Every day, London’s construction waste is transported by heavy-duty dump trucks, totaling around 28,000 tons. This waste, which includes materials like steel rebar, concrete, aluminium, stone, timber, and glass from demolished buildings, is typically taken to recycling plants. There, it is crushed into small pieces and transformed into aggregate for use in road construction or building foundations. However, a forthcoming ruling will determine whether the materials from Marks and Spencer’s flagship store near Marble Arch will be added to this stream of construction debris.
Marks and Spencer plans to demolish the Orchard House building, erected in 1930, along with two adjacent buildings. In their place, the company intends to construct a 10-story structure consisting of offices and a renovated store. Although the Westminster City Council granted planning permission for this project in 2021, it has become a focal point for the broader discussion on the environmental impact of the built environment and carbon emissions.
Opponents, led by the conservation group SAVE Britain’s Heritage, argue that demolishing the building would not only disregard its historical significance but also harm the environment. They claim that tearing it down would release 40,000 tons of embodied carbon, equivalent to almost 20,000 flights from London to Sydney. Retrofitting the building and preserving parts of it would result in a much smaller carbon footprint.
The UK government considers this case important enough to review the council’s decision. In June 2022, the Secretary of State for Leveling Up, Housing, and Communities, Michael Gove, called for a planning inquiry. The inquiry took place in November, and Gove is expected to make a final decision by July 20. The debate surrounding this building has gained national attention and has catapulted the topics of embodied carbon and retrofitting from trade magazines to mainstream newspapers.
There are supporters and opponents on either side of the argument. Conservationists, architects, and engineers argue against the environmentally wasteful proposal, emphasizing the UK’s green commitments. On the other hand, neighboring retailers like Selfridges and Ikea back Marks and Spencer’s plans as a means to revitalize the historic shopping destination on Oxford Street.
The decision from Gove will extend beyond the fate of the Marks and Spencer store. It will address the broader issue of the construction industry’s role in decarbonizing the economy. The built environment currently accounts for approximately 25% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and generates nearly two-thirds of the country’s annual waste. To fulfill its net-zero commitments, the UK must prioritize sustainability in its building stock.
While energy consumption in buildings is subject to strict standards, the embodied carbon emissions from the construction process itself are not adequately regulated. Opponents of the M&S project argue that this ruling is an opportunity for the government to establish expectations for the owners and stewards of non-domestic buildings throughout England and Wales.
The discussion surrounding the M&S store at Marble Arch aligns with the construction industry’s growing consensus on prioritizing retrofitting. Prominent industry publications and organizations have campaigned for clearer standards and guidelines from the government. Although it may not be publicly acknowledged, the M&S inquiry is placing pressure on the government to align with the industry’s stance.
M&S’s proposed development may seem contradictory to the conservation lobby’s goals. Despite lacking the grandeur of the neighboring Selfridges store, M&S asserts that the existing buildings on the site have poor quality, outdated layouts, and asbestos issues. The company’s plan involves constructing an environmentally sustainable building using the principles of the circular economy. They aim to recover, recycle, or reuse 95% of the existing materials, resulting in significantly reduced energy consumption compared to the current building.
According to M&S, the energy savings from the new building will offset the emissions from demolition and reconstruction, resulting in a carbon payback period of 11 years. The new structure will have less retail space but more office space, creating jobs and improving the area for customers and local residents. SAVE argues that a comprehensive retrofit of the existing building could achieve the same objectives without the substantial upfront emissions associated with demolition.
The proposal from M&S contradicts their own goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2040 and the UK government’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. SAVE’s expert witness on embodied carbon claims that M&S disregarded the potential for refurbishment and prioritized constructing a valuable new building. M&S, however, defends their decision, emphasizing that they explore refurbishment as a possibility for all their properties. They concluded that a refurbishment was not suitable or viable for the Oxford Street flagship store.
The planning inquiry saw M&S and SAVE presenting their arguments to a planning inspector over the course of ten days. SAVE brought well-known advocates, such as actor Kristin Scott-Thomas and comedian Griff Rhys-Jones, to support their case. The battle between a household name and the nation’s renowned shopping street attracted national and international attention. Architect Julia Barfield, who provided testimony against the scheme, described it as an emotive issue since “everyone loves M&S.”
M&S acknowledges that the project has become a focal point for the construction and property industry. A genuine debate exists about the merits of refurbishment versus demolition. The industry has been calling for better practices, recognizing the need for change. M&S asserts that their decision to demolish and rebuild aligns with their commitment to minimizing their carbon footprint, and they firmly believe that it is environmentally superior to the alternative. The planning inspector’s decision will shed light on the future direction for refurbishment and demolition in the UK’s construction industry.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
