The decision to give a shopping centre in Milton Keynes a Grade II listed status is a concern for both its owners and the retailers that trade there. What are the wider ramifications, asks Mark Faithfull

Milton Keynes has always attracted strong opinion. Resolutely defended by many of its residents, to others it quickly came to symbolise all that was wrong with the overflow expansion planning of urban Britain; a faceless concrete cow of a town, mapped out on a US-style road grid, which even had to franchise someone else’s football team for its stadium.

Yet to English Heritage Milton Keynes houses a national treasure, and in giving its shopping centre Grade II listing it has also rung alarm bells for retailers and mall owners nationwide.

The official notification from the Minister for Tourism and Heritage John Penrose to the owners, which had fought hard against the decision, explained: “The Secretary of State [Jeremy Hunt] is persuaded by the advice from English Heritage and others that the MK building possesses high-quality finishes and materials throughout -which is unusual for this type of building - with a high quality of design and unusual roof-top service area access, which all contribute to the building’s architectural interest.”

The shopping centre was completed in 1979 and has attracted continued architectural affirmation. Milton Keynes, 43 this year, was the last, largest and by far the most resolutely modern, of Britain’s post-war new towns.

Listing was first proposed in 2002, but the owners reached a management agreement with English Heritage. However, the pressure group 20th Century Society applied again last year, arguing that the deal with the rebranded Thecentre:mk was failing to protect original features including a fountain-filled courtyard drained to make room for more commercial space.

Jon Wright of the 20th Century Society, adds: “I am absolutely thrilled. This really flags the building up as the heart of Milton Keynes, and a building of international importance. I hope now the owners will wear the listing as a badge of pride.”

It is no surprise that they won’t. Jon Weymouth, representing the owners, institutional real estate investors Hermes Property Asset Management and Prupim, says: “We are disappointed with the decision and concerned about the impact listing has on the future evolution of Thecentre:mk and the growth and consequent vitality of central Milton Keynes as a retail and social hub. The reality remains that listing puts an additional and unwelcome constraint to any potential investment by both owners and retailers alike in operating within the centre, potentially adding delay and cost to any enhancement programmes.”

And Weymouth affirms that after consideration: “The joint owners have announced that they will be asking the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to review this decision.”

Preventing change

But what does the listing mean for the retailers that occupy the centre? Writing in the Partnership’s magazine The Gazette, John Lewis Milton Keynes managing director Paul Hunt acknowledges that the listing may make future development of its store in the centre more difficult, because of the additional complexity of getting agreement for changes. “We have to make sure the centre remains competitive and customer focused,” he says, although he adds that the listing is “quite a coup for the city given it’s only 30 years old.”

Tim Smith, partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner, says that at a time when asset management is vital to the viability of retail centres, listing means that the scope for what works can be undertaken is significantly cut down. “With listed building control all physical works potentially require an express grant of listed building consent,” he says. “What is more, and unlike with simple planning control, undertaking works to a listed building without the necessary consents constitutes a criminal offence.”

Smith warns mall owners it is also difficult to prevent a listing. “There is no right of appeal against a listing. While an owner whose property has been listed can request that the Secretary of State [for Culture, Media and Support] ‘reviews’ the decision, this is only effective if the owner wants to argue the listing decision has been taken without reference to all the relevant facts.”

Peter Drummond, junior vice-president of the British Council of Shopping Centres and chief executive of architect BDP, recognises the implications but at least sees the merits of architectural recognition for an under-rated industry: “The development industry has put a huge effort and a great deal of investment in improving the quality of design and form of these vital parts

of our town and city centres. So maybe it is not that surprising,” he reflects.

But Drummond admits: “While a building may be of sufficient architectural or historic interest to make it worthy of listing does this then render it incapable of change and evolution? It is here that the real problem resides. Changes that an owner or tenant may want to make will be subject to interpretation by officers and panels within English Heritage and the way they come to these views is not a precise science. It is possible to have a pre-agreed framework for allowable change, but once a building is listed, such a framework becomes one-sided as it can be overruled by English Heritage.

“Why is this critical issue? Because change in shopping formats is inevitable. Investors must know that they can implement reasonable change to respond to changing needs and trends. The threat that they might not be able to could discourage new development and the upgrading of existing centres.”

And Ibrahim Ibrahim, managing director of agency Portland Design, counters: “With the technology we have today, you could preserve buildings virtually - just the way Google can take you around the world - while allowing the physical building to adapt. Virtual archiving would solve the problem of buildings that don’t merit being preserved in the physical environment.”

He proposes: “Maybe a different type of listing should be invented , one which balances the need for commercial performance with cultural continuity, allowing owners to manage their shopping centres in partnership with local authorities and communities, but using a strongly defined set of commercial performance criteria to help guide decision making.”

The debate will undoubtedly rage on. The listing at Milton Keynes coincided with rejections of de-listing attempts from Sheffield and Coventry City Councils for a Co-op store and Coventry Market respectively, and no doubt worried glances over the shoulder by others. Ibrahim adds: “A true and better listing would be of the shopping centres that should be demolished.”

Milton Keynes has always attracted strong opinion. Resolutely defended by many of its residents, to others it quickly came to symbolise all that was wrong with the overflow expansion planning of urban Britain; a faceless concrete cow of a town, mapped out on a US-style road grid, which even had to franchise someone else’s football team for its stadium.

Yet to English Heritage Milton Keynes houses a national treasure, and in giving its shopping centre Grade II listing it has also rung alarm bells for retailers and mall owners nationwide.

