Marks & Spencer’s plans to replace its historic Oxford Street store in London with a new mixed-use retail and office building have been rejected by Leveling Secretary Michael Gove, despite a planning inspector saying the plan should be approved.
CGI of the proposed scheme. Credit: Pilbrow & Partners / Marks and Spencer)
Gove said the public benefits of a new 10-storey building would “not offset” the heritage damage caused by the demolition of the existing unlisted 1929 building near Marble Arch, adding that the extent of embodied carbon caused by the proposed development “carries moderate weight” in his decision.
The landmark decision is a coup for heritage advocates and the fight against demolition. They pressed the government and the planning inspector to send a pro-sustainability message by blocking a high-profile demolition and rebuild plan in a case where, they argued, the complex of existing buildings could be reused.
However, Gove said the case should not set a precedent, explaining that his decision “is based on very specific facts, including the policy matrix of the relevant development plan, the inspector’s report and the evidence before the inquiry, which is unlikely to be replicated in other cases”.
Planning inspector David Nicholson recommended that Gove approve the scheme, noting that M&S would leave the site if its plans were rejected and it would likely mean “limited occupancy of the upper floors” in the future.
He said it was “unlikely that there would be significant refurbishment of the buildings” and that rejecting the plan would mean “the prospect of substantial office development”. [on the site] would be unlikely in the foreseeable future”.
It added that the development would be a “highly accessible location” and would generate “employment and regeneration benefits through improved retail and office space”. He also accepted M&S’s argument that the western end of Oxford Street could be harmed if the plan was rejected.
“A decision that made closure and partial vacancy more likely would not only miss out on potential benefits, but intensify concerns for the vitality and viability of Oxford Street,” he concluded.
However, the inspector acknowledged that “the extent of built-in energy that would be required is heavy […] very much against the scheme,” adding: “This is particularly relevant as the extent of carbon release would happen long before it could be provided by a decarbonised electricity grid.
“The applicant’s calculations suggest that a new building would perform better over its lifetime than a refurbishment, but even if this were found to be true, it would still produce far more carbon emissions than [if the development takes place] after the UK has achieved a net zero network”.
In an angry and lengthy response to the decision (published in full below), M&S chief executive Stuart Machin said the result was “utterly pathetic”, adding that the claim that the redevelopment was unsustainable was “nonsense” and suggested that Oxford Street is a “victim of politics and a willful disregard for the facts”.
Henrietta Billings, director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, the lead group which argued against the plan at a planning inquiry last autumn, said she “salutes” Gove for rejecting the redevelopment plan.
“This is a very important decision which rightly challenges the way we continually and needlessly knock down and rebuild important buildings in our towns and cities,” he said. “Reusing and converting the buildings we love and saving thousands of tonnes of CO2 in the process is a no-brainer. This is a very positive step and we salute the Secretary of State.”
Simon Sturgis, SAVE’s expert witness on embodied carbon at the consultation and founder of carbon consultancy Targeting Zero, said: “congratulations to Michael Gove for a very important and influential decision.
“This shows that the government is serious about the climate crisis and understands that real change is needed if we are to reach net zero by 2050. Now we need to move forward with national guidelines on planning and building regulations (eg Part Z). [a proposal to regulate embodied carbon]) to support this decision and deliver carbon reductions across the built environment industry.”
The rejection of the M&S Oxford Street scheme is not the first high-profile planning decision to be partly based on built-in carbon concerns. In November 2021, plans for the Tulip, a 305-metre-tall tourist attraction in the City of London, were also scrapped due to the amount of carbon emissions and heritage concerns.
However, in this case the planning inspector was less sympathetic to the public benefits of the scheme.
Gove said at the time that he “agrees[d] with the inspector…that the extensive measures that would be taken to minimize carbon emissions during construction would not compensate for the highly unsustainable concept of using large amounts of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft to transport visitors to the highest possible level to enjoy a view.”
M&S boss slams Secretary of State’s ‘myopic act of self-sabotage’
In response to Gove’s decision, Stuart Machin, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, said: “After a two-year process where our proposals were supported at every stage, our investment in 2,000 jobs, the construction of one of London’s most sustainable buildings, the improvement of the public realm and the creation of a flagship store has effectively been frozen.
“Today the Secretary of State has ignored his appointed expert David Nicholson, who recommended approval of our scheme.
“When 42 of the 269 shops on what should be our country’s main high street sit empty, disregarding the expert opinion and approval of the appointed planning inspector and playing to the gallery with the only proposal for retail-led regeneration is a short-sighted act of self-sabotage by the Secretary of State and its effects will be felt far beyond M&S.
“It is particularly upsetting given that there are currently 17 approved and ongoing demolitions in Westminster and four in Oxford Street alone, which makes it unfathomable why M&S’s proposal to redevelop an ancient and labyrinthine site that has twice been refused listed status has been rejected.
“The suggestion that the decision is based on sustainability makes no sense. If there wasn’t a retrofit option, despite the fact that we looked at 16 different options, the proposed building would have been ranked in the top 1% of the most sustainable buildings in the whole city. It would have used less than a quarter of the energy of the existing structure, cut water use in half and returned carbon within 11 years of construction. It is also completely at odds with the research process, where it went accept analysis on sustainability, including from independent experts Arup.
“We cannot let Oxford Street fall victim to politics and a willful disregard for the facts. At a time when vacancy rates on what should be the country’s main shopping street are 13% higher than the UK high street average and Westminster Council is calling for help to manage the growing proliferation of sweet shops.[s]the Secretary of State has inexplicably taken an anti-business approach, stifling growth and denying Oxford Street thousands of new quality jobs, a better public realm and what would be a modern, sustainable, flagship M&S store.
“There is no leveling up without a strong and growing capital, but the ripple effect extends far beyond Oxford Street. Towns and cities across the country will feel the full effects of this chilling decision, with decaying buildings and derelict sites now destined to lie empty as developers withdraw. The nation’s fragile economic recovery needs the government to give confidence to sustainable regeneration and investment, as well as follow due process; a London and across the UK Today the Secretary of State indicated that he is more interested in cheap headlines than facts and if he wasn’t so serious he would be laughable.
“We’ve been clear from the start that there is no other viable scheme, so after nearly a century in Marble Arch, M&S now has no choice but to revise its future position on Oxford Street at the whim of one man. It’s utterly pathetic.”
