The Secretary of State Michael Gove (SoS), has refused planning permission for Marks & Spencer's (M&S) planning application to demolish and redevelop its Oxford Street store. The decision was called in and goes against Westminster City Council, the Greater London Authority and the Planning Inspector.
The decision turned on two key issues:
Impact on heritage
The SoS found that the impact on surrounding designated heritage assets, including (the Grade II listed) Selfridges and adjacent conservation areas, was a key factor.
There are three M&S buildings on the site and one of them (Orchard House) had previously been rejected for listing. In spite of that, the SoS found that it contributed positively to the setting of Selfridges. This meant that demolition of it would cause harm that should be accorded "very great" and "significant weight".
The sustainability of the scheme
The SoS acknowledged the sustainability credentials of the proposed scheme but found that M&S had not shown that the carbon reductions would offset the existing embodied carbon. He concluded that the proposals would "fail to support the transition to a low carbon future" and applied a "strong presumption" in favour of repurposing the buildings.
The SoS also found that the evidence put forward by M&S that there was no alternative to demolition was inadequate.
Implications for developers
This decision turned on its own facts and the SoS went out of his way to reinforce that.
The root of the difference in the positions that various decision takers took is based on whether the proposed scheme accorded with the development plan. The inspector concluded it did and the SoS concluded it didn't.
The rejection of demolition of a non-designated heritage asset because of its impact on designated heritage assets and conservation areas is important.
Most of the headlines have drawn attention to the embodied carbon argument in favour of reusing the building. This is the less weighty of the reasons given for the decision. However, since it is such a high-profile decision and ultimately came down in favour of retaining and reusing the existing building, it may well be seen as the start of the tide turning in favour of reusing existing buildings and saving the embodied carbon.
The decision has shown that developers cannot rely on the sustainability credentials of any proposed schemes. Developers will need to be particularly rigorous in their evidence that other options are not viable or deliverable.
M&S threatened to leave the site if the decision went against them and ultimately the SoS thought that this would not be significant. It remains to be seen whether M&S will follow through with their threat and the impact that this decision will have on the future of Oxford Street.
If you would like further information or to discuss this please contact
Jade.Chalmers@howardkennedy.com
or Bob.Sadler@howardkennedy.com
Want to hear more from us? 
