Good poll starter @archiZen.  

Using existing building stock (and there seems to be quite a lot), can be a good way to minimise demolition and building waste.  A building can be retrofitted to current standards without necessarily constructing something new.

The question is why wouldn’t you retrofit?  There is always a way to make use of a building and adapt it to new standards.  

The biggest problem at the moment are the large developer led projects that concentrate more on profit than carbon emissions. The contractors have to be very good on retrofit - all this does is cost a developer money and time.

It is not possible to make good architecture without a good client. Looking at the way the buildings have increased over the years tells me developers are bad clients.  Just look at the rubbish they’ve produced.

@jane There is always scope for retrofitting disused buildings and bringing them back into use, but that should be taken on a building by building basis.  

Some buildings that were not great buildings to start off with should be removed because no matter how much you dress it up it is still not going to look/perform great.  

The other main issue is the money that is spent on improving  the building using specialist contractors that will take extra time and might bring up to standards now but may not exceed min. standards.

What I usually see is that a number of existing buildings should never have been built.  I understand keeping buildings of ‘architectural importance’, however it is helpful to ensure the building is fit for purpose, otherwise it may as well be demolished to make room for new build.

Starting work on any retrofit project can be more complicated than initially expected and you might have to put it in perspective. The specialist requirements that are needed for existing stock can be too time consuming and overly expensive and in turn the building may end up staying empty (one that comes to mind is the Ark in London).

A more practical consideration is to design and construct a new building. Often this is more cost-effective and in compliance with current regulations and standards.

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/gove-refuses-mands-oxford-street-redevelopment-in-landmark-ruling/5124255.article

The reason for the demolition is the “existing store suffered from an inefficient building envelope”.  From this, retrofit might overcome some of the faults and bring it up to a better standard but it will still use materials and there will be a carbon footprint.

My problem with this article is that Michael Gove refused the permission mainly because 

the height and appearance of the corner of the proposed scheme would be “prominent and distracting from the Selfridge’s façade”, especially when compared with the deferential appearance of the existing Orchard House.

When does Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities of the United Kingdom have a vote on planning permissions because he thinks it will clash with a neighbouring building?  The funny thing is that the owners of Selfridges had no issues with the new build.  

I would understand refusing a planning application on its merits but to do so because it doesn’t fit in with the grade II listed building next door says nothing about sustainability or reducing carbon emissions. It’s just one man's opinion.

This is not a precedent that needs to be set in the built environment or planning.

Posted by: @nazart

It’s just one man's opinion.

You have hit the nail on the head. The government has made the final decision on this building and it has nothing to do with planning.  I do not understand why heritage campaigners were so involved with this when M&S were refused a listing application.

I remember reading there was also a problem with the energy efficiency of the building and the new build would be in line with net zero targets.

M&S proposes to replace the store with a building it says will be among the most sustainable in London. It will be built along the principles of the “circular economy,” with 95 per cent of the existing materials recovered, recycled or reused in the new building. When completed, the company says it will use less than a quarter of the energy of the building it replaces.

https://www.ft.com/content/881d861b-0760-4a1c-a014-8e2023b61e58

You have to be careful with retrofitting, even with insulation in old cavity walls.  It can cause structural problems, and damp problems.  Retrofitting can be expensive and you need experienced contractors.

The other drawback apart from the increasing cost of energy is the occupancy of the store may now come into question.

An empty building is worse for the environment than having a new build that is actually used, surely??

Gove strikes again, similar in some way to the M&S building the ITV building on the Southbank is located near Grade II listed buildings.  The LPA and GLA had no problems with the planning but there are always protests from historic England (surprise, surprise).

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/gove-delays-decision-on-makes-itv-studios-scheme-by-two-months/5124585.article

This is once again a waiting game of 2 months for Gove to make his decision, but how much of this affects the use of the building.  If the planning gets the go-ahead then there will be more work within the construction industry, more opportunities for businesses and more interest in the area.

Hello @archiZen

Good poll. Interesting initial results too.

For what it's worth, existing buildings need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the case of listed or historical buildings, retrofit outweighs all other considerations. It's unfortunate that these structures often fade into the background after construction until damages necessitate attention. If the building is in use, this generally is not an issue. If the building has been empty for a while there may be other factors in the decay through lack of use.

Addressing the structural integrity is crucial, particularly for buildings aged 50 or 60 years and above. Foundations need to be inspected, especially if there are plans for more construction. Existing access to the building needs to align with building regulations.

As for internal space, questions such as if there is decay, or whether the stairs conform to current standards, how the access fits into the overall building plan, how to maximise space, all need to be addressed. These considerations are just the tip of the iceberg.

Every existing structure grapples with issues of air tightness, moisture control, and energy usage. Selecting the right insulation type, be it internal or external, demands careful evaluation, especially for internal spaces due to space constraints. The chosen insulation affects space availability, layout alterations, and more.

Refurbishing an existing building is time-consuming and expensive. Comprehensive assessments are imperative before embarking on any work. Specific details throughout the structure often require specialists who understand the complexities of working with older buildings.

Retrofitting existing structures not only preserves the historical landscape but also aligns with environmental goals by reducing carbon emissions, compared to demolishing and constructing new ones. Achieving optimal levels of energy efficiency and air tightness may pose challenges, but if the building can reduce energy usage by 75% or more, the costs become justifiable.

However, if a building proves unfit for use, the better alternative is often to build something new. New builds offer improved energy efficiency, flexibility in layouts, and adaptability over time. In-depth studies must be conducted to ensure the best outcome for any site.

It is a balancing act, considering historical significance, environmental impact, and practicality. As has been pointed out many times, the process demands a blend of expertise, creativity, and a willingness to adapt to unforeseen challenges

You can see there's a lot to find out, and that no one answer is necessarily the only one.

Looks like M&S won the appeal and good on them. This has turned out to be a very costly planning application that in all fairness would be a much better investment to Oxford Street than having a building that is not fit for purpose and may be left empty in the future.

“However, this does not automatically mean that planning permission will be granted – Gove will have to redetermine the appeal and could in theory still refuse planning permission.”

Gove has been given too much power when it comes to planning. Winning an appeal means that there was merit in what had been proposed and the reasons for the refusal did not outweigh the merits of the initial planning application and it should be left at that.