Matthew Evans writes for Property Week on the M&S verdict, planning, and carbon
Two governments later, after rounds of decisions and appeals, detailed reports and public commentary, Marks & Spencer (M&S) have finally been granted planning permission by Angela Rayner to demolish its flagship Oxford Street store. Speaking to Property Week, I look at the main challenges that delayed this outcome, and how this affects planning as a whole.
Overturning Michael Gove’s previous decision, Rayner’s stance favouring redevelopment is cautiously welcomed by the planning industry. However, the debate around retrofitting or redevelopment is an example of how disrupted the UK’s planning system is, hindering rather than helping development.
A significant problem in the delayed decision making process were the broad range of environmental and planning experts involved, and their conflicting views on points that currently lack clarity or policy. The key issues being:
- Whole-life carbon (WLC) assessments are a case of ambiguity, opinion versus opinion. As a developing tool, we need more certainty on the findings and the impacts, taking into account the lifetime of the build and not just embodied carbon.
- We need to see much clearer policy on retrofitting, and how this is considered in the development process versus demolition, however this is already being addressed in government consultation.
- If not demolition – what are the alternatives? Numerous options were put forward by M&S in their case for redevelopment, but these were not considered sufficient. We need more guidance on what is required for alternatives, to ease the process.
This decision goes beyond retail, with potentially hundreds of other similar situations to this across the UK across different sectors. Without better understanding on the issue of retrofit versus demolition, many buildings risk becoming obsolete given the work needed to improve their energy performance.
“The burning question that remains is whether the M&S case should ever have reached this stage. Does it say more about the previous political environment than the planning process, or was it the perfect storm of political incompetence and planning stagnation?”
Read the full article here.
