The story so far
Marks and Spencer had applied for planning permission to demolish and redevelop their Oxford Street store, with the planned new scheme to include offices and a gym as well as a smaller retail space, and public realm. The proposal was supported by Westminster City Council who recommended that planning permission was granted subject to a section 106 agreement. Indeed, the sub-committee report noted the “severe shortcomings of the existing accommodation” and thought that “redevelopment would provide significantly improved accommodation and facilitate commercial growth on the West End International frontage”. London Mayor Sadiq Khan decided not to intervene and further supported Westminster City Council’s view, noting that it was in line with the Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments London Plan Guidance (LPG) and the Circular Economy Statements LPG. However, Michael Gove, as the then Secretary of State, put any decision on hold, declaring that he would determine the application himself, ordering a public inquiry to consider the scheme.
The reasoning given for the intervention is that Gove, who is now back as Secretary of State, wishes to assess whether the scheme is in accordance with national planning policy. It is expected that the inquiry, which began on 25 October, will consider whether the carbon impact of demolishing and rebuilding the store is disproportionate to the benefits, despite the fact that the new building was supposed to use 25% less energy than the existing store. Indeed, complaints from campaigners claimed that the project would release almost 40,000 tonnes of CO² into the atmosphere which is “the equivalent of driving a typical car 99,000,000 miles, further than the distance to the Sun”, according to Architects Journal.
In this instance, it seems that proposing an energy efficient building was not enough. Indeed, it is not just the carbon usage of a building that is under scrutiny. Instead the carbon efficiency of the proposed building, in other words the expected operational carbon savings, are being weighed against the potential one-off carbon costs associated with demolition and rebuild (the embedded carbon). As we saw with the “Tulip” building in 2021, the carbon impact of a building has been of increasing importance in recent years and it seems that this consideration is here to stay.
What’s next?
Despite the rhetoric in the press, it is unclear whether the matter of carbon saving will be determinative in this matter. Indeed, similar proposals have secured consent without the same level of scrutiny.
Even if the application is refused, there are many other planning considerations which are of increasing importance, such as design, which are likely to play an important part in the decision.
Moving up
Irrespective of the outcomes of this application, the industry should keep the furore around the M&S proposals in their minds. Demolition and its carbon impact are clearly on the agenda, and it does not look like this is going to change any time soon.
On the one hand, this leaves a risk that owners could be left with operationally carbon inefficient buildings which cannot be demolished. However, it could also be a positive thing, forcing developers to put more thought into how best to make the most of the space they have, whether that be through demolition or refurbishment. In fact, some people seem to have changed their mindset already and it is reported that there has been an increase in developers seeking permission to add further storeys to buildings. One reason for such an increase may be considerations regarding the whole carbon life cycle of a building as adding height to a building could make the retrofit of a property more viable, whilst saving on embodied carbon.
While the inquiry unfolds, it will be interesting to see the weight given to embedded carbon versus operational carbon and how these both will be balanced with other planning concerns.
Authored by Rosie Shields.
