What’s going on with M&S Oxford Street?
Posted on: 9 December, 2024
Marks and Spencer have been embroiled in a dispute with the government for four years that has raised questions around sustainability and the built environment. Here’s the latest.
On Oxford Street in London, the future of a clothing brand’s flagship store has spiralled into a heated debate about the future of the built environment.
Last week, Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, granted permission to Marks & Spencer to demolish and redevelop its Marble Arch store.
This update is the latest twist in a saga that has come to epitomise the challenge of balancing heritage and sustainable development in the built environment, and raised questions around the government’s approach to planning and retrofitting.
In this article, we’ll dive into the history of the Marble Arch project and explore the environmental concerns that have been raised from both sides of the debate.
The background: why M&S want to demolish the store
News of permission being granted to Marks & Spencer’s proposed demolition is the latest twist in a saga that has lasted four years. Just this March, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Levelling Up for the Conservative government, rejected the retail giant’s demolition plans after the brand launched legal action.
We’ve put together a timeline, tracking the progress of the plans from their initial announcement through to the latest update:
March 2021: M&S announces plans
M&S have occupied the Marble Arch store on Oxford Street since the 1930s, shortly after its construction. In 2021, the brand released a statement revealing their plans to demolish and rebuild the site into a new mixed-use retail and office complex.
Learn more: Are mixed-use developments the future of construction?
From the outset, the project was met with criticism. British charity SAVE Britain’s Heritage and the Architects Journal campaign RetroFirst were among the key drivers of the protests against M&S, claiming that the demolition project would release as much as 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – the equivalent of almost 20,000 London to Sydney flights. A critical report by Zero Carbon expert Simon Sturgis claimed the Marble Arch plans ‘were directly at odds with government policy’.
April 2022: Plans approved
Despite concerns, the plans were approved by both the Westminster council and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, in April 2022.
October 2022: Public inquiry launched
However, a public inquiry proposed by Michael Gove was launched later in October.
July 2023: Government rejects plans
By July of 2023, the plans were rejected by the government.
This news came as a relief to many environmental campaigners, after two years of protests and petitions against the project.
Unsurprisingly, M&S were unhappy with the move. Stuart Machin, CEO of M&S, claimed that retrofitting the building ‘was not an option – despite us reviewing sixteen different options’. He dubbed the decision to be ‘pathetic’, ‘anti-business’ and ‘the whim of one man’. They also went on to argue that, despite the arguments for the site’s heritage, it had twice been denied listed status.
Yet while it was seen as a win at the time for environmental campaigners that signalled a shift towards a policy of retrofitting, the move by the government wasn’t without criticism. Many believed the decision to block the project was a symbolic act to mark a change in governmental policy that hadn’t actually happened yet. As such, M&S identified 17 other, similar demolition projects which had been approved in Westminster.
Learn more: What does the UK general election mean for the built environment?
August 2023: M&S launches legal action
M&S responded by launching a legal challenge and ‘reviewing their future position’ on Oxford Street.
March 2024: M&S win in court
M&S took the government to court and won, with Mrs Justice Nathalie Lieven ruling that Gove had effectively “rewritten” planning policy in his decision.
As M&S Operations Director Sacha Berendji commented:
“The result has been a long, unnecessary and costly delay to the only retail-led generation on Oxford Street which would deliver one of London’s greenest buildings, create thousands of new jobs and rejuvenate the capital’s premier shopping district.”
December 2024: Rayner gives M&S permission to proceed
Angela Rayner’s decision to give the green light for the Marble Arch proposal is a remarkable twist that may well reflect how the new Labour government’s approach to planning policy and development will differ from their predecessors.
Stuart Machin has been quick to welcome the update, commenting:
“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.
“We can 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.”
However, not all reactions have been positive. As Rab Bennetts, co-founder of Bennetts Associates, commented in an update in the Architect’s Journal, the decision ‘misses a golden opportunity’ to set out a clear strategy ‘for a confused industry.’
Amanda Lewis, Programme Leader for UCEM’s MSc in Urban Planning, commented:
“It is extremely hard to prove that a new building has any chance of being a better environmental proposition, if it involves demolition of an existing masonry construction. There are a wide range of adaptation measures which should have the ability to produce a building that serves M&S requirements.
“If climate change were taken seriously at governmental level, no one would even suggest granting permission to demolish. It is a short-sighted decision, even when the argument for economic growth is used to counter it.”
Laird Ryan, Urban Planning Lecturer at UCEM, added:
“For the planning process to have any vestige of credibility, it has to be based in law. And not just that: on law that’s interpreted and applied in a transparent and consistent manner. All who engage with planning, and most especially Ministers of the Crown, must therefore behave in accordance with planning law, and not make planning decisions in the manner of a beauty contest.”
Simon Strugis, who previously published a report that criticised the plans, took to LinkedIn to decry the news:
“Last week at COP29 the Prime Minister committed the government to going from 78% reductions by 2035 to 81% reductions. This week the government approves #M&S demolition. Direct conflict!”
The debate: did M&S consider retrofitting?
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the Marble Arch project is the question of retrofitting.
Updating old buildings through activities like retrofitting and adaptive reuse has emerged as a popular alternative to demolition amid concerns around sustainability. Retrofitting activities like installing electric heat pumps can reduce the energy demand in properties by as much as 50%.
Many of the protests around the proposed Marble Arch project questioned why the brand hadn’t pursued a retrofitting project. As Henrietta Billings, Director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, commented:
“There’s no need to demolish this historic M&S building. Through our campaign, we’ve shown that with a comprehensive retrofit, this building can continue to serve as a landmark on Oxford Street for the next 100 years.”
Will Hurst, Managing Editor the Architects Journal, added:
“To combat global warming, we urgently need to halt unnecessary demolition and revitalise buildings instead.”
Learn more: Breaking the path to appropriate, sustainable interventions
M&S acknowledged that they expected criticism for the project in their initial statement four years ago. They claimed to ‘have been looking very closely at options for refurbishing the store’, but that it ‘quickly became clear that redevelopment was the only viable way forward to re-imagine a store that will be fit for purpose and fit for the future’.
The high street brand also stated that the new project ‘offered significant sustainability advantages over a refurbishment because over the long term, the modern lower-carbon building will more than offset any emissions from the redevelopment’. They also claimed that the building ‘would be among London’s most sustainable’ and would pay back the construction emissions in 11 years. However, campaigners claimed that the brand hadn’t considered a deep retrofit.
Learn more: A guide to retrofitting (and how it could help us reach net zero)
What’s next?
While it looks like the demolition will go ahead, there’s still every chance that we haven’t seen the end of this debate. For now, it’s come to represent an important shift in sustainable policy, the future of the built environment, and the challenge of balancing the modernisation of infrastructure with the preservation of heritage.
As Charles Begley, Chief Executive of the London Property Alliance, noted of the saga:
“The fact that the property industry had been waiting the outcome of this case for clarity is clearly a failure of national policy.
“The application itself has unfortunately become a lightning rod for the ‘retrofit v redevelopment’ debate.
What are your thoughts on the Marble Arch project? Get in touch with us at press@ucem.ac.uk.
