黑洞社区

The decline of London鈥檚 Oxford Street would 鈥渁ccelerate dramatically鈥� if Marks and Spencer is not allowed to press on with its controversial plans to demolish its flagship store, the retailer鈥檚 lawyer told a public inquiry this morning.

Russell Harris KC described the western end of the street, where M&S鈥檚 1920s store is located, as a 鈥渇ailing鈥� neighbourhood which already had an unmistakable 鈥渟mell鈥� of decline.

It comes after M&S warned that it would leave the building if its Pilbrow & Partners designed proposals to flatten the site and replace it with a 10-storey office block are thrown out by the government.

The scheme was approved by London mayor Sadiq Khan last year before then-communities secretary Michael Gove, since reappointed to the role this evening by new prime minister Rishi Sunak, called in the plans following a campaign led by Save Britain鈥檚 Heritage to rescue the building.

Save was then granted main party status at a public inquiry overseen by the planning inspector which got underway today and will continue for the next two weeks, with the result expected to be highly influential for the future of demolish and rebuild projects.

The proposals have whipped up a backlash within the built environment sector and beyond over the loss of the Art Deco building and the much greater carbon impact which detractors expect the scheme will have compared to a refurbishment of the existing site.

The government鈥檚 housing tsar Nicholas Boys Smith said in April that the escalating row over the scheme went 鈥渞ight to the heart鈥� of discussions about sustainability and described the case for pulling down the building as 鈥済ossamer thin at best鈥�.

Save鈥檚 lawyer Matthew Fraser told the inquiry today that the construction of the new scheme would emit nearly 40,000 metric tons of carbon, equivalent to driving a car further than distance to the sun.

Fraser said the plans appeared to contradict government policies on achieving net zero and a series of London Plan policies on avoiding demolition.

But Harris said that the notion the scheme was a test case for how future demolish and rebuild projects would be treated by planners was 鈥渘onsense鈥�.

鈥淚t is no such thing,鈥� he told the inquiry. 鈥淭he decision to be made by the secretary of state [Gove] is a planning decision.鈥�

鈥淭here is nothing in national nor London Plan policy which requires refurbishment of a site in preference to redevelopment.鈥�

Harris said the scheme was essential for the western end of Oxford Street to continue to act as a significant commercial centre following the loss of other major department store occupiers on the shopping strip including Debenhams and House of Fraser.

鈥淭he west end of Oxford Street is in decline. That decline is obvious and palpable. Go there, it has a smell. A tangible, unmistakable expression of decline. It is a failing centre,鈥� he said.

鈥淲ithout Marks and Spencer at this failing location, and they will leave if this application fails, the decline of this area of the centre will accelerate dramatically.

鈥淪o, too, will its consequent ability to act as a spatially important sustainable location for growth. There is no department store operation in the UK retail market which would come close to being in a position to take the entire site vacated by M&S.鈥�

Fraser said M&S鈥檚 warning that it would leave the site if the scheme could not proceed was 鈥渘ot the constructive attitude of a retailer dedicated to sustainability, heritage conservation and the future success of Oxford Street鈥�.

He added: 鈥淒espite claiming that sustainability is at the core of their brand and committing to being a net zero business by 2040, M&S have dismissed the creative refurbishment alternative to such an extent that they have made a threat to the Secretary of State to leave Orchard House altogether if they do not get their way.鈥�

The inquiry also heard from several third party witnesses, including London Eye architect Julia Barfield, who described the project as 鈥渢hrowing a huge carbon bomb unnecessarily into the atmosphere鈥�.

鈥淚 think we can all agree this morning that we are in a planetary emergency. Westminster council, the Greater London Authority and the UK government have all declared,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hat I think is at issue at this public inquiry in 2022 is 鈥� are we acting as if there is an emergency?鈥�

Barfield, who is managing director of Marks Barfield Architects and one of the founders of environmental campaign group Architects Declare, said that 鈥渆verything needs to change鈥欌�� given the scale of the climate crisis.

鈥淎s architects, I believe that we also have a higher responsibility to the planet as well as to our clients 鈥� as do clients, by the way.

鈥淚t is disappointing that one of the country鈥檚 best-loved retailers appears not to be taking a lead on climate.鈥�

Gove will ultimately determine whether the plans can proceed, based on the advice of the planning inspector who presides over the public inquiry.