Daniel Reast unpacks the impact of the M&S decision on wider planning decisions in the capital

At the corner of Orchard Street and Oxford Street in Soho, lies the centre of a major planning row which came to encapsulate the political and physical challenges of development in London. The Marks & Spencer department store at 456-472 Oxford Street, was first eyed up for redevelopment in 2021 when the retailer successfully applied for planning permission to demolish the five-storey building and replace with a new ten-storey block with a fresh-look shop floor and new office space. 

History of dispute

The future of the plans was in the balance after a tactical call-in and refusal of planning permission from former Secretary of State Michael Gove in 2023. This was then ruled unlawful at judicial review the following year, further delaying a final decision. This was despite both Westminster City Council and the Mayor of London both backing redevelopment. But after three years of uncertainty and dense rhetoric, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner took the decision to grant permission on 5 December 2024.  

Campaigners have long pushed for the existing building to be retrofitted and converted sustainably, calling the decision to finally approve the plans ‘wilfully myopic’ and a ‘missed opportunity’ for heritage conservation. So, what does the M&S decision signify for London?  

Not just any planning dispute… 

The decision to sign on the dotted line is a clear reflection of the Labour Government’s attitude to development, planning policy and growth in Central London. Arguably, it will have delivered a welcome boost of confidence to London’s built environment sector, demonstrating that Labour’s rhetoric on growth, planning and development is not all talk. The ambitious promise of 1.5 million homes in a five-year parliament and rapid action on planning reforms were early signs that the new generation of Labour MPs could kickstart a pro-development, pro-growth agenda. 

At the core of the M&S decision is the demolition vs retrofit debate; a challenge many built environment professionals are grappling with as older buildings no longer suit modern needs or standards. In the case of M&S, its internal layout of winding floors and corridors are a picture of the building’s past as a department store but not best-suited for Central London retail. Similar buildings which have housed heritage department stores have been forced to face the new world of tech-enabled customer service and net zero policy. For M&S, this key site on Oxford Street is being redeveloped to align with the modern consumer, offering a smaller store, café, retail arcade, gym and office accommodation. This increased diversity of space is another evolution of city centre commercial space -a mixed-use paradise of multiple opportunities and operators, while providing a hybrid income from consumers and tenants alike. 

Heritage campaigners have pointed to building projects such as the Tate Modern and Battersea Power Station as examples of where older buildings can be retained and retrofitted while also driving footfall. Industry magazine the Architects Journal held a design competition for budding designers to reimagine the building in a sustainable way, keeping its façade and central purpose as a retail store. 

Going for Growth 

London is a modern capital city which owes its economic strengths to a combination of old and new – in its industries, its diverse population, and its buildings. But it is also one of its biggest challenges for economic growth. Look to the City of London where skyscrapers loom over churches built in the Middle Ages – it’s achieving a balance between heritage and development where Labour will ensure their growth mandate remains in charge without risking the value of London’s heritage. 

In the spirit of getting Britain building, the Labour Government has updated the National Planning Policy Framework, creating a new scheme of delegation to avoid local campaigners and council planning committees from standing against new development. For councils, much greater emphasis will be given to the development of the Local Plan as the major evidence base for council officers in making planning decisions. For developers, this is a smoother, less consuming task and frees up much more time to actually build. This does not necessarily mean that local authorities are sidelined, nor its citizens curtailed in their abilities to challenge decisions. But it will mean local authorities will have to be more strategic in how they engage with communities, given how crucial it will be to have Local Plans up-to-date and fully reflective of policy. 

All planning is political, but the M&S decision represented the finale in a very contentious play where no-one was truly satisfied. Making the planning process more streamlined and less time-consuming may deliver the grounds for the kind of growth which Labour needs to complete its objectives. However, London’s complex, dense built environment represents diverse communities and histories, many of which live in the city’s oldest buildings. These are aspects of London to be proud of. 

Conclusion 

The redevelopment of M&S Oxford Street is a clear example of Labour’s pro-growth agenda: busting down barriers and making decisions happen, repurposing the outdated into a project for growth. But while there will be many other buildings like 456-472 Oxford Street, the circumstances for redevelopment won’t always be the same. London will grow and its buildings will change, whether through demolition or sustainable retrofit. Ensuring London’s vibrant heritage, sustainability, and diversity of spaces and communities shouldn’t have to be in opposition to new development – but Labour should have a plan for when it is.