Liverpool Street Station Redevelopment Set for Approval Despite Heritage Concerns
The controversial £1.2bn redevelopment of Liverpool Street station is poised to receive approval from the City of London Corporation, despite facing significant opposition from heritage groups and thousands of objections. Planning officers have recommended the scheme for approval, acknowledging heritage harm but arguing the wider benefits justify the project.
Planning Officers Recommend Approval
In a detailed report, City of London planning officers recognised that the proposals would cause harm to several heritage assets, including the station itself. However, they concluded these issues were “clearly and convincingly justified” given the strategic advantages of the scheme.
“The proposal would significantly upgrade Liverpool Street Station and deliver density in a suitable and sustainable location,” planning officers wrote. “It would advance the strategic and business objectives of the City, uniquely so in view of the transformational transport benefits flowing from the proposal.”
The City of London’s planning committee will meet next Tuesday to vote on the plans, which have become unusually contentious with over 2,300 objections and more than 1,100 letters of support.
Scale and Significance of the Project
Liverpool Street is Britain’s busiest station, recording nearly 100 million entries and exits last year. Passenger numbers are forecast to rise to 158 million by 2041, creating significant pressure on existing infrastructure.
Planning officers described the redevelopment as a “singularly intensive, complex and sensitive” scheme that would:
- Significantly increase the size of the station concourse
- Introduce step-free access across all rail and underground platforms
- Increase the number of elevators from four to ten
To help fund the £1.2bn redevelopment, a 19-storey office block will be constructed over the station’s concourse – the most controversial element of the scheme. Developers hope this will contribute £500m towards the costs.
Heritage Concerns and Objections
The proposals have attracted substantial criticism from heritage organisations concerned about the impact on the surrounding area.
The Georgian Group stated: “The location, height and massing of the proposed development would cause considerable harm to heritage assets of the highest importance.”
SAVE Britain’s Heritage objected on “the strongest terms on heritage grounds,” arguing that proper alternatives to development over the station concourse had not been properly considered.
“We acknowledge a need to improve the accessibility and operational functionality of the station. However…we have not seen evidence that alternative options to over-station development were considered, such as providing a baseline minimum harm scheme or considering alternative sites for development to fund the station improvement works.”
St Paul’s Cathedral also objected, stating the development would “harm the ability to appreciate the Cathedral as a Strategically Important Landmark.”
Balancing Heritage Harm with Wider Benefits
Planning officers admitted the plans would “entail the loss of significant historic fabric, causing harm to the station’s significance,” but maintained this was outweighed by the broader positive impacts.
“The range of impacts would result in numerous policy conflicts, but officers consider that there is overall compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole,” they concluded.
Construction Timeline and Disruption
If approved, construction would commence in 2028 and continue until 2036. During the works, platforms one and two – primarily used by the London Overground – would be closed for up to two years.
Network Rail has stated they would be able to mitigate disruption, potentially through ‘service thinning’ strategies.
“The scheme has been carefully designed and phased to ensure that the station remains open and operational during the works,” a Network Rail spokesperson confirmed.
The final decision rests with the City of London’s planning committee, who must weigh significant heritage concerns against the promised transport improvements and economic benefits of this major infrastructure project.
