Redevelopment Plans for Liverpool Street - Development Policy Going Backwards

[Benjwri]

3,500 objections completely ignored

This is an increasingly poor metric, planning applications like this are increasingly attracting high levels of objections when they come to the public eye, and there are groups that will use their members to effectively flood template objections on major projects. I would be willing to bet a decent proportion very rarely or never use Liverpool Street. It doesn't take looking through many of the comments on the application to realise that this certainly has happened here.

can't ignore the views of Historic England and heritage groups, to demolish listed buildings and ignore conservation areas at will.

Historic England did not object and only comments on the heritage, saying the public benefit is for the authority to decide. Network rail is not demolishing buildings 'at will', it has put forward a planning application, consulted, modified the scheme as a result and brought it back to planning, and will abide by the result.

As other posters have said, we cannot preserve everything. We have to respond to growing demands, and for public transport to increase its mode share stations are going to have to be altered. While, as you have mentioned in previous posts, parts of the benefits to station users could be delivered without the overdevelopment, it would be at substantial cost to both National Rail and TfL, and is simply money that does not exist, with no signs it will exist in the future. Suggestions that there is an alternative where the improvements are delivered without the overdevelopment are simply untrue.

 

[AndrewP]

When Liverpool Street was redeveloped in the 80s it was a real game changer and set the template for the redevelopment for stations but the design dates from the early / mid 80s when rail travel was different and the dynamic of the City was different - Broadgate transformed city fringes and back then the concept that Shoreditch and Hoxton were going to be desirable would have been laughable.

The thing is that the station now feels dated from a use perspective but still looks good so something needs to be done so something needed to be done and I hope this is the right thing as I am going to miss the 80s/90s bits as I did a lot of research on it for my first degree and have real affection for it

 

[65477]

3,500 objections completely ignored.

Having looked at a selection of the "objections" on the web-site I would say 3,500 OBJECTORS looked at at. Under planning law an objection is only valid if it refers to a limited number of criteria, Of the objectors a number are from a template as they are well developed statements and could be seem as valid objections. Most of the them are single line statements.

The comments can be found here, although comments by way of a supporting document are in int tab marked "Documents":

https://www.planning2.cityoflondon....l=SUJWJ4FHJYE00&neighbourCommentsPager.page=1

The Historic England document is at:

https://www.planning2.cityoflondon...._FULEIA-COMMENTS-HISTORIC_ENGLAND-1671538.pdf

As someone who first used Liverpool Street in 1953 and it has remained my main London Terminal since then, I am now of an age when I need lifts to get me and luggage between platforms, I addition of lifts to the Central line alone will be a very very valuable addition.

 

[RGM654]

The document reporting the planning approval (linked above) mentions "wider platforms". Does that mean there will be less tracks?

 

[Russel]

An appalling decision in my view, but not surprising given the shocking undemocratic anachronism that is the City of London Corporation.

3,500 objections completely ignored.

If this proceeds it really is the thin end of the wedge - no reason why Network Rail or anyone else can't ignore the views of Historic England and heritage groups, to demolish listed buildings and ignore conservation areas at will.

No reason why a similar scheme can't be proposed for any other listed station in the country now.

Hopefully the judicial process will quash it.

It's a train station in a living, working and expanding city surrounded by modern tower blocks, not a monument or museum piece.

Should any judicial process quash this, then those that object should foot the bill for the resulting redesign.

 

[Benjwri]

The document reporting the planning approval (linked above) mentions "wider platforms". Does that mean there will be less tracks?

No, I'm not sure what that means. The Existing/proposed documents show no visible change in width or amount.

 

[Russel]

No, I'm not sure what that means. The Existing/proposed documents show no visible change in width or amount.

I've never really considered the platforms at Liverpool Street to be narrow tbh.

 

[bananas]

No, I'm not sure what that means. The Existing/proposed documents show no visible change in width or amount.

Is it referring to the tube platforms? Sounds expensive if so

 

[yorksrob]

It does seem that were it not for the fact that the station is a storey below street level, it would have the perfect layout.

 

[Trainbike46]

No, I'm not sure what that means. The Existing/proposed documents show no visible change in width or amount.

Maybe it's referring to the platform entrances / gatelines?

 

[35B]

Hopefully the judicial process will quash it.

Just on this one, I really really hope the judicial process does no such thing. Without comment on the merits of the scheme, the judicial review process is not there to relitigate lost causes, but solely to hold public authorities accountable for making decisions according to the law.

If the Coty Corporation have failed to abide by the law then so be it. But the attempt by opposition groups to use the courts to have a second bite of the cherry, and put judges above elected politicians*, is deeply concerning.

* - yes, I am aware that the City Corporation has a highly anachronistic form of governance. That is, with respect, a different issue.

