Simon Sturgis on the M&S decision: ‘In some ways it’s not even about retrofit’

Simon Sturgis is quietly confident that Michael Gove’s decision to block demolition of the Marble Arch M&S is a turning point for the net zero agenda. He’s also keen to see the discussion move on, to embrace ultra-low carbon new build.

Sturgis was one of the key witnesses on behalf of SAVE Britain’s Heritage at the M&S public inquiry. He’s an architect and net zero consultant, with lots of experience of refurbishing mid-twentieth century buildings.

With Gove’s decision to reject the planning inspector’s recommendation now made, Sturgis believes it “must change the mood music around this issue”.

In his view, the fact that Westminster City Council and the Mayor of London both backed the M&S proposals is an indication that local government is not yet fully up to speed on net zero.

“Local authorities will have to take notice,” he says. “The same argument is being had all over the UK.”

While he recognises that there are already a lot of “well-intentioned” policies at local and national level to promote net zero, he doesn’t think these are “absolutely perfect” and hopes that Gove’s decision “might help convert those good intentions into policy”.

He argues that a new wave of policy and regulation could shift things further in favour of retrofit: “Westminster City Council are introducing new regulations, such as amendments to their Regulation 18, that would make M&S type demolitions impossible.”

According to Sturgis, several other local authorities, including Manchester and Dundee, are already paving the way in terms of policy on creative reuse.

“Ten years’ ago they’d have flattened the whole thing”

And he believes that the M&S saga had already begun to change attitudes, even before last Thursday’s announcement.

Sturgis points to the knock-on effect on other developments, such as Bastion House, an office block in the City of London. The City Corporation had previously been proposing demolition and replacement. Now it is seeking partners for reuse.

He also cites British Land’s proposals to extensively rework Euston Tower, retaining much of the existing structure: “10 years’ ago they’d have flattened the whole thing.” Noting that British Land has its own ambitious carbon targets, he says: “They know that if they don’t do more retrofit, they won’t meet their target.”

Although Sturgis is clearly pleased by Gove’s decision, he certainly isn’t striking a triumphalist tone. If anything, he seems bemused that M&S didn’t change course earlier. “M&S only have themselves to blame. If they had gone the refurb route from the start, they’d have been finished by now, have moved in and been making money.”

Looking to the future, Sturgis seems keen to move away from a binary choice between new build and retrofit.

“In some ways it’s not even about retrofit,” he says, “but rather about achieving low carbon outcomes. If M&S had come along with an ultra-low carbon design, it would have been much harder to oppose as it would have just been a heritage issue.”

He also says he knows of at least two developers who’d “jump at the chance” to refurbish the Marble Arch M&S store.

Ultimately, he sees the case made by M&S for demolition as “self-defeating”. By arguing that the only way to deliver a sustainable building on the site was to demolish and replace the existing structure, Sturgis believe it simply sets up a cycle whereby a future developer will come along and propose demolition again in another 30 to 40 years’ time.

“In order to meet net zero we cannot keep on doing the same thing”

Of the future of the building on Oxford Street, he says that “M&S let this site deteriorate and have done for years.” He points to the fact that the M&S redevelopment would have provided a third of the amount of retail space as the existing store, with the majority of the floor area given over to office use. “The idea that M&S is concerned about Oxford Street is a bit of a nonsense.”

“In order to meet net zero we cannot keep on doing the same thing”, he says, before adding that M&S’s proposals were “a 20^th century solution to a 21^st century problem.”

And Sturgis thinks the wider debate provoked by M&S has already nudged plenty of investors into new ways of thinking. One of the outcomes is that he says developers are realising that although total profits may be less, the “return on investment is better on refurbishment”.

He also believes that architects are increasingly embracing and advocating for alternatives to demolition. “I think for architects it’s a really exciting opportunity. They are already well into the idea of reusing buildings.”

“As an architect, I used to work on refurbs. I know you can do great things”, he says. Of the existing M&S building he makes the case that with the right approach architects “can make something interesting and exciting”.

He also cites the recent announcement of a new RIBA Reinvention Award as a sign that architects “recognise the profession has to change”.

But he acknowledges that architects are still beholden to the lure of designing new buildings. “As architects we like to have something to show. Refurbishments are often more low key and about ingenious changes that are harder to see.”

“That’s not to say that new buildings cannot be built,” he says. “They just have to be built to higher environmental standards.”

 >> Also read: It’s time to move the net zero debate beyond ‘retrofit’ versus ‘new build’