Marks & Spencer Marble Arch demolition critics 'make key concessions'

As a public inquiry into the controversial proposals ended, heritage and sustainability critics admitted that their arguments did not stand up to scrutiny, Marks & Spencer has claimed.

However that view is disputed by heritage group Save, which has written to M&S demanding it retract “a misleading statement containing a number of false claims”.

Marks & Spencer hopes to overhaul the landmark premises, creating enhanced retail and office space but the plans drew fierce opposition.

Save is said to have acknowledged that its position would mean changes to the buildings that it wants to preserve, such as to the Orchard House façade and the removal of a 1930s staircase – both of which it had previously argued should be protected.

M&S said that showed “the impossibility of retrofit at the site” and supported its argument for redevelopment – a position backed by other big retailers such as Ikea and Selfridges, who agree with M&S that modernised premises would be good news for Oxford Street, which has not fully recovered from the impact of the Covid pandemic.

M&S said that its argument of “long-term sustainability benefits” has been accepted by Save and the development was “the only viable and deliverable plan to establish a Marble Arch site which is better for customers, colleagues and the communities it serves”.

Russell Harris KC maintained at the hearing: “No party is asserting that there actually is another, better way of achieving these or substantially similar benefits either through refurbishment or at all.”

Save has written to M&S chair Archie Norman accusing M&S of having made “highly irresponsible statements likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of Save” and demanding a retraction and apology.

But M&S maintained:”We remain fully confident in the accuracy of our statement shared after the close of the inquiry.”

• Sign up for our daily morning briefing to get the latest retail news and analysis