 

[yorksrob]

Just on this one, I really really hope the judicial process does no such thing. Without comment on the merits of the scheme, the judicial review process is not there to relitigate lost causes, but solely to hold public authorities accountable for making decisions according to the law.

If the Coty Corporation have failed to abide by the law then so be it. But the attempt by opposition groups to use the courts to have a second bite of the cherry, and put judges above elected politicians*, is deeply concerning.

* - yes, I am aware that the City Corporation has a highly anachronistic form of governance. That is, with respect, a different issue.

Isn't the same true of the planning authorities ?

 

[35B]

Isn't the same true of the planning authorities ?

I'm not sure I follow, but think you are suggesting that planning authorities may be putting themselves above elected bodies. If so, there's a misunderstanding at work. Planning authorities are committees of elected authorities, and decisions are taken either by the councillors or, on smaller matters, by council officers under powers delegated to them by those councillors.

 

[Julia]

What I don't follow is the projections for the office space market. There's already masses going up in the area - a giant at the back of Broadgate - and plenty of empty blocks within walking distance, plus the whole of the triangle of Worship St / Curtain Road / Clifton St is earmarked for demolition and turning into new offices and another big tower. At a time when remote work really got into gear after COVID and when we office workers are supposed to be being made redundant thanks to progress in AI, who is actually going to inhabit all this space? Or is it all speculative, with owners of empty blocks trying to steal tenants off each other?

 

[35B]

What I don't follow is the projections for the office space market. There's already masses going up in the area - a giant at the back of Broadgate - and plenty of empty blocks within walking distance, plus the whole of the triangle of Worship St / Curtain Road / Clifton St is earmarked for demolition and turning into new offices and another big tower. At a time when remote work really got into gear after COVID and when we office workers are supposed to be being made redundant thanks to progress in AI, who is actually going to inhabit all this space? Or is it all speculative, with owners of empty blocks trying to steal tenants off each other?

It'll be part speculative, but return to office pressure is significant and a lot of firms have shed too much office space.

 

[MPW]

This is an increasingly poor metric, planning applications like this are increasingly attracting high levels of objections when they come to the public eye, and there are groups that will use their members to effectively flood template objections on major projects. I would be willing to bet a decent proportion very rarely or never use Liverpool Street. It doesn't take looking through many of the comments on the application to realise that this certainly has happened here.

Historic England did not object and only comments on the heritage, saying the public benefit is for the authority to decide. Network rail is not demolishing buildings 'at will', it has put forward a planning application, consulted, modified the scheme as a result and brought it back to planning, and will abide by the result.

As other posters have said, we cannot preserve everything. We have to respond to growing demands, and for public transport to increase its mode share stations are going to have to be altered. While, as you have mentioned in previous posts, parts of the benefits to station users could be delivered without the overdevelopment, it would be at substantial cost to both National Rail and TfL, and is simply money that does not exist, with no signs it will exist in the future. Suggestions that there is an alternative where the improvements are delivered without the overdevelopment are simply untrue.

I agree! 3.5k objections is pretty small compared to the 100m entries and exits for the station, even if you could somehow account for the fact that the same person can count for a number of those entries/exits over the year.

The images of future station looks architecturally beautiful compared to other stations in london, particularly moorgate and cannon street, and even fenchurch st if you look past the facade.
The current towers are nice, but where would they rank if you made a list of all the interesting structures within a 1 mile radius?

I only comment to balance out the opinions, as i think people are quicker to say what they dislike on these forums. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on something as subjective as the beauty of the built environment.

 

[35B]

This is an increasingly poor metric, planning applications like this are increasingly attracting high levels of objections when they come to the public eye, and there are groups that will use their members to effectively flood template objections on major projects.

I agree! 3.5k objections is pretty small compared to the 100m entries and exits for the station, even if you could somehow account for the fact that the same person can count for a number of those entries/exits over the year.

Also agree. Planning policy is about far more than pure popularity, and the number of people willing to put their name to a particular proposal is often a function of how well organised a campaign is, rather than the real depth of feeling on an issue. A few well thought through views on something may be worth significantly more than a large number of pro-forma write-ins. This is also true of other policy areas - I heard a very instructive interview recently where the proponent of some legislation used the number of people supporting him in a poll as evidence for why what he was proposing was objectively a good idea, wilfully blurring the line between "is this a good idea" and "is this popular".

 

[Benjwri]

What I don't follow is the projections for the office space market. There's already masses going up in the area - a giant at the back of Broadgate - and plenty of empty blocks within walking distance, plus the whole of the triangle of Worship St / Curtain Road / Clifton St is earmarked for demolition and turning into new offices and another big tower. At a time when remote work really got into gear after COVID and when we office workers are supposed to be being made redundant thanks to progress in AI, who is actually going to inhabit all this space? Or is it all speculative, with owners of empty blocks trying to steal tenants off each other?

