Rayner ruled on Thursday (5 December) that the retailer could press ahead with its plan to replace the iconic building with a 10-storey office scheme by Pilbrow & Partners.Her Tory predecessor, Michael Gove, had blocked the plans but his decision was quashed by a High Court judge in March this year.The court ruling meant the case had to be returned to the secretary of state to be redetermined. With the change of government, the final decision fell to Rayner, who waved the scheme through.AdvertisementPilbrow & Partners founder Fred Pilbrow told the AJ yesterday that his practice was delighted by the decision, describing it as long overdue.He added: In [M&S chief executive] Stuart Machins words: we can now get on with the job of helping to rejuvenate the UKs premier shopping street through a flagship M&S store and office space, which will support 2,000 jobs and act as a global standard-bearer for sustainability.Machin, who previously expressed fury at Goves decision, said he was also delighted by the approval, after what he described as three unnecessary years of delays, obfuscation and political posturing at its worst under the previous government.But others have exhibited dismay and desperation over Rayners ruling.Bennetts Associates co-founder Rab Bennetts said the decision misses a golden opportunity to set the strategy for a confused industry.AdvertisementHe explained: It has already been shown that this site can still be developed whilst retaining the best of the existing property, so there was no need to opt for the maximum development instead of something more reasonable.As a result, it remains to be seen how regeneration through the planning process can support the unavoidable path to low carbon.Earlier this year the AJ and SAVE Britains Heritage (SAVE) ran the re:store design competition to look at progressive options for the M&S buildings reuse and adaption.Connolly Wellingham Architects was one of the six teams who pitched their concepts for how the 1929 building could be repurposed. Practice founder Fergus Connolly described Rayner's decision as a disappointing development from a government that promises so much change.He added: The need for a forthright shift to reuse and retrofit remains exciting, essential and yet somehow infuriatingly elusive.Large scale flagship projects such as M&S Oxford Street may not speak directly to the majority of more typical projects. They do, however, send an important message. And the message right now is worryingly tone deaf: its business as usual.Others, however, have hailed the decision as a positive step forward for the industry.'Logic and common sense have prevailed'Developer Stuart Lipton, co-founder and partner at Lipton Rogers Developments, said Rayners was a sensible answer and a step forward for Oxford Street, which had become a street of shame. He told the AJ: In a world where everything is going up, the cost of planning, the Section 106 costs, finance costs, construction costs, we need some assistance.The real question on carbon is a sensible balance. Where theres a clear, long life then, by all means, keep the building. On the other hand, if its a short life [such as retention for just another 30 years], whats the point?And if we cant support something decent, by a decent company who have responsibility, what can we support?Alistair Watson, UK head of planning and environment at law firm Taylor Wessing, said: To riff off one of the quotes from legendary football manager Bill Shankly, the trouble with some politicians is that they know the rules but they do not know the game of planning. The [previous] secretary of state Gove didnt get it. This secretary of state clearly does.The secretary of states decision to agree with the inspectors recommendation and the High Court to provide a planning permission for M&S is as straightforward as it comes. This is a major development scheme which has a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, all of which were backed up with expert evidence in a full public inquiry. Logic and common sense have prevailed over political ideology. The planning system at its best.The decision provides the certainty that the industry has been crying out forStephen Springham, head of UK Markets at Knight Frank, said the decision provides the greater certainty around the retrofit-versus-rebuild debate that the industry has been crying out for.He added: Taken in conjunction with new guidance at local authority and regional level on when it is appropriate to permit demolition, we are starting to gain a better understanding of the grounds upon which future decisions will be taken. Consistency is vital for the UKs economic recovery and inward investment.Charles Begley, chief executive at the London Property Alliance, said: I hope with this decision we can finally end the uncertainty which has acted as a drag on investment, damaging growth and the jobs that go with it. It is disappointing it has taken so long, which sends a negative message to those willing to invest in London and beyond.The government now needs to ensure that planning reform supports sustainable redevelopment, and whilst giving stronger guidance to local councils, needs to set itself strict timelines to deal with contentious decisions once it intervenes to prevent a repeat of this long-running saga.The fact that the property industry had been waiting the outcome of this case for clarity is clearly a failure of national policy. The application itself had unfortunately become a lightning rod for the retrofit v redevelopment debate, but we need to recognise that a more nuanced approach is needed and policy must allow and support a range of interventions on a case-by-case basis.