The government and Michael Gove “misunderstood and misapplied” planning rules when they blocked Marks & Spencer's plans to demolish one of its flagship London stores, the High Court heard.
M&S wants to demolish and rebuild its Oxford Street store, saying the redevelopment is “critically important” to the future of London's West End.
The plans were blocked by Leveling Up secretary Michael Gove last summer, who said the building should be renovated rather than demolished and that demolition would negatively impact nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II* listed Selfridges store. just in front.
The company has taken legal action against the government, Westminster City Council and Save Britain's Heritage over the decision, and its lawyers told a hearing in London on Tuesday that Gove's “unusual” decision should be overturned.
The government and Save Britain's Heritage are resisting the challenge, claiming Gove was entitled to make the decision he did.
M&S applied to the council for permission in summer 2021 to demolish Orchard House, its store on Oxford Street, and replace it with a nine-storey building that would include retail space, a cafe, a gym and an office.
Gove said in June 2022 that he would decide on the application rather than the council, which supported the plans along with the Greater London Authority.
M&S on Oxford Street, London
(PA Wire)
But it refused planning permission in July 2023, overriding a government planning inspector who gave approval to the plans in February last year.
Inspector David Nicholson had said the building was not “suitable to meet the needs of the site” and that “significant refurbishment” was “unlikely”, so demolition was the only option.
Nicholson also said blocking the plans would likely lead to the store's closure, causing “terminal” damage to the “vitality and viability of the area” and meaning the benefits of the plans would outweigh any harmful effects.
But while Gove acknowledged it was unclear whether there was “a viable and feasible alternative” to demolition, there was no “compelling justification” for it.
In his written arguments, Paul Shadarevian KC, representing the Department of Levelling, Housing and Communities, said: “The Secretary of State was entitled to say that in the circumstances of this case there should be a strong presumption in favor of reuse of the buildings. “
He continued: “It is very evident that the Secretary of State understood the inspector's conclusions and gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with them.”
But in his written arguments, Russell Harris KC, representing M&S, said this was a “legally erroneous misunderstanding” of national planning policy and there was “no such presumption” in favor of reusing or renovating buildings.
He also said that if demolition was not allowed, the extent of renovation needed could lead to the same or greater carbon emissions, and told the court on Tuesday that the store would “close” if left in its current form because it was “trading considerably less.” .
The lawyer told the court: “There is nothing more here than a general positive encouragement to the conversion of existing buildings, which in itself is completely different from the total and thorough renovation at issue in this case.”
He added: “There is nothing in it that can be described as a presumption, much less a strong presumption.”
The hearing before Judge Lieven will conclude on Wednesday and a ruling is expected to be issued at a later date.
