M&S’s plans to bulldoze and rebuild the 1930 Néo-Grec Orchard House were strongly opposed by conservationists and retrofit advocates. They argued that the embodied carbon involved in redeveloping a structurally sound building and its historic importance did not justify its demolition.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
However, a High Court judge in March this year overturned Gove's decision after hearing that he had “misunderstood” planning rules and “departed from the planning inspector’s recommendation”.
The dispute concluded on 5 December when Rayner signed off the plans, ending what M&S operations director Sacha Berendji described as a “long, unnecessary and costly delay” to the project.
Here’s a roundup of mixed reactions from the built environment.
Saul Humphrey, professor of sustainable construction at Anglia Ruskin University
“Rayner’s decision highlights the battle between the quest for growth and the need to achieve net zero. The quest for perpetual growth on a finite planet is clearly flawed. The only way that economic growth can possibly be remotely sustainable is if the development decouples the environment/ecological impact.
“On the one hand, we are striving to appear as world leaders on the journey to net zero, but on the other, the reality of the growth agenda appears to be the superior goal. What we need is much more considered sustainable development which recognises the United Nations sustainable development goals and the planetary boundaries that we are dangerously transgressing. The climate and ecological emergency is here and now. It remains an inconvenient truth but one that we must prioritise.
“To this end, the embodied carbon of any structure must be assessed in any whole-life carbon assessment, recognising the genuine life expectancy of an existing asset and the alternative impact of a retrofit solution.
“Unfortunately, the built environment’s footprint is not something to be proud of. The legacy of poorly insulated buildings energised by fossil fuels is a difficult reality, but looking forward, we must surely start to favour restoration and repair ahead of demolition and rebuild.
“The construction industry cannot continue to be part of the problem. Instead, we can be the leader in this shift towards more sustainable development, retrofitting our homes and delivering the green energy we need for a net-zero future.
“Delivered responsibly, a modern professional construction sector can be a crucial part of the solution, but we need responsible leadership to take us there.”
David Crosthwaite, chief economist at the Building Cost Information Service
“Given the planning delays on this project over the last few years it’s good that someone has finally made a decision irrespective of the outcome.
“The existing 1930s building’s layout is clearly no longer fit for purpose and although the decision will no doubt fall foul of conservationists, demolition and redeveloping the site is obviously the right decision for the owner of the building.
“Demolishing and rebuilding new is something that is much more common in Europe and the US.
“In the UK we have a fascination with preserving the past, but often in the modern world, this is not necessarily the right approach.”
Alistair Watson, UK head of planning and environment at law firm Taylor Wessing
“To riff off one of the quotes from legendary football manager Bill Shankly – the trouble with some politicians is that they know the rules, but they do not know the game of planning. Gove didn’t get it. Rayner clearly does.
“The secretary of state’s decision to agree with the inspector’s recommendation and the High Court to provide a planning permission for M&S is as straightforward as it comes. This is a major development scheme which has a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, all of which were backed up with expert evidence in a full public inquiry. Logic and common sense have prevailed over political ideology. The planning system at its best.
“The downside is that we have had to wait this long, and in the meantime, the wider real estate development industry has had to sit patiently, and watch opportunities go by until we got some certainty from the secretary of state on matters such as embedded carbon.”
Nicholle Kingsley, planning partner at Mishcon de Reya
“This decision is an example of how the planning process should not operate, with lengthy delays leading to inconsistency and uncertainty in planning decision-making.
“While harm to heritage assets was the main reason for Gove refusing permission, the case also brought into sharp focus the debate between retrofitting existing buildings and complete redevelopment, which includes demolition and rebuild.
“With the increasing emphasis on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions, the case highlights the importance of a clear and consistent application of planning policies, particularly regarding the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy and the weight to be applied to embodied carbon emissions as part of the balance in planning decisions.
“While some local authorities are already progressing policies towards a ‘retrofit-first’ approach, the true impact of this decision and its implications for investment and the approach to embodied carbon considerations in planning decisions will only start to become clear as we progress through 2025.”
