London (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Revised procedures to overhaul Liverpool Street Station will reportedly be “substantially different” to the actual scheme presented to the City of London Corporation last year.
The news that modifications were being made to the controversial proposal first came to light back in the Spring, with the City of London informing the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that a “redesign process” had started following the submission of more than 2,200 objections. The Architects’ Journal (AJ) has now conveyed that the fresh proposal will be “substantially different” to that filed in 2023.
Why did the 2023 proposal face significant opposition?
A representative for the station project, which is being led by Sellar and MTR operating with Network Rail, expressed the scheme has been reviewed in reaction to “heritage concerns”.
They added the new proposal offers an “elegant and intelligent solution” which manages the potential impact on historic assets.
The 2023 projects involved the partial obliteration of the iconic Victorian station and construction of a 20-storey tower cantilevered outside the neighbouring Grade-II* listed former Great Eastern Hotel, with new office and hotel space. Modifications worth £ 450 million were also included to the station itself, from more lifts and escalators to a new upper concourse and better step-free entrance. The procedures, drawn up by architectural firm Herzog & de Meruon, however, attracted a significant level of opposition.
How will the changes affect the architectural and historical integrity of Liverpool Street Station?
In a proposal to the City of London, Westminster City Council noted the proposal would “harm the setting of St Paul’s Cathedral and will harmfully alter an appreciation of this Strategically Important Landmark in views identified as being of strategic importance”. We believe the recommendation would be contrary to the policies specified within the London Plan and the City of London Local Plan.”
Historic England, the Government’s heritage watchdog, reported it objected to the scheme “in the strongest terms…which would drive extraordinarily high levels of harm to a number of designated heritage acquisitions, some of the greatest importance”.