Marks & Spencer has launched a legal challenge against the government’s decision to reject the retailer’s proposed redevelopment of its Marble Arch store in London.
Last month, secretary of state Michael Gove refused M&S permission to knock down and replace the store with a 10-storey building designed by Pilbrow & Partners, which would feature office space and a gym above a smaller shop.
Planning inspectors had originally approved M&S’s plans to rebuild the site, but in June 2022 Gove ordered a public inquiry into the proposals. 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.
M&S CEO Stuart Machin described Gove’s decision as “nonsensical” and an act of “self-sabotage” and said the retailer intended to review its “future position” on the street.
In a statement issued earlier today, Sacha Berendji, operations director at M&S said the retailer decided to launch the legal challenge “because we believe the secretary of state wrongly interpreted and applied planning policy, to justify his rejection of our scheme on grounds of heritage and environmental concerns. It is hugely disappointing that after two years of support and approvals at every stage, we have been forced to take legal action to overcome a misguided agenda against our scheme, and we will be challenging this to the fullest extent possible”.
Responding to the news, Alistair Watson, UK head of planning and environment at law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “Government decisions are open to challenge in the courts. It’s entirely appropriate for M&S to lodge a legal challenge and the planning system allows for this. The legal challenge is not unexpected. We have all seen the reasoned reactions to the secretary of state’s decision. M&S and the real estate industry have relayed their views, and a lot of the real estate industry considers that government got this wrong.
“Government chose to overlook the worth of evidence from recognised experts, including M&S’s leading sustainability experts, the very significant benefits of development and investment, and an inspector’s positive recommendation. Its planning decision has serious implications for everyone and it can be viewed as being illogical and unreasonable. On that basis, the decision needs and deserves to be challenged.”
