Minister wrong to block M&S Marble Arch plans, court told

M&S has begun its High Court bid to overturn a government decision to block the demolition and replacement of the retailer’s flagship Marble Arch, London store. If unsuccessful, M&S has threatened to close the store permanently.

The definitive court case, which began Tuesday in London and concludes today (Wednesday), has heard the government “misapplied” rules to block the revamp of its store at the western end of Oxford Street.

Michael Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities (DLUHC), had blocked plans to replace the Marble Arch building with a new store and office block in July. That decision overruled government planning inspector David Nicholson who gave his approval to the plans in February last year, leading to the current court case.

M&S’s legal team told the hearing the decision should be quashed. However, the government and Save Britain’s Heritage said Gove was entitled to make the decision he did.

But M&S’s lawyer said this was a “legally faulty misunderstanding” of national planning policy and that “no such presumption” in favour of reusing or refurbishing buildings existed.

He also said that if demolition was not permitted, the extent of the refurbishment needed could create the same or higher carbon emissions, and told the court the store “would close” if left in its current form due to it “significantly under-trading”.

M&S has stressed the redevelopment is “of fundamental importance” to the future of London’s West End. But Gove and campaigners have urged it to redevelop the building.

It argues that demolition is the only viable option and the closure of the store would be bad for the area so redevelopment meant the benefits of the plans outweighed any harmful effects.

Before the case began Sacha Berendji, M&S Operations Director said: “We will set out our case for why the Secretary of State’s decision to block our proposed redevelopment of our Marble Arch site… misinterpreted and wrongly applied planning policy, with every one of the six counts we raised approved by the Court to proceed to this hearing.

“When our proposal to bring one of London’s most sustainable and energy efficient buildings into the heart of the West End is rejected and other schemes with lower sustainability benefits are going ahead, it makes it impossible for developers to interpret planning policy, freezing investment and leading many to ask ‘why bother’, which is a disaster for the economy and the transition to Net Zero.”