Heritage buildings and embodied carbon: to refurbish or replace?

Introduction

In March this year the long running case of the M&S flagship store at London’s Marble Arch took another twist, as the High Court ruled as unlawful the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse planning consent for the retailer’s plans to demolish the art deco-style landmark building in favour of construction of a brand new nine-storey complex.

Among the key issues discussed was the relative merits, in terms of total carbon emissions, of refurbishment (thus preserving a building’s “embodied carbon”, that is, the emissions created in the construction of a building) as against replacement (with a new building’s potential for greater “operational energy efficiency”).

The case will be of interest to owners of heritage assets, including independent schools and charities, looking to make strategic decisions on the future of their buildings.

A British institution

This case has attracted considerable media interest. As the slogan goes, this is not just any handsome landmark building, this is an M&S handsome landmark building, and one which has been there since the 1920s.

M&S states in the “Reshaping M&S” Sustainability Report 2023 that its aim is to “build an estate that’s fit for the future; this means a more efficient, lower energy and lower carbon M&S estate.” 

According to M&S, despite the building having an attractive art deco façade, (it was apparently once adorned with small sculptures of characters from Alice in Wonderland, of which just one remains, of a horse, under the “St Michael” clock) the quality of the three buildings that make up the site is actually “very poor”. It is not listed, although it sits opposite Selfridges, which is.

In 2021 M&S applied for permission to demolish the store and replace it with a nine-storey mixed use premises. Westminster City Council recommended approval of the application but the Secretary of State, unusually, called in the application. This triggered an inquiry by a senior planning inspector. 

The battle for Oxford Street

The public enquiry in 2022 generated a great deal of media interest. Campaign group “Save Britain’s Heritage” crowdfunded £20,000 towards legal fees and brought in celebrity advocates including Bill Bryson, Griff Rhys-Jones and Kristin Scott-Thomas “who spoke of their fondness for the building and the environmental cost of replacing it”. Ultimately the planning inspector also recommended approval of M&S’ planning application. 

However, in 2023 the Secretary of State Michael Gove determined to refuse the application, stating in his decision letter that the building should be refurbished rather than demolished.  The Secretary of State reasoned that the scheme would “fail to support the transition to a low-carbon future, and would overall fail to encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings”.

In her judgment Mrs Justice Lieven asserts that the Secretary of State had misapplied planning policy in this decision and in particular had “become thoroughly confused” on the interpretation of the relevant considerations in the London Plan. The judgement states that “the offsetting requirements in SI 2C are in relation to operational carbon, and not embodied carbon. This is because the reference to the Building Regulations necessarily includes a calculation based on the energy efficiency of the building in its operational phase, not the construction carbon impacts.”

Conclusion

Mrs Justice Lieven held in favour of M&S’ challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to withhold planning consent, meaning that the application for planning consent will go back to the Secretary of State for redetermination. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens next.

The Birketts view

The M&S case raises fundamental questions about how we assess the environmental impact of development, and highlights the fact that our current planning policy and building regulations do not give clear guidance on how we evaluate the emissions involved in the whole of the life-cycle of a building. In 2023, the Government stated its intention to consult on its approach to measuring and reducing embodied carbon in new buildings, which is something that countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and France are already doing. 

It is very likely that in the near future there will be a requirement to undertake whole-life carbon assessments for buildings so that the relative merits of refurbishment versus replacement can be properly assessed. This must be an essential step in reducing carbon emissions from the built environment if we are to make progress towards our carbon reduction ambitions.

Organisations, such as charities and independent schools, with heritage or older buildings should have a clear strategy for the future of their buildings and as part of this should be monitoring their energy efficiency, with an eye to preserving the value and usefulness of these assets for the future.