Rayner gives M&S redevelopment the go-ahead

Angela Rayner has approved Marks & Spencer’s long-running battle to redevelop its Oxford Street shop. The secretary of state for housing, communities and local government has approved the development on appeal, overturning a decision by predecessor Michael Gove and upholding a High Court decision. M&S was first given the go-ahead to demolish its flagship store at 456-472 Oxford Street, W1, in 2021 and replace it with a new office building. However, Gove then stepped in to block the scheme, claiming that rebuilding it would harm local heritage. The redevelopment also faced criticism from heritage group SAVE Britain’s Heritage, which wanted to see the block extensively refurbished to reduce the carbon impact any redevelopment would have. However, Rayner has concluded that refurbishment of the scheme is “so deeply problematic” that it would be unviable. She also noted the impact of M&S leaving the site, if planning permission was refused, would have on the area. Stuart Machin, M&S chief executive, said: “I am delighted that, after three unnecessary years of delays, obfuscation and political posturing at its worst under the previous government, our plans for Marble Arch – the only retail-led regeneration proposal on Oxford Street – have finally been approved.” He said the firm could “now get on with the job of helping to rejuvenate the UK’s premier shopping street through a flagship M&S store and office space, which will support 2,000 jobs and act as a global standard-bearer for sustainability”. Machin added: “We share the government’s ambition to breathe the life back into our cities and towns and are pleased to see they are serious about getting Britain building and growing. We will now move as fast as we can.” Henrietta Billings, director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, labelled the decision a “missed opportunity”. Billings said: “The government has chosen the easy option – business as usual – when it had a real chance to show leadership and ambition on this urgent issue. “Our old, wasteful knock-it-down-and-start-again model is broken. There is real appetite in the construction sector for change. They’re crying out for clarity from government.” Jacob Loftus, chief executive of developer General Projects and an advocate for building reuse, said the whole M&S saga had distracted the sector from the real issue, which is that there’s no “referee” responsible for deciding when a building should be reused or demolished. Loftus said: “The whole process has gone on for far too long and it’s making a mockery of what is a very serious debate at a crucial time for the built world. It is imperative that we, as an industry, adopt a retrofit-first approach and seek to adapt existing buildings where possible. “But equally, that is not going to be the most appropriate solution for every existing asset and, in this case, is inconsistent with other demolition plans on Oxford Street.” He added: “M&S has become a poster-child for building reuse and has extended the debate far beyond the sector into the attention of the public and the government. But this single example is distracting us from the real issue at hand. “What we need is a clear and governable framework that outlines how we determine what to reuse and what to redevelop. I’m a firm believer that the most sustainable building already exists, but that’s not going to work in every case. “Currently, nobody is responsible for determining what is and isn’t acceptable, and the government needs to stop messing around with single cases and get to grips on this bigger issue.” Charles Begley, chief executive of the London Property Alliance, said he hoped Rayner’s decision would end the uncertainty around the project. “It is disappointing it has taken so long, which sends a negative message to those willing to invest in London and beyond,” Begley said. “The government now needs to ensure that planning reform supports sustainable redevelopment and, while giving stronger guidance to local councils, needs to set itself strict timelines to deal with contentious decisions once it intervenes to prevent a repeat of this long-running saga.” He added: “The fact that the property industry had been waiting for the outcome of this case for clarity is clearly a failure of national policy. The application itself had unfortunately become a lightning rod for the ‘retrofit v redevelopment’ debate, but we need to recognise that a more nuanced approach is needed, and policy must allow and support a range of interventions on a case-by-case basis.” See planning information for London’s West End >> Photo © Westminster City Council