Marks and Spencer Group PLC (LSE:MKS)'s chief executive Stuart Machin warned that Oxford Street is at risk of becoming a “dinosaur district.”
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Machin said the once-busy street is “on its knees” and being taken over by “tacky candy stores.”
“When I walk down Oxford Street today, I see a stark reality staring back at me. One in five shops sit vacant, there is a growing proliferation of tacky candy stores and near £600,000 of counterfeit goods have been seized from hawkers this year.”
“Footfall remains 30 per cent down on already dwindling pre-pandemic levels, with recovery in Oxford Street trailing its near cousins in Bond Street and Regent Street, both of which have benefited from significant redevelopment and investment.”
Machin’s comments come a couple of months after Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, paused plans to demolish M&S’s flagship Marble Arch store by issuing an Article 31 ruling.
Gove intervened on the work, which would’ve seen the store become a 10-storey retail and office block, on the back of concerns over carb emissions.
The boss of the FTSE 250 company, however, did not share these concerns, and believed would have used less energy and exceeded the government’s own carbon emission reduction targets.
Machin’s comments are the latest in an attack on Gove and the government following the announcement to issue Article 31 and stall the demolition of the store back in April.
Last week, M&S accused Michael Gove of “political grandstanding” when he ordered a public inquiry into the plans to demolish and rebuild the flagship store.
The retailer said it was “bewildered and disappointed” at “Michael Gove’s baseless decision,” despite it being previously granted permission.
Sacha Berendji, M&S property director said Gove appeared to prefer the “proliferation of stores hawking counterfeit goods to a gold-standard retail-led regeneration of the nation’s favourite high street”.
A spokesperson for Gove’s department instantly hit back, accusing M&S of “a disappointing and misleading” statement and insisting it was “right that a project of such significance should be considered by the independent Planning Inspectorate and ministers”.
The back and forwards between the two parties look set to continue for at least the next couple of months when the planning inspector should report back with a decision.