Finance especially, which is the City’s large market, is very strong on return to the office now. Almost everyone I know that works in it has been put back to full time in the office, no remote work. The trend more generally is also a return to at least part time in the office.

 

[35B]

Finance especially, which is the City’s large market, is very strong on return to the office now. Almost everyone I know that works in it has been put back to full time in the office, no remote work. The trend more generally is also a return to at least part time in the office.

And part time in the office doesn't release so much space, as if people are to see value from being in the office, they will tend to bunch.

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI the City office market has been red hot for a coulle of years now, especially for top quality (ie new or nearly so) offices with top end faciltiites located close to the Elizabeth Line.

 

[camflyer]

And part time in the office doesn't release so much space, as if people are to see value from being in the office, they will tend to bunch.

We are still hybrid and I don't see that changing any time soon. We've downsized office space twice since the pandemic, the London head office is half the size it used to be and other locations have closed completely so the company must be saving a fortune in rent and facilities costs.

Businesses may not be wanting as much space but they are now demanding better quality offices which are more flexible and where people want to go to work rather than open plans with as many desks crammed in as possible.

 

[marko2]

Also agree. Planning policy is about far more than pure popularity, and the number of people willing to put their name to a particular proposal is often a function of how well organised a campaign is, rather than the real depth of feeling on an issue. A few well thought through views on something may be worth significantly more than a large number of pro-forma write-ins. This is also true of other policy areas - I heard a very instructive interview recently where the proponent of some legislation used the number of people supporting him in a poll as evidence for why what he was proposing was objectively a good idea, wilfully blurring the line between "is this a good idea" and "is this popular".

As we know from the public enquiry for HS2 - which had large quantities of pro-forma objections, they're treated a s single view. In that case they all of the 'you're spoiling the countryside', not-in-my-backyard type opinions were dispatched in a single afternoon sitting.

 

[yorksrob]

I think I've got a better grasp of the new proposal and it seems to involve two office blocks - one on the corner where the MacDonalds building is and another over the concourse.

I can reluctantly agree with the one on the corner for reasons of pragmatism, however I don't agree with the one over the concourse as it will make it dark and gloomy.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

I think I've got a better grasp of the new proposal and it seems to involve two office blocks - one on the corner where the MacDonalds building is and another over the concourse.

I can reluctantly agree with the one on the corner for reasons of pragmatism, however I don't agree with the one over the concourse as it will make it dark and gloomy.

I think that you will find it's one L shaped block, with the main entrance where the McDonald's building currently is. The two existing entrance squares will be covered by the brick effect arches and the concourse will have fake steel arches to largely match the 1990's arches/canopy. I assume that all of these will be painted white and floodlit by daylight spectrum bulbs to be reflected back. Ironically it might appear brighter when they have finished than it does on a gloomy day today!

 

[yorksrob]

I think that you will find it's one L shaped block, with the main entrance where the McDonald's building currently is. The two existing entrance squares will be covered by the brick effect arches and the concourse will have fake steel arches to largely match the 1990's arches/canopy. I assume that all of these will be painted white and floodlit by daylight spectrum bulbs to be reflected back. Ironically it might appear brighter when they have finished than it does on a gloomy day today!

As a pragmatist, I can lose the corner, but I don't want the overall concourse space built over. I can't imagine spectrum bulbs giving a natural feeling of light.

 

[fat_boy_pete]

As a pragmatist, I can lose the corner, but I don't want the overall concourse space built over. I can't imagine spectrum bulbs giving a natural feeling of light.

Well they have planning permission now and since the Chancellor did a photo op on the concourse about the development, there's no way it's going to be called in.

We can but hope the lighting design is a good one.

 

[yorksrob]

Well they have planning permission now and since the Chancellor did a photo op on the concourse about the development, there's no way it's going to be called in.

We can but hope the lighting design is a good one.

I guess we can be thankful that the majority of the train shed will survive.

 

[Brush 4]

It's a precedent of things to come. If this is now going ahead, Why not other stations, listed or otherwise? Waterloo, Paddington, BTM, Edinburgh Waverley......

 

[35B]

It's a precedent of things to come. If this is now going ahead, Why not other stations, listed or otherwise? Waterloo, Paddington, BTM, Edinburgh Waverley......

Because of the land values in the City

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a precedent of things to come. If this is now going ahead, Why not other stations, listed or otherwise? Waterloo, Paddington, BTM, Edinburgh Waverley......

It’s already happened at Paddington. And will be happing at Waterloo.