Marks and Spencer PLC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

Marks and Spencer PLC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

The Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by applying a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's findings on alternatives to demolition, failed to properly address the loss of public benefits and the harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street, and misapplied London Plan Policy SI 2 by conflating operational and embodied carbon. These errors were material to the decision, rendering it unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Marks and Spencer PLC; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Westminster City Council; Third Defendant: SAVE Britain’s Heritage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Zero Carbon Policy, Development Plan, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Heritage Assets Zero Carbon Policy Development Plan Judicial Review +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marks and Spencer PLC

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Westminster City Council

Second Defendant

SAVE Britain’s Heritage

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by applying a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing buildings
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's findings on alternatives to demolition
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State properly assessed the balance of public benefits versus heritage harm

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by applying a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's findings on alternatives to demolition, failed to properly address the loss of public benefits and the harm to the vitality and viability of Oxford Street, and misapplied London Plan Policy SI 2 by conflating operational and embodied carbon. These errors were material to the decision, rendering it unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's decision refusing planning permission is quashed.
  • Matter remitted for redetermination in accordance with the law.