According to the High Court, Michael Gove made a mistake when he prevented the demolition plan of M&S Oxford Street.

The High Court has heard that the government and Michael Gove made errors in interpreting and implementing planning regulations when they prevented Marks & Spencer from demolishing one of its top stores in London.

M&S plans to demolish and reconstruct its store on Oxford Street, citing the renovation as crucial to the future of London’s West End.

Last summer, Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove blocked the plans, stating that the building should undergo refurbishment instead of demolition. He also expressed concerns that demolition would have a negative impact on nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II* listed Selfridges store located directly across from it.

The company has filed a lawsuit against the government, Westminster City Council, and Save Britain’s Heritage due to a decision made by Mr. Gove. During a hearing in London on Tuesday, the company’s lawyers argued that this decision was “unusual” and should be overturned.

The government and Save Britain’s Heritage are standing firm against the dispute, arguing that Mr. Gove had the right to make the decision he did.

In the summer of 2021, M&S submitted a request to the council to demolish Orchard House, their store located on Oxford Street. They proposed constructing a nine-story building in its place, which would feature retail areas, a cafe, a gym, and an office.

In June 2022, Mr. Gove announced that he would be the one to make a decision on the application, rather than the council. The plans had the support of both the council and the Greater London Authority.

However, in July 2023, he rejected the granting of planning permission, overriding a government planning inspector who had granted approval to the plans in February of the previous year.

David Nicholson, the inspector, stated that the structure was unsuitable for the site’s requirements and that it was highly improbable for it to undergo significant renovations. Therefore, demolition was the only viable solution.

In addition, Mr. Nicholson mentioned that preventing the implementation of the plans would most likely result in the closure of the store. This would have a severe and lasting negative impact on the vitality and sustainability of the surrounding area. Therefore, the advantages of the plans outweigh any potential negative consequences.

However, although Mr Gove admitted that it was uncertain if there was a feasible and achievable option to demolition, there was not a convincing reason for it.

During written debates, Paul Shadarevian KC, speaking on behalf of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, stated: “Given the circumstances of this situation, the Secretary of State was within their rights to propose a strong preference for repurposing existing structures.”

He went on to say, “It is clear that the Secretary of State comprehended the inspector’s findings and provided sufficient justification for disagreeing with them.”

However, according to Russell Harris KC, who represented M&S, his written arguments stated that this was a mistaken interpretation of national planning policy and that there is no presumption in favor of reusing or renovating buildings.

He added that if destroying the building was not allowed, the required renovations would still result in similar or even greater levels of carbon emissions. During the court hearing on Tuesday, he stated that the store would have to shut down if it remained in its current state because it was losing a significant amount of business.

The lawyer informed the court that the situation at hand simply involves promoting the conversion of current structures, which is completely distinct from the extensive renovation that is being debated in this case.

He stated: “There is no element that can be considered a presumption, especially not a strong one.”

On Wednesday, the hearing in front of Mrs Justice Lieven is scheduled to end, and a decision will be given at a later time.

Source: independent.co.uk