Demolishing the flagship Marble Arch M&S building would not only mean the country loses a beautiful heritage building, but in a climate emergency it would release thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
You may remember that earlier this year I brought in a 10 minute rule Bill to look at the whole life carbon assessment of the built environment and create a law to set limits on embodied carbon emissions in the construction of buildings. Every year, our buildings and construction are responsible for the emission of over 150 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – nearly a quarter of our country’s total carbon footprint. Demolishing M&S, a heritage building would release thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere in a climate emergency. You can see why I've followed this story closely.
I back the campaign by SAVE Britain and here is my submission to the planning inspectorate.
Dear Secretary of State,
The government has legislated for the UK to be Net Zero by 2050 and for 78% emissions reductions by 2035, both compared to 1990.
It remains important – when thinking about any proposed scheme which would cause a structure to be demolished and rebuilt or replaced – that we fully consider our legally binding Net Zero objectives alongside all the other factors, viewpoints, and considerations pertaining to that scheme and its viability.
The currently proposed new build for M&S on Oxford Street would be outside the UK’s downward emissions trajectory whereas a comprehensive retrofit of the existing store (including extensions and modern energy performance standards) would be consistent with this trajectory.
For the built environment industry to meet Government Net Zero targets means doing things differently and encouraging innovation. Approving the proposed M&S scheme would mean ‘no change’ and ‘business as usual’.
It remains important that we respect heritage, with architecture being so vital to this nation’s cultural fabric. Fundamentally, though, lying at the heart of this debate is the question of the potential environmental impacts of the different avenues that could be pursued.
My time as an MP has been characterised by my work in making our society more environmentally thoughtful. Most relevant to this inquiry, I’ve brought the Carbon Emissions (Buildings) Bill to Parliament, which sought to limit carbon emissions from the construction of buildings. The Bill would require the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings to be reported.
Whole-life carbon assessments would bring transparency to the environmental cost of construction. Nonetheless, we must compare like with like and the proponents of new schemes must be careful not to offer false comparisons. For instance, a proposal for a new building that is designed to the highest environmental standards should naturally be compared with a deep retrofit option also designed to the highest environmental standards, not a light-touch refurbishment.
Demolishing the M&S building on Oxford Street pays no attention to the immediate embodied carbon cost that a brand-new building on this site would have. A deep retrofit would be far less damaging in terms of carbon emissions. If this country is to reach its Net Zero objectives, it is vital that we rethink proposed demolitions like this, with far more attention paid to the embodied carbon impact.
