M&S decision shows Gove’s willingness to go against planning inspectors

A recent decision by the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities contradicted the planning inspector’s recommendation to grant permission, blocking redevelopment of a flagship Marks and Spencer store. The decision by the secretary of state to refuse permission for M&S to demolish and redevelop its London Oxford Street store, published on 20 July 2023, contradicted the planning inspector’s recommendation for permission and followed the call-in of the proposed development in June 2022. The call-in was made under the secretary of state’s powers and meant that the decision was determined by the secretary of state rather than the local planning authority. The original application was made by M&S in June 2021, with a public local inquiry held in autumn 2022. The plans included demolition of three existing buildings for the construction of a multi-storey mixed-use development. The planning inspector’s detailed report to the secretary of state, published on 1 February 2023, weighed up the benefits of the plans against potential environmental impacts, but ultimately recommended the granting of permission. In the secretary of state’s decision, the main issues considered were: heritage impacts; the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy; public benefits; whether public benefits would outweigh heritage harms; whether the same benefits could be achieved with less harm; and the extent to which the proposal is consistent with development plan and national policies. The secretary of state paid especial attention to apparent conflicts between the proposed development and development plan policies D3 and 38 dealing with design, as well as partial conflict with heritage policies HC1 and 39 and the extensive environmental impact of the proposals. These conflicts led to the conclusion that the application conflicted with the development plan as a whole. The secretary of state went on to consider whether other material considerations outweighed the development plan. Significant weight was placed on the unacceptable level of heritage and environmental harms (including the substantial amount of carbon used in construction) which supported a refusal of permission, despite acceptance by the secretary of state that such a refusal could result in harms such as to the vitality and viability of the area. This decision demonstrates a willingness by the secretary of state to intervene in planning decisions where it is considered necessary, and to go against the recommendations of planning inspectors made following detailed analysis of the planning position. Martha Kent is a trainee solicitor in the planning and environmental team at Irwin Mitchell