Marks & Spencer (M&S) chairman Stuart Machin did not mince his words when he found out that secretary of state Michael Gove had refused the retailer permission to knock down and rebuild its Oxford Street store.
“Nonsensical”, “pathetic” and “a short-sighted act of self-sabotage” was Machin’s withering assessment of Gove’s decision. Retrofit was not an option for the “aged and labyrinthian site”, he argued, adding that the retail group’s Pilbrow & Partners-designed 10-storey mixed-use building, which was targeting BREEAM Outstanding, would have been “one of the most sustainable buildings in London”.
On the other side of the retrofit versus rebuild debate, Gove’s decision to knock back M&S’s knock down and rebuild plans was seen as a major victory for ‘retrofit first’ campaigners. But have they just won an important battle, or have they won the whole retrofit versus rebuild war?
Ever since Gove called in the M&S scheme in June 2022, it has been the focal point of a heated heart versus head debate over the merits of retrofit over rebuild, with retrofit advocates increasingly favouring a retrofit only rather than retrofit first and rebuild fans arguing that sometimes that is not only the more financially viable option but also the more beneficial ESG-wise.
Some senior industry figures privately admit that they believe the knock down and rebuild approach would result in a more environmentally-friendly development. One adds that the scheme proposed by M&S could have been more exciting aesthetically and suggests this didn’t help the rebuild cause.
The biggest problem, though, is that emotionally and politically, retrofit was always more likely to win out. Machin intimated as much when he accused Gove of “playing to the gallery” and suggested the retailer had been the victim of politics. He also warned that it would now be reconsidering its presence on Oxford Street, adding that the “ripple effects” of the decision would extend beyond Oxford Street.
“Towns and cities up and down the country will feel the full effects of this chilling decision, with decaying buildings and brownfield sites now destined to remain empty as developers retreat,” said Machin.
Many figures across the built environment will echo his concerns. Many more, however, are now firmly in the retrofit camp and agree with the verdict of Henrietta Billings, director of SAVE Britain’s Heritage, who said of Gove’s decision: “This is a hugely important decision that rightly challenges the way we continually and needlessly knock down and rebuild important buildings across our towns and cities. Repurposing and converting buildings we cherish and saving thousands of tonnes of C02 in the process is a no brainer. This is a massive positive step and we salute the secretary of state.”
Basil Demeroutis, managing partner at FORE Partnership, is one such supporter. “I applaud this government for taking the decision to send this scheme to the scrap heap, rather than the thousands of tons of concrete, glass, and steel in the existing building,” he says. “Not all buildings can be saved, forever, but the burden of proof to allow for demolishing buildings needs to be significantly higher and I don’t believe it has been met here, by some margin. While heritage was cited as the main driver, sustainability is quoted as a key consideration.
“But surely the message is that as it relates to these interconnected points of preserving heritage as well as earth’s precious resources, this is a clear signal to the market of the importance of retrofit first. The protracted and costly debate over this scheme has shone a bright light on the importance of retrofit but also the fundamental disconnect between well-intentioned pronouncements from senior politicians and the on-the-ground application of overly complex, often conflicting planning policy. This must change.”
It is too early to accurately predict what the ‘ripple effects’ of the landmark decision might be on other similar development proposals for existing buildings up and down the country, but the secretary of state’s verdict provides some clarity on the government’s thinking.
“With this decision, government is telling the real estate industry: ‘Prove to us why you can’t refurbish and repurpose’,” says Alistair Watson, partner and UK head of planning and environment at law firm Taylor Wessing. “At least now we know what the government thinks. It’s just been a particularly painful and expensive way of learning what it thinks.”
Now the property industry has a clearer idea of the government’s thoughts on the merits of demolishing and rebuilding or retrofitting assets, it may cause some developers to pause and rethink their plans, believes Emma Healey, senior heritage planner at Cheffins.
“This decision places a clear emphasis on the retention of our existing buildings, calling for us to rethink the need for demolition and look for ways to value our heritage through creative reuse and retrofit that not only conserve our historic buildings but help us move towards a net zero future,” says Healey. “It is undoubtedly a landmark case. However, time will tell as to its impact throughout the sector and the future of inner-city development.
“While this case has placed great emphasis on the retention of our existing buildings, demolition proposals still continue to gain consent throughout the UK’s cities, with a greater push being given to densification and effective plot use. It will be interesting to see the effects of this decision play out in the coming months as the focus grows on the UK’s net zero goals.”
It will also be interesting to see if the retrofit first approach turns into a retrofit only approach, and whether retrofit is really the quicker way to net zero – or not.
Building climate resilience into office conversions