Should the M&S appeal victory last week result in a “happy Friday” or “sad times”?
For me it is both.
I’m pleased because it seems that despite a lot of extra work, time, cost and attention, an appropriate ruling based on planning policy and the submission has now been given.
I’m sad because the already complex, slow and costly planning process managed to exceed expectations in terms of confusing issues, adding cost and generally slowing down well intentioned economic development of urban land in one of the most central and connected parts of the capital. What must people outside looking in think of this saga? According to Mrs Justice Lieven, Gove misinterpreted clauses.
And I’m really sad because Gove must re-determine the case and technically could refuse planning permission for a second time! But let’s assume for a moment that he accepts defeat, given the firmness of the judgment…
121. “This case is not about whether or not it would be appropriate or justified o have such a policy in the light of the climate emergency. Such a judgement is not the function of the court. The issue for the court is whether the SoS erred in law by misinterpreting the adopted London Plan policy.”
Mrs Justice Lieven
What about the point of whether we should retrofit or refurbish, you say? Well firstly, remember that the court is ruling on process, not forming a view on carbon or climate change. Planning policy does not include a presumption in favour of the reuse of buildings.
It’s easy to say we should retain all buildings, but this just isn’t always practical physically, commercially or for sustainability reasons. I’m sure we can all come up with an answer that says “retain” if we select specific metrics, timeframes or perspectives on the climate emergency.
Like it or not, businesses have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. More and more we find this aligns to the sustainability agenda when we think of stranded assets and the arguments for investing in refurbishments and upgrades… but not not always. I’ve heard of the triple bottom line, I’ve heard of sustainability agendas, I’ve heard of ESG, and of Net Zero… but has a director of a business ever said that financial performance comes second to other these factors? I doubt it. Equal perhaps, but not second.
Retrofit first, not retrofit only. That’s my view. Just like the LPA.
And isn’t it ironic that this process has been so wasteful. M&S have thrown resource, time and money at the problem and got back to where they thought they were over two years ago. That money could have been spent on lots of nice “sustainability stuff”. Thanks to Gove, it went to consultants, lawyers and no doubt a long list of others tied up in the process.
For me, the labelling and spotlight that is being shone upon this specific building and project is over the top and unfortunate - it highlights fractures in political leadership and a major lack of consistency. When all is said and done, it seems the initial permission to grant approval was correct.