Retail businesses, shops and the locations where they trade cannot be preserved in aspic. But that is what opponents of Marks & Spencer’s plans to redevelop its flagship Marble Arch store seem to want.

Marks-and-Spencer-Oxford-Street

Levelling up secretary Michael Gove has called in M&S’ redevelopment plans for review 

Marks & Spencer’s proposal to knock down its most famous branch – known affectionately as the Arch – has been called in for review by levelling up secretary Michael Gove

That has prompted fury at M&S. Group property, store development and technology director Sacha Berendji professed himself “bewildered and disappointed” and accused Gove of “political grandstanding”.

His frustration and anger are understandable. M&S has leapt through a succession of hoops to come up with a redevelopment scheme that serves its business needs while considering the health of Oxford Street and the West End in general, as well as its sustainability responsibilities. 

“The fact the plan has been given the green light by every authority whose desks it has passed across, from Westminster Council to Sadiq Khan, is testament to M&S’ painstaking efforts”

The retailer consulted extensively on its plans, creating a dedicated website for that purpose. The fact the plan has been given the green light by every authority whose desks it has passed across, from Westminster Council to London mayor Sadiq Khan, is testament to M&S’s painstaking efforts.

Objections have primarily been made on heritage and environmental grounds. Campaigners against the redevelopment claim the store is worthy of preservation as a historic building and that the scheme would release 40,000 tonnes of CO².

However, heritage body Historic England said last year that the Art Deco Orchard House, as part of the store is known, “is not regarded as innovative nor of sufficient architectural quality to merit protection”.

On the environmental front, the new development would be among the top 10% in London, according to M&S, conforming to the highest environmental building standards.

Yes, demolition would release CO², but the retailer would argue that its plans are more akin to the shift to electric cars from a sustainability point of view – the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term impact of the changeover.

“The labyrinthine store is not especially shopper-friendly, which is bad for M&S – and what is bad for a big-draw retailer is bad for an Oxford Street on its uppers”

M&S’s Marble Arch replacement building, including office space as well as an enhanced retail offering, might not be perfect but it is more likely to contribute to a vibrant, thriving Oxford Street than in its present incarnation.

The labyrinthine store is not especially shopper-friendly, which is bad for M&S – and what is bad for a big-draw retailer is bad for an Oxford Street that is on its uppers.

Central London footfall has not returned to its pre-pandemic level, and parts of the district were losing their appeal long before the Covid outbreak dealt it a hammer blow.

Marks & Spencer Marble Arch at night

Historic England said Art Deco Orchard House ‘is not regarded as of sufficient architectural quality to merit protection’

Once-proud department stores, such as Debenhams and House of Fraser, are gone and the near-ubiquitous US-style sweet shops that have replaced them are under investigation over business rate payments and counterfeit goods. Change is desperately needed.

Retail has always thrived on change, responding to and anticipating how customers’ lives are changing, too. Failure to do so ultimately meant commercial failure. Ironically, M&S’ slowness to change over a period of decades led to chronic underperformance.

Yet, over the past few years it has changed dramatically. Refusal to allow it to modernise the Arch can only make an exit from the West End of Oxford Street more likely and further diminish the area’s appeal.

“If M&S’ proposals are rejected, it will be bad for towns beyond the capital and for the government’s levelling up agenda”

The predicament of parts of the West End is shared by other cities and towns nationwide, which are also seeking to reinvigorate and reinvent themselves as places that draw the crowds.  

If M&S’s proposals are ultimately rejected, it will be bad for cities and towns beyond the capital and for the government’s levelling up agenda, which falls under Gove’s remit. If new purpose and sustainability are not allowed to drive decision making, what hope for some of the most under-pressure urban environments?

Heritage should be valued and there are plenty of examples of great buildings and city centres ruined by ham-fisted attempts to modernise.

But it will be bad for everyone if town centres become second-rate museums, characterised by empty or outdated premises that stand as memorials to retailers that once traded there but no longer do.

Let’s hope the review of M&S’s Marble Arch plans considers the future as well as the past. 

  • Get the latest stores news and analysis straight to your inbox – sign up for our weekly newsletter