effects of this decision play out in the coming months as the focus grows on the UK’s net-zero goals.
For further information, contact Emma Healey at Cheffins on 01223 609747, emma.healey@cheffins.co.uk