Poltics
Tuesday 13 February 2024 4:00 pm
The Secretary of Verbalize for levelling up “misunderstood and misapplied” planning policy when it rejected Marks and Spencer Oxford Avenue demolition procedure, a resolve heard.
This day, the High Court heard a judicial review by Marks and Spencer over the Secretary of Verbalize for levelling up , Michael Gove MP, decision to refuse planning permission for the enchancment of its flagship constructing on Oxford Avenue.
The retail giant sought planning permission to fracture its flagship store at 456-472 Oxford Avenue in order to fabricate a recent 10-storey blended-expend constructing comprising retail, café, restaurant, locations of work and a gym.
Help in 2021, Westminster City Council granted Marks and Spencer’s application followed by the Mayor of London confirming that he would no longer seek for to brush off the appliance .
No topic that, the following year the Secretary of Verbalize for Levelling Up used to be known as in to study the appliance, which used to be spearheaded by a advertising campaign by charity SAVE Britain’s Heritage. This charity is moreover named because the 2nd defendant on right this moment’s judicial review listening to.
There used to be a public inquiry held between October to November 2022 by senior architect and heritage certified inspector David Nicholson. He sent his 109 pages file to the Gove on 1 February 2023, recommending approval of the procedure.
Nonetheless, about a months later, Gove printed his anticipated decision, ruling in opposition to Marks and Spencer’s planning application.
The retail giant took he decision to court docket, as they explain relating to the “decision is fundamentally predominant to the spatial pattern of London as a total and, namely, to the future of Oxford Avenue and the West Discontinuance as an internationally predominant retail and office set.”
Marks and Spencers barrister, Russell Harris KC of Landmark Chambers, wondered Gove’s “original conclusion” in his argument to the court docket right this moment.
He had arguments in opposition to Gove’s decision across six grounds which he outlined to Mrs Justice Lieven right this moment.
The resolve joked to the court when having a explore at a procedure of the positioning that she “no longer frequently salvage past Selfridges.”
Harris KC started off his argument this morning outlining what he deemed as ground one because the “error of law” which argued that when Gove made his decision, he “misunderstood and misapplied planning policy” as contained within the Nationwide Planning Policy Framework.
But every other one of his aspects used to be in reaching his decision, Gove disagreed and rejected almost about all of Nicholson’s findings. Nonetheless, his accountability when doing that, is to train “fully and clearly” why he disagreed with the expert. His grounds two to four lined this level.
In ground four, the senior barrister pointed out in court docket that the inspector chanced on on the proof that “refusing the appliance would perhaps lead to the closure of the store, the loss of Marks and Spencer from the Marble Arch quit of Oxford Avenue and giant distress to the vitality and viability of the house.”
He explained to the court docket that the inspector concluded that any heritage distress would be outweighed by the final public advantages severely to Oxford Avenue and the West Discontinuance of London.
When wondered by the resolve about why this is Marks and Spencer’s flagship shop, the barrister explained this is the chain’s first store. “Goes to train I haven’t been in it,” the resolve joked.
The barrister went on to stipulate that the Secretary of Verbalize’s concluded that the extent of distress to the vitality and viability of Oxford Avenue as a outcomes of a refusal would be shrimp.
Harris KC acknowledged this finding had no evidential foundation and is inadequately reasoned as a topic of law.
General on grounds two to four, he argued that Gove failed to lawfully train himself across grounds two to four, resulting in errors of law.
Westminster City Council made it known to the court docket this morning that they are remaining neutral in this dispute.
The following day to come, the Secretary of Verbalize barrister Paul Shadarevian of Cornerstone Chambers and SAVE’s barrister Matthew Fraser of Landmark Chambers are anticipated to train their argument to the court docket. This listening to will fade till Wednesday with Mrs Justice Lieven decision contrivance to return at a later date.
A spokesperson for secretary of declare for levelling up acknowledged it would perhaps no longer be appropriate for us to comment on this case while proceedings are ongoing.
Sacha Berendji, Marks and Spencer operations director, acknowledged in a press release: “This day we can contrivance out our case for why the secretary of declare’s decision to block our proposed redevelopment of our Marble Arch set – which skipped over advice from the autonomous planning inspector and again from Westminster City Council, the London Mayor and Higher London Authority – misinterpreted and wrongly utilized planning policy, with one and the total six counts we raised permitted by the court docket to proceed to this listening to.”