The official notification from the Minister for Tourism and Heritage John Penrose to the owners, which had fought hard against the decision, explained: “The Secretary of State [Jeremy Hunt] is persuaded by the advice from English Heritage and others that the MK building possesses high-quality finishes and materials throughout -which is unusual for this type of building - with a high quality of design and unusual roof-top service area access, which all contribute to the building’s architectural interest.”

The shopping centre was completed in 1979 and has attracted continued architectural affirmation. Milton Keynes, 43 this year, was the last, largest and by far the most resolutely modern, of Britain’s post-war new towns.

Listing was first proposed in 2002, but the owners reached a management agreement with English Heritage. However, the pressure group 20th Century Society applied again last year, arguing that the deal with the rebranded Thecentre:mk was failing to protect original features including a fountain-filled courtyard drained to make room for more commercial space.

Jon Wright of the 20th Century Society, adds: “I am absolutely thrilled. This really flags the building up as the heart of Milton Keynes, and a building of international importance. I hope now the owners will wear the listing as a badge of pride.”

It is no surprise that they won’t. Jon Weymouth, representing the owners, institutional real estate investors Hermes Property Asset Management and Prupim, says: “We are disappointed with the decision and concerned about the impact listing has on the future evolution of Thecentre:mk and the growth and consequent vitality of central Milton Keynes as a retail and social hub. The reality remains that listing puts an additional and unwelcome constraint to any potential investment by both owners and retailers alike in operating within the centre, potentially adding delay and cost to any enhancement programmes.”

And Weymouth affirms that after consideration: “The joint owners have announced that they will be asking the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to review this decision.”

Preventing change

But what does the listing mean for the retailers that occupy the centre? Writing in the Partnership’s magazine The Gazette, John Lewis Milton Keynes managing director Paul Hunt acknowledges that the listing may make future development of its store in the centre more difficult, because of the additional complexity of getting agreement for changes. “We have to make sure the centre remains competitive and customer focused,” he says, although he adds that the listing is “quite a coup for the city given it’s only 30 years old.”

Tim Smith, partner at Berwin Leighton Paisner, says that at a time when asset management is vital to the viability of retail centres, listing means that the scope for what works can be undertaken is significantly cut down. “With listed building control all physical works potentially require an express grant of listed building consent,” he says. “What is more, and unlike with simple planning control, undertaking works to a listed building without the necessary consents constitutes a criminal offence.”

Smith warns mall owners it is also difficult to prevent a listing. “There is no right of appeal against a listing. While an owner whose property has been listed can request that the Secretary of State [for Culture, Media and Support] ‘reviews’ the decision, this is only effective if the owner wants to argue the listing decision has been taken without reference to all the relevant facts.”

Peter Drummond, junior vice-president of the British Council of Shopping Centres and chief executive of architect BDP, recognises the implications but at least sees the merits of architectural recognition for an under-rated industry: “The development industry has put a huge effort and a great deal of investment in improving the quality of design and form of these vital parts of our town and city centres. So maybe it is not that surprising,” he reflects.

But Drummond admits: “While a building may be of sufficient architectural or historic interest to make it worthy of listing does this then render it incapable of change and evolution? It is here that the real problem resides. Changes that an owner or tenant may want to make will be subject to interpretation by officers and panels within English Heritage and the way they come to these views is not a precise science. It is possible to have a pre-agreed framework for allowable change, but once a building is listed, such a framework becomes one-sided as it can be overruled by English Heritage.

“Why is this critical issue? Because change in shopping formats is inevitable. Investors must know that they can implement reasonable change to respond to changing needs and trends. The threat that they might not be able to could discourage new development and the upgrading of existing centres.”

And Ibrahim Ibrahim, managing director of agency Portland Design, counters: “With the technology we have today, you could preserve buildings virtually - just the way Google can take you around the world - while allowing the physical building to adapt. Virtual archiving would solve the problem of buildings that don’t merit being preserved in the physical environment.”

He proposes: “Maybe a different type of listing should be invented , one which balances the need for commercial performance with cultural continuity, allowing owners to manage their shopping centres in partnership with local authorities and communities, but using a strongly defined set of commercial performance criteria to help guide decision making.”

The debate will undoubtedly rage on. The listing at Milton Keynes coincided with rejections of de-listing attempts from Sheffield and Coventry City Councils for a Co-op store and Coventry Market respectively, and no doubt worried glances over the shoulder by others. Ibrahim adds: “A true and better listing would be of the shopping centres that should be demolished.”

Listed status: what it means to retailers

While listed status remains unusual for shopping centres, it is far more prevalent on the high street, where listed status has been conferred on numerous shops. While it does not prevent trading - in fact the architectural largesse of many of these stores becomes part of their selling strategy - it does provide a number of restrictions. Listing may be applied for the whole of a building or for one architecturally significant component, such as the facade.

  • Structural changes: Alterations to the fabric of the building may be severely restricted or permission denied altogether, with the level of grading determining how onerous the conditions for the building are.
  • Permanent fixings: Attaching furniture to the interior walls may be banned or restricted. Retailers in listed premises will need to create solutions that do not require any sort of permanent fixing to the structure itself.
  • Planning changes: These will need to be approved by English Heritage. This is not only bureaucratic and slow-moving, the final decisions are often opinion-based, which makes the outcome uncertain.
  • Frameworks: Retailers and English Heritage can agree frameworks that in theory should give the retailer more commercial freedom. However, in practice these can be one-sided towards English Heritage. Some architects are suggesting a more workable and commercial framework should be agreed for listed status of retail buildings.
  • Appeal: There is no automatic right of appeal against a decision to list a property, but a review can be requested.
  • Go to jail card: Be warned, breaking the requirements of a listing is a criminal offence!