The High Court has ruled that the secretary of state’s decision to block Marks & Spencer’s (M&S) plans for the redevelopment of its Marble Arch store in London was unlawful.
Following a hearing held last month, the High Court earlier today granted a judicial review of Michael Gove’s decision to deny planning permission.
Planning inspectors had originally approved M&S’s plans to knock down and rebuild on the site, but in June 2022 Gove ordered a public inquiry into the proposals and in July last year he refused permission.
In his decision letter, Gove highlighted a number of concerns including the loss of heritage assets, and the impact of the embodied carbon of the building.
Marks & Spencer (M&S) CEO Stuart Machin described Gove’s decision to refuse the company permission to demolish and rebuild its Oxford Street store as “nonsensical” and an act of “self-sabotage”.
In November last year, M&S was granted permission by the High Court to apply for a judicial review of Gove’s decision to refuse planning permission and last month M&S’s legal team told the High Court hearing the government had “misapplied” rules to block the development and argued Gove’s “unusual” decision should be quashed.
Sacha Berendji, operations director at M&S, said: “Today’s judgement couldn’t be clearer. The court has agreed with our arguments on five out of the six counts we brought forward and ruled that the secretary of state’s decision to block the redevelopment of our Marble Arch store was unlawful. The result has been a long, unnecessary and costly delay to the only retail-led regeneration 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.
“The secretary of state now has the power to unlock the wide-ranging benefits of this significant investment and send a clear message to UK and global business that the government supports sustainable growth and the regeneration of our towns and cities.”
M&S wants to replace the Edwardian store with a 10-storey building designed by Pilbrow & Partners, which would feature office space and a gym above a smaller shop. The retailer is targeting BREEAM Outstanding for the development.
In reaction to the ruling, Marcus Geddes, chair of the Westminster Property Association and managing director, workplace at Landsec, said: “The judgement underlines that complex cases require balanced consideration and should not be decided by political whim. The case has become a lightning rod for debate around refurbishment and redevelopment and what happens next could have a huge impact on investment into towns and cities across the UK.
“There is an urgent need for clear national policy on how developers and planners alike should approach complex cases such as this to avoid needless and costly delays and ensure we can revitalise towns and cities, create jobs and drive growth. Supporting investment in the country’s building stock is essential if we are to work collectively to address climate change. We hope the secretary of state takes note of this judgement and allows due planning process to take its course without further delay.”
James Souter, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, added: “This case goes to the heart of an uneasy tension between the protection of heritage assets, environmental concerns and developmental potential. Today’s decision will be embarrassing for the government, not least because of the public perception of the costs incurred. It could also give developers greater confidence in bringing forwards contemporary new-build schemes, even where the possibility of retrofitting existing structures is theoretically possible. However, this does not automatically mean that planning permission will be granted – Gove will have to redetermine the appeal and could in theory still refuse planning permission.”
