M&S decision and NPPF update bring embodied carbon issue to the fore

This issue was central to a recent decision of the Secretary of State involving the flagship Marks and Spencer (M&S) store in London. In granting planning permission, the Secretary of State found that: the options for retaining the building had been adequately explored; there was no viable or deliverable alternative; and that taking into account the sustainability credentials of the new building, harm in terms of embodied carbon would flow from either scheme. Therefore, given the policy aspirations for the site, there was a compelling case for its demolition and replacement

Local plan policies which place greater onus on the reuse and refurbishment of existing buildings are emerging as embodied carbon considerations come to the fore, although there remains ongoing criticism from certain quarters that national planning policy does not sufficiently reflect the UK’s ‘net zero’ ambitions.

The M&S case in brief

Last month, Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, granted Marks and Spencer (M&S) planning permission to demolish and redevelop its Oxford Street site in London.

Rayner’s decision (144-page / 2.1MB PDF) followed a lengthy process in which M&S’ redevelopment plans had initially been recommended for approval by Westminster Council, the Greater London Authority (GLA), and a planning inspector, but then refused planning permission by former Secretary of State Michael Gove who had called in the planning application to determine himself.

Gove had considered that the harm to heritage assets, together with the embodied carbon impact of demolition and redevelopment versus the alternative option of a deep refurbishment, outweighed the public benefits to be gained from granting planning permission for the proposals. However, the High Court ruled that Gove had mis-applied planning policy when making his decision. One of his errors concerned his interpretation of paragraph 157, now amended paragraph 161, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Paragraph 157 at the time read: “The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”

Gove considered that such wording amounted to a “presumption” in favour of reuse of existing buildings, but the court overturned Gove’s decision finding this was wrong and that the policy merely provides “some encouragement for the reuse of buildings, but nothing that comes close to a presumption”.

M&S’ plans therefore fell to be reconsidered, with a change of government last summer bringing about a change of personnel in the decision-making role. Rayner has now concluded that planning permission should be granted.

Several factors played into the decision and Rayner’s assessment of whether M&S’ plans meet the paragraph 157 requirements and her consideration of the issue of embodied carbon arguably make for interesting reading.

The embodied carbon factor

Rayner considered that the onus was on M&S to demonstrate that refurbishment of the existing site would not be deliverable or appropriate and that it had considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition and redevelopment. She acknowledged that there would be “harm through substantial quantities of embodied energy in the demolition of three sound structures and the construction of a new, larger building with two levels of basement”, but said that had to be considered alongside the importance of optimising the use of the site and the realistic availability of alternatives.

Rayner’s decision stated: “On the basis of the evidence before her, she does not consider that it is possible to come to a definitive conclusion on the extent to which an alternative refurbishment scheme on this site, which would achieve the aspirations of the development plan, would result in less embodied carbon than the M&S proposal, if at all.” Further, she agreed with the inspector’s conclusions that on the evidence “the refurbishment scheme is so deeply problematic…that no one would be likely to pursue it or fund it.”

Rayner recognised that a substantial amount of carbon would go into construction and that this would impede the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy. In terms of paragraph 157 of the NPPF this amounted to a partial failure of the proposal to accord with that policy, though she gave that partial failure only limited weight. Further, in the context of the other considerations associated with M&S’s proposals, she found that the embodied carbon inherent in the M&S proposal only carries moderate weight against the proposal. In doing so, the Secretary of State gave weight to an amended condition to be imposed on the planning permission requiring a fixed embodied carbon outturn, which M&S considered would improve the guaranteed ‘whole life carbon’ position by 10% more than forecast at the inquiry.

Granting planning permission, Rayner considered that the public benefits of the scheme – including employment and regeneration benefits, and the harm that would arise from the loss of M&S from London’s West End if the plans were not approved – outweighed factors weighing against the proposals, including the embodied carbon and heritage impacts arising from demolition and redevelopment of the site.

In doing so, the Secretary of State made it clear that her decision turned on its own facts, including: the relevant policy matrix; the inspector’s report, and the evidence before the inquiry.  She afforded only limited weight to the concern of the inspector that a decision to grant planning permission in this case would set a precedent as “… she was confident that any future decision-maker would pay attention to the whole decision and the detailed reasoning and not just to the outcome of the decision”.

The policy direction on embodied carbon

In December 2024, the NPPF was updated. The revised framework continues to include a presumption in favour of “sustainable development”. The concept of sustainable development is defined by reference to economic, social and environmental objectives, and the need to address and mitigate climate change is recognised as a strategic concern.

Paragraph 157 from the previous NPPF has been amended and now appears as a new paragraph 161. It reads: “The planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050 and take full account of all climate impacts including overheating, water scarcity, storm and flood risks and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”

The NPPF now refers to the transition to net zero in support of the UK’s legally binding target and requires a wider category of climate impacts to be taken account of. However, there is no new express policy on retrofit and reuse – the wording remains the same as before.

Certain local plans are introducing ‘retrofit first’ policies. For example, the draft Westminster City Plan (Partial Review) includes a detailed policy seeking to prioritise retrofitting over demolition, and the City of London’s emerging local plan includes a policy whereby development proposals should follow a ‘retrofit first’ approach.

The new City policy requires developers to thoroughly explore the potential for retaining and retrofitting existing buildings as the starting point for appraising site options, which will include the need for a robust analysis of the whole lifecycle carbon of different development approaches. Such policies are going to require developers to provide more detailed justification for proposals comprising demolition and rebuild and potentially make it easier for developers to obtain planning permission for schemes which extend or alter existing buildings in the context of a retrofit, particularly where whole lifecycle carbon savings can be demonstrated subject to the overall planning balance.

More generally, the pilot UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standard (NZCBS), which sets upfront embodied carbon limits which reduce year by year to 2050 in line with the UK net zero target, is set to be formally in place at the end of 2025.

There are further industry calls for the regulation of embodied carbon, in particular through the Building Regulations Part Z campaign, which calls for mandatory measurement and reporting of whole life carbon emissions from buildings of more than 1,000m2 or comprising more than 10 dwellings from 2026, to be followed by regulation on maximum upfront embodied carbon limits from 2028, which would be tightened over time.

Leading industry professional bodies published a set of policy recommendations in advance of the UK general election which supported these proposals, but the last government statement on the matter was in October 2023 when the then government promised a consultation on embodied carbon by the end of that year – this never happened. With the EU having amended the Energy Performance of Building Directive in 2025 to require member states to set limits on whole lifecycle carbon for new buildings by 1 January 2027, to be applied by 1 January 2030, there is growing pressure on the UK Labour government to act.

Whilst we wait to see if the government will directly regulate embodied carbon in development or possibly in building materials – via minimum product standards, the use of low carbon materials and, where demolition is contemplated for redevelopment, the need to consider as an alternative the possibility of the retrofit and retention of existing buildings to achieve whole lifecycle carbon savings – is now the direction of travel.