25.08.2023
Thank you for getting in touch. We will be in contact shortly.
I am sure you will all be aware of the decision of Michael Gove - the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities - to refuse planning permission for the demolition and rebuilding of M&S’ flagship store in Central London following a public inquiry held in November 2022. This decision was deemed “utterly pathetic” by the Chief Executive of M&S, Stuart Machin, who claims that “M&S is now left with no choice but to review its future position on Oxford Street on the whim of one man".
There has been a lot of chatter since the decision about the precedent that it might set in terms of the ‘circular economy’ and how, on a broader level, planning should be looking at the effects of replacing, rather than adapting and re-using, existing buildings from a sustainability and ‘embodied carbon’ point of view.
The concept of the ‘circular economy’ is not a new thing to planning though and in making his decision, Mr Gove would (should) have had regard to policies which already exist on the subject.
In this review, we look at some of the basics and consider what current policies say in London, what this all means for your planning application, and what the possible effects of the M&S decision might be on authorities outside of the GLA area in the South-East.
What is the ‘Circular Economy’ and what does London Plan policy say?
The London Plan 2021 gives a glossary definition:
“An economic model in which resources are kept in use at the highest level possible for as long as possible in order to maximise value and reduce waste, moving away from the traditional linear economic model of ‘make, use, dispose.”
There is a London-wide policy in the London Plan (Policy SI 7 - Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy) which requires planning authorities and industry working in collaboration to, amongst other things achieve:
“Resource conservation, waste reduction, increases in material re-use and recycling, and reductions in waste going for disposal.”
The guidance sheds some more light on what is trying to be achieved and says:
“The London Plan Guidance Circular Economy Statements puts circular economy principles at the heart of designing new buildings, requiring buildings that can more easily be dismantled and adapted over their lifetime. It treats building materials as resources rather than waste, and puts in place a clear hierarchy, prioritising the retention of existing structures above demolition, where this is the more sustainable and appropriate approach."
What Does this Mean for my Planning Application?
In London, Policy SI 7 requires the submission of a Circular Economy Statement for all referable planning applications (which meet the criteria set out in the Mayor of London Order 2008*). These statements should demonstrate:
*Referable criteria includes:
The preparation of a Circular Economy statement will require the input of an expert sustainability consultant and, moreover, the considerations arising under circular economy policy is something which needs to be thought about up-front (rather than assuming a statement can simply be a tick-box exercise); as can be seen from Mr Gove’s recent decision, the assessment of alternative options to retain or re-use fabric will become increasingly important.
What About Non-Referable Applications and Those Outside of London?
Whilst the London Plan requires statements only for referable scale applications, it also makes an allowance to require statements for smaller applications with thresholds to be set by the individual boroughs. As such, the issue of the circular economy and the retention and re-use of fabric comes up in policies at Borough level and will increasingly need consideration for non-referable applications.
This is includes, for example, Richmond’s policy on retention of existing houses (policy DM H01 - Existing Housing). The policy requires that existing housing is retained and that the redevelopment of existing housing can only take place where, inter alia, it has been demonstrated that the existing house is incapable of improvement or conversion and the proposal improves the long-term sustainability of buildings on the site.
In addition, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea have a Greening SPD (June 2021) which, inter alia, requires the retention and improvement of existing buildings, particularly older building stock of the nineteenth century and earlier, to extract the value of often high-quality materials and to adopt a whole life-cycle carbon approach to the use of resources.
One cannot just assume, therefore, that this ‘circular economy’ business is only relevant to the largest of proposals and care will need to be taken on a borough-by-borough basis.
Outside of London, the picture is more patchy when it comes to circular economy and sustainability policies in general; one might also conclude that new policies on sustainability are being held back in many areas as local plans are parked whilst Mr Gove resolves (or does not) the suggested changes to the NPPF in terms of housing delivery requirements, a matter which is having consequences for good development control policy making.
For example, Ashford Borough Council’s policy (HOU7 – Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside) only, indirectly, refers to circular economy principles when discussing the possibility of replacement dwellings in a Conservation Area or within or the setting of a visually prominent landscape, such as an AONB, by stating:
“Proposals will be required to address the specific sensitivities that are prevalent in these areas. Particular consideration will be given to the scale and wider impact of a replacement dwelling in these locations.”
Wider impacts could include the benefit of retaining the existing housing stock in light of the circular economy, although without any strict policy wording, it is ultimately a planning judgment for the Officers at the Council who may (or may not) deploy such considerations during the determination process.
What do we Expect in the Future?
Mr Gove says in his decision letter that the M&S decision should not be seen as establishing a precedent when it comes to resisting applications for replacement buildings on embodied carbon grounds. However, given how eagerly anticipated the decision was, and the fact that this is the first time that a recovered appeal has been dismissed on these kinds of grounds, it is hard to see how it cannot be seen as a landmark decision which will change the direction of the planning system (at least in terms of how we think about sustainability).
We are expecting that the decision will likely instigate:
As is the normal trend of planning matters, this will make things harder not easier when it comes to replacement of existing built fabric, and we expect that it will become increasingly important to rule out alternatives to building fabric retention for an increasing range of projects. On the flip side, it does perhaps suggest that greater positive weight will be given to fabric retention for conversion and refurbishment scheme applications.
For more advice on this matter please contact Patrick Reedman and Dan Blake at DHA's London office.
Thank you for getting in touch. We will be in contact shortly.
