Angela Rayner’s green light for the demolition of a landmark M&S store raises more questions than it answers.
Rarely has the demolition and construction of a retail store been quite so divisive; quite so polarising; and quite so protracted.
The proposed demolition of the flagship Marks & Spencer store on London’s Oxford Street has been on and off more times than a hooker’s undergarments. The store was to be demolished, then that demolition was blocked over sustainability concerns. Then it was given the green light; then the previous Secretary of State Michael Gove kicked the project to the kerb once more, insisting that the building be refurbished instead, to safeguard the embodied carbon it contains. And now, to add one further twist to a plot that would be dismissed as too convoluted by even the most-trashy soap opera writer, deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has switched the green light back on again.
The fact that the project was blocked by a Conservative government and then given the go ahead by a Labour government is just another layer of divisiveness in the troubled tale of a project that has caused a schism even before the demolition equipment has been deployed.
Demolition contractors, particularly the demolition contractor selected to deliver this high-profile project, will be celebrating Angela Rayner’s decision. Environmentalists will likely be crying in their carbon neutral beer at what they will see as a slap in the face.
Yet the divided political and environmental lines are missing a key element in a wrangle that has already been dragged out over more than three years.
It is surely clear by now that the “should we” or “shouldn’t we” nature of this wrangle is not fuelled by a desire to safeguard embodied carbon or by sustainable construction. There are no science-based targets in play here; nor are there any hard and fast rules about what is acceptable and what isn’t. Nor was this decision driven by the intervention of a trade association.
Embodied carbon in general and the M&S store debacle in particular has become a political football. Michael Gove’s decision to hoof that football into Row Z was based not upon his deep personal concerns for the environment. Rather he was playing to the crowd; he was attempting to score a political goal by mirroring the very vocal demands of the Guardian-reading, muesli-chomping masses.
Likewise, Angela Rayner has not signalled a reckless disregard for the environment or the planet in granting the project’s go-ahead. Her still relatively new government swept to power with promises of new construction. By refusing permission for the M&S plans, she would have undermined the very foundations upon which her government stood.
All of which means that those in the UK demolition sector may well celebrate this project receiving the green light. But over the space of three years of legal and environmental wrangling, we have learned nothing. We are no nearer understanding today what constitutes an acceptable loss of embodied carbon than we were when this project first landed on the desk of the planning officer.
Angela Rayner’s decision – which I applaud, incidentally – has almost certainly set a precedent; but not a legal one. It just means that similar decisions will be awarded to those that shout loudest or that have the most beneficial political sway. Rather than creating a legal or scientific lens through which to view future projects of this nature, the M&S store debacle has merely demonstrated that the ultimate decision will be driven by political expedience rather than any desire to safeguard the environment.
