6 December 2024, 17:11 | Updated: 6 December 2024, 17:33
Picture:
Alamy
Though it may seem counterintuitive to say so, it’s actually extremely positive how much public interest Marks & Spencer’s plans to redevelop their Oxford Street flagship store has generated.
It shows that people really care about the two issues intrinsically intertwined at the heart of the case: the irreplaceable value of our built heritage and the crucial and urgent need to address the impact of the construction industry on our environment.
Yet sadly, demolition of Orchard House, a much-loved Neo-Grec (a forerunner of Art Deco) style building that was constructed in 1929-30, has now been given the go-ahead. The key justification for granting consent is Secretary of State Angela Rayner’s belief that demolition will deliver jobs and economic growth that wouldn’t materialise if the building were to stay.
It’s tragic that, as she says in the announcement, the decision has been reached despite the fact that she agrees with Historic England that the proposed development is “a missed opportunity to retain, reuse and adapt the good quality elements of the site” – a view long advanced by organisations like C20 Society and SAVE Britain’s Heritage.
A retrofit scheme for the site, keeping the best bits of the existing building, radically refurbishing it and extending it, could also have enlivened and reinvigorated a currently rather lacklustre part of our city – all agree that the Marble Arch end of Oxford St needs a big boost.
If it’s going to be any fun bothering to shop in person, we need to be tempted back out to our high streets by a rich mix of beautiful buildings, both new and old, well-designed streetscapes around them, and genuinely exciting retail experiences within.
The problem is that although SAVE and others have done a fabulous job of generating ideas for innovative reuse, there is currently no such scheme fully developed with financial backing behind it, waiting in the wings and ready to proceed.
That’s hardly surprising, as M&S have made it clear that they want to retain ownership of the site themselves — the onus was therefore on them to demonstrate commitment to their own environmental credentials and responsibly opt for a retrofit scheme themselves. Sadly, they didn’t do that.
Part of the reason the debate has been so protracted is that as Angela Rayner notes “the tools available for calculations [to assess the environmental impact of demolition versus retrofit] are still developing”. Hopefully the watershed M&S case will now lead to the development of clear and fair ways of doing these calculations in the future.
This particular decision is a missed opportunity, but the debate it has generated has been extremely worthwhile. The bottom line is that we have a planning system for a very good reason—to address complex issues and because careful regulation, which responds to public option and not just profit, makes for better places and is an essential part of democratic life.
Catherine Croft is the director of architectural heritage group the Twentieth Century Society.
LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk