Planners approve redevelopment of Britain's busiest train station
A project to transform London Liverpool Street has been met with opposition
A controversial £1.2 billion redevelopment of London Liverpool Street, the busiest train station in Britain, has been given the green light despite fears about the impact on the heritage of the Central London site.
City of London Corporation councillors voted overwhelmingly in-favour of the scheme with just three members on the Planning Applications Sub-Committee opting to refuse.
Heritage groups speaking at the committee meeting this afternoon (February 10) claimed Network Rail’s proposal would cause a “very high degree of harm” to the station’s assets.
A senior Network Rail official however argued the redevelopment, which will see a 19-storey office block built over the station to fund a range of upgrades, is necessary to deliver “transformational change” to the site.
Griff Rhys Jones, President of the Victorian Society and of the Liverpool Street Station Campaign (LISSCA), said following the meeting that “the City of London deserves better than this for its station”, adding it is a “sad day” for the capital.
Liverpool Street is the busiest station in the UK, recording 98 million visitors in 2025/26, though is in-need of a series of upgrades to ensure it meets future demand.
Network Rail’s proposal, the second it has submitted in its efforts to get a redevelopment of the site moving, would see the 19-storey office block built over the station to fund the improvements.
While acknowledging the need for works improving accessibility and boosting capacity critics have consistently raised concerns about the impact of the block on local heritage, notably the required destruction of parts of the station.
The application drew a record number of objections, more than 3,700 in total, with 1,153 in support.
Hotel company Hyatt, the owner of the Grade II-listed Andaz located adjacent to the station, was among those to oppose the plans, writing the building would suffer from disruption and “noise pollution” if the scheme progresses.
Its submission also claimed Network Rail’s application “misses the point of the social role and function of the Andaz as one of the few 5* City hotels, and one of the few surviving great railway hotels; not only in London, but in the UK”.
The hotel group has further raised concerns about the financial viability of the scheme, noting the £220 million funding gap detailed in Network Rail’s documents before costs such as compensation for train companies have been considered.
Campaign group SAVE Britain’s Heritage urged the City of London to defer making a decision on Network Rail’s scheme, and to allow for time to review alternatives, such as that pitched by architectural firm John McAslan + Partners (JMP).
‘High degree of harm’
Alec Forshaw, speaking on behalf of SAVE and The Liverpool Street Station Campaign (LISSCA) told members the proposal would “cause a very high degree of harm to the heritage assets”.
“The severe damage caused by the application proposals cannot be justified if the public benefits can be achieved in a less harmful, less disruptive and less expensive way,” he added. “You do not currently have the information to make that decision. Please defer the matter.”
John McAslan, Founder of JMP which worked on station redevelopments including at King’s Cross and Penn Station in New York, similarly called for deferral, with columnist and author Sir Simon Jenkins also rising to object to the scheme.
He referred to an unsuccessful proposal pitched in the 1980s which preceded the subsequent 1990s redevelopment, before expressing his preference for JMP’s alternative proposal.
“I think it answers your requirements more cheaply, more efficiently, more quickly. I beg you to defer it.”
Ellie Burrows, Managing Director for Network Rail Eastern Region, described the existing station as presenting a “significant challenge” for the organisation.
She said it needs “major investment to ensure it is fit for the future”, with issues from a lack of step-free access to connectivity problems needing to be resolved.
Deputy Ben Murphy, one of two Bishopsgate councillors to speak to support the application, acknowledged the fears raised by objectors.
However, he said the station is not currently “fit for purpose”, and “cannot adequately provide what we need for the future”.
Common Councillor William Upton KC queried the viability of the scheme as presented and the degree to which the station’s heritage would be harmed.
He said: “This is a really tricky scheme to justify. I don’t think we have the information before us to do that, and I think the level of harm is greater than the officers are putting forward.”
Put to a vote members overwhelmingly chose to approve the application, with Cllr Upton, Cllr Adkin and Alderwoman Alison Gowman against.
Following the meeting Deputy Tom Sleigh, Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee, said: “Everyone likes an upgrade, and this astonishing improvement to Britain’s busiest train station is just that; a major improvement by every measure. It’s a late, but very welcome Christmas present for the nation. The soaring Brick arches and bold architecture will cement Liverpool Street’s status as a modern temple to transport.”
Mr Rhys Jones said: “This is sad day for the City of London. A disfiguring billion pound office block on top of a major heritage asset is not essential to the City’s development plans, it is doubtful whether it will easily provide the profit to “improve” the concourse, and can only realise a small amount of extra space for the passenger.
“Its focus is retail opportunities which the commuter doesn’t need. It will destroy an existing conservation area. It demolishes listed buildings. It is harmful to the surrounding historic fabric. It has been proposed on a false PR-led assertion that Network Rail is “under instruction” to build on top of its London Stations. It is not. Any advantages to disabled access are a statutory duty and should not require twenty storeys of office block and ten years of disruption to achieve.
“By ignoring all these considerations, the Corporation planning committee have bowed to developer ambitions, set a bad precedent for London and ignore the user. The City of London deserves better than this for its station – one of the busiest and therefore most important in Britain.”
The application is now to be referred to the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for final approval.