A contentious battle is waging over the proposed demolition and rebuild of Marks and Spencer’s 1930s flagship store on London’s Oxford Street. The war of words reached a fever pitch at a recent Royal Academy lecture given by the Architect and Sustainability Advisor Simon Sturgis.
 
"First, do no harm", he urged the audience, declaring the architectural profession needed a code of conduct. He explained "something like the Hippocratic Oath, where we promise to do no harm to the environment.” Referring to the damage caused by the construction sector as a "bigger existential threat than nuclear war, just a lot less obvious or immediate."
 
The talk entitled 'Architecture and Climate Crisis: How the past can save the future' was held for the campaign group Save Britain's Heritage, which bitterly opposed the redevelopment proposal designed by architectural firm Pilbrow & Partners. The campaigners argue that the plans to raze the Art Deco Orchard House plus the two connecting buildings and construct a new multi-use building will release an estimated 40,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
 
During the lecture, Sturgis criticised the M&S redevelopment, notably the plan to create three new levels by digging out basements and building deep concrete structures. He argued the existing complex could easily take as many as three additional storeys.
 
Calling on a revolution in architecture in response to the climate crisis, Sturgis forewarned reliance on building sustainability ratings would not bring the wide-scale changes required. "We need a revolution in thinking," he said. "we cannot continue to consume resources at the current rate. The extraction and use of new resources are the primary cause of carbon emissions. We need to move to a circular economic model where resources are continually reused."
 
During the Q&A, Sturgis was challenged multiple times by Fred Pilbrow of Pilbrow & Partners, who proclaimed it should be 'retrofit-first', not 'retrofit only’. Pilbrow cited a previous refurbishment project of a 1970s department store that created a carbon footprint similar to that of a new build. The mediator had to step in several times to allow others to speak. Boos were heard in the auditorium.
 
Marks and Spencer first unveiled its controversial building plan back in 2020. It was initially approved by the Westminster City Council and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, ruling that the gains outweighed the harm caused by demolishing a non-listed building. Strong opposition to the development saw Michael Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, step in and order a public inquiry. Submissions from a range of experts on both sides were heard, with sustainability and heritage given equal importance. SAVE Britain's Heritage, who have been fighting for the preservation of buildings for nearly 50 years, engaged sustainability experts Simon Sturgis and Julie Godefroy to make a case for refurbishment at the inquiry. The hearing has sparked a heated debate over retrofitting vs rebuilding to lessen the built environment's carbon footprint.
 
In an article in Building Design, Simon Sturgis accused the M&S team of denigrating the existing 'perfectly reusable' buildings to strengthen their argument. Fred Pilbrow has previously described the 1930s building by architects Trehearne and Norman as "neither fit for purpose nor architecturally significant… It's kind of a headache, you can't tell where you're going, it's shambolic, it's crowded, it's a real mess."
 
Sturgis further argued the operational energy performance of a deep retrofit could closely match that of the new build design with the clever use of insulation and double glazing. He also questioned the projected life span of the new build; the Pilbrow & Partners team claim it will have a life of 120 years. Sturgis explained, 'according to the Arup carbon assessment, most components only have a life expectancy of 35 years or less.’ He continued, 'This means that around 2050 the new build will be facing a major retrofit of its own.’
 
'We must stop trying to solve our 21st century problems with 20th century thinking', Sturgis urged. He argued the retrofit approach and explained the need for transformational and fundamental changes to meet carbon targets that cannot be reached through a 'fancy BREEAM rating or by demolishing reusable assets'.
 
As a company, M&S has set itself ambitious green targets. Last year it stated it would cut a third of its carbon emissions by 2025 and become fully net zero by 2045. The retailer maintains refurbishment of the buildings as unfeasible, arguing the new build will offer improved storey heights, a better public realm, a high BREEAM rating and better operational energy performance.
 
The Architect Fred Pilbrow has likened the redevelopment project to swapping a 1970s diesel car with a Tesla. "In the short term, the diesel car has got less embodied carbon," he explained in an interview with Dezeen, "but very quickly, within between nine and sixteen years, we will be ahead on carbon because our Tesla will perform better."
 
The M&S team have pledged to lower the impact of construction. They have committed to recovering 95% of the materials in the existing structure for reuse or recycling. Unfortunately, no targets are explicitly set for reuse, but they propose on-site reuse of the concrete frame and portland stone elevation.
 
The retailer is fully backing the redevelopment and has threatened to leave the premises if their proposal is rejected. Operations Director of M&S, Sacha Berendji has accused Michael Gove of favouring the influx of candy stores over their 'gold-standard retail-led regeneration.’ One of the most famous shopping destinations, Oxford Street has the highest footfall figures in Europe. Yet, in the aftermath of the pandemic, it has seen an exodus of many large department stores and other smaller retailers and is struggling to fill the empty shops.
 
However, Henrietta Billings, the director of Save Britain's Heritage, has argued that with an imaginative retrofit design, M&S could become sustainability leaders on the high street whilst giving shoppers an environment rich in history. She explained in Building Design, 'these “cathedrals of commerce” can once again contribute to the life and vitality that our high streets are crying out for’. She pointed to other Oxford Street premises that are being refitted, saying, 'we have got to get to a point where demolishing buildings unnecessarily is unacceptable. Demolition must be the last rather than the first resort.’
 
An estimated 50,000 buildings are demolished in the UK annually, and much of the resulting materials are wasted, with the potential embodied carbon savings disregarded. There is an overall focus on designing buildings to be operational net zero rather than accounting for the impact of demolition and construction. We must acknowledge even that the most energy efficient building would take decades to save more operational energy emissions than were created through construction.
 
Industry groups are lobbying the Government to include embodied carbon reporting in building regulations, but the Carbon Emissions Bill has yet to receive support. A recent report published by the environmental audit select committee said such a policy would be the "single most significant" action the Government could take to reduce emissions. Despite this, the Government has given the construction sector little guidance on how to reach the UK’s ambitious environmental targets. The Netherlands, France, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have already mandated reporting and have limits in force or are planned. There is a danger that the UK will slip further behind the rest of Europe.
 
The findings of the M&S inquiry have yet to be published, but the results will be a crucial turning point for any future redevelopments.