Station upgrade to be front-loaded with four-year programme of civils work set to begin first
Network Rail’s Liverpool Street station redevelopment could get final sign-off from the mayor of London and the government by this summer but construction on the £1bn scheme’s controversial overstation development is not expected to start for eight years.
The Acme-designed scheme was granted approval by the City of London yesterday afternoon following a turbulent two-and-a-half year planning process beset by multiple design and project team changes.
The City and Network Rail will now enter discussions over the scheme’s section 106 agreement, a process which is expected to take several months but is likely to conclude before the start of the summer.
Documents including the finalised section 106 agreement, the City’s draft approval, Network Rail’s planning application and the planning officers’ report will then be handed to City Hall, which will have 14 days to issue its final decision unless it requests a time extension.
Due to the size of the scheme, the documents will also be sent to communities secretary Steve Reed, who will also have the option to call in the scheme.
However, construction work at the grade II-listed site is not scheduled to start for at least four years after final approval, with the scheme’s station upgrades to be prioritised under a four-year programme of work expected to last well into the 2030s.
This will be followed by the 18-storey overstation development, which will take a further two to three years to complete with the overall scheme unlikely to be finished before late into the next decade.
The project is considered a strategic priority by City councillors due to rapidly growing passenger volumes at Liverpool Street but has attracted a record number of objections from members of the public due proposals to demolish a large section of the station’s trainshed.
Objectors who spoke at a contentious and packed-out two-and-a-half hour meeting of the City’s planning committee yesterday included Simon Jenkins, columnist at The Guardian and former editor of The Times and the Evening Standard.
Jenkins argued in favour of a rival proposal drawn up by John McAslan while criticising the cost and design of Acme’s proposals, telling the hearing: “everything about it to me looks odd”.
McAslan, the architect behind the extension of King’s Cross station, was also among the list of five objectors selected to speak against the application, telling councillors that Acme’s designs for the site would be “ruinous to both the station and the context”.
Calling for the decision on the application to be deferred, McAslan said the plans would cause “decades or more of destruction to commuters and other station users and an outcome which is both unviable and undeliverable”.
But the plans were overwhelmingly backed by members of the City’s planning committee, ultimately being passed with 19 votes in favour and just three against.
While Bishopsgate councillor Benjamin Murphy conceded there were “clearly impacts that must be acknowledged” including the loss of heritage features, he said the current station is “sadly no longer fit for purpose”.
“Any redevelopment of a nationally significant asset will raise concerns. The challenge is to address them properly, mitigate impacts where possible and deliver a scheme efficiently that is sustainable and fit for the next generation,” he said, adding: “Ultimately this application will secure Liverpool Street as the UK’s most important station”.
Planning committee chair Tom Sleigh robustly backed the application in his closing remarks, telling councillors: “Why is a new station OK for the Victorians, OK for people 40 years ago but somehow isn’t OK for people in the City today? I believe City workers deserve a new station too. So you’ll be unsurprised to know that I am firmly in favour of this excellent application.”
Heritage groups fighting the plans have reacted with dismay to the City’s vote, with Save Britain’s Heritage calling the outcome “a missed opportunity to consider less disruptive and damaging approaches to funding the station upgrades that passengers deserve”.
The group said it is now in the process of examining the committee’s vote and deciding its next steps, which could include challenging the City’s decision with a judicial review.
1 Readers' comment