The simmering discontent over Sir Stuart Rose�s powerful role at high street retailer Marks & Spencer will emerge once more at the company�s annual meeting this week with investors planning a protest vote.

The simmering discontent over Sir Stuart Rose's powerful role at high street retailer Marks & Spencer will emerge once more at the company's annual meeting this week with investors planning a protest vote.

Three groups representing shareholders are supporting a resolution that calls for his job of chairman and chief executive to be split.

The resolution also calls for the appointment of a new, independent chairman by July 2010 - well ahead of the current timetable.

While there is no doubt Rose has been successful in turning around what was, when he joined, an ailing company, many institutional investors believe his dominance over the whole group is far too strong. There has been significant friction in the past, although due to a number of last-minute concessions no real changes in the leadership of the group were made.

However, this time it looks as though big shareholders certainly have lined up Rose in their sights and many would not be sad to see the back of a man who literally saved Marks & Spencer from collapse.

The succession issue has been muddied somewhat by senior Marks director Sir David Michels' assertion he wants to run the company after Rose steps down next year.

This has apparently caused consternation among those in the boardroom who want a clean break from the old regime.

Rose, who has faced criticism from investors over his dual role of chairman and chief executive, has refused to support Michels as his successor. He said last week a new chief executive would be appointed next year, after which he would become a non-executive chairman during a handover period.

But he failed to endorse Michel's attempt to succeed him as chairman. Asked for his response to his colleague's candidacy, Rose said: "I'm very comfortable. It's a free world if he wishes to put forward his candidature."

He rejected the idea he should leave the company after stepping down as executive chairman, to allow the incoming chief executive a fresh start. Rose said: "I will be staying on for an appropriate period of time to make sure that person is comfortable. Maybe they might feel it's a positive influence."

A spokesman for the retailer said Rose's comments reflected the fact he would not play a role in the appointment of a new chairman.

There may also be an investor rebellion over the re-appointment of Lady Patten, who, as head of the company's pay committee, signed a deal to award Rose and Steve Sharp, head of marketing, generous share incentive packages.