The proposed redevelopment of London Liverpool Street Station positions heritage concerns against operational needs

In April 2025, Network Rail submitted a new planning application for the redevelopment of London’s Liverpool Street Station, England’s busiest train station.  

This latest application represents a change from the original proposals submitted in 2023, which received over 2,000 objections and united in opposition a coalition of heritage organisations (known as the Liverpool Street Station Campaign, or LISSCA), including Historic England and charities Save Britain’s Heritage and the Victorian Society. LISSCA remains opposed to the new plans despite the changes made.

Proposed development plans

The new plans no longer include demolishing parts of the original Victorian interiors of the station and aim to improve accessibility by step-free access throughout the station and improving toilet facilities. They also introduce a greater variety of cafes and shops and increase the size of the concourse to ease over-crowding. That all seems sensible and, perhaps, overdue.

However, the controversial part of the proposal includes the building of a 19-storey office block directly over the station’s concourse. Whilst Network Rail states this is required to fund the development, opponents argue the size and placement of the new office block would block the natural light into the station “bulldozing the cathedral-like station concourse roof” (per Save Britain’s Heritage), and overwhelming the Grade II* listed Great Eastern Hotel which sits adjacent to the station.

Listed buildings

Listed buildings are categorised into three categories, based on their characteristics:

• Grade I – Buildings of exceptional special interest;
• Grade II* – Buildings that are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;
• Grade II – Buildings that are of special interest, which warrant every effort to preserve them.

Grade II is the most common category, accounting for over 90% of the total number of listed buildings.

Additional planning restrictions are applicable to listed buildings, for example listed buildings consent must be applied for to the Local Planning Authority in respect of any change which may affect the character of the building. When considering such applications, the Local Planning Authority must have regard to the need to preserve the building, including particular architectural or historical features.  In this case, LISSCA is concerned that the demolition of the roof of the station concourse and the development of the proposed new office block would compromise the 19^th century train shed in the station and would be detrimental to the setting of surrounding listed heritage assets including the Great Eastern Hotel, the Bishopsgate Conservation Area, and St Paul’s Cathedral (views of which would be blocked). Such a development could also set a precedent for further developments which surround listed buildings.

The Birketts View

The redevelopment of London’s Liverpool Street Station presents the Planning Authority with a balancing act, having to consider the development needs alongside the need to preserve the character of the listed buildings.

Whilst London’s Liverpool Street Station is owned by Network Rail, which is not a charity, many charities are interested in the outcome of the planning application either because the advancement of heritage (often through historical conservation and restoration) is their charitable purpose or because their assets include heritage assets and they may find themselves having to consider similar matters, ensuring that heritage is preserved whilst also ensuring buildings owned and managed by the charity are fit for purpose and allow the charity to further its charitable purpose.

It is clear that buildings which are centuries old and which do not meet the needs of people in the 21^st Century should be updated (and developed). However, the options presented often position redevelopment or demolition against preserving the existing outdated, inappropriate structure; often with no other alternatives.

Is it possible that such a binary choice is an over-simplification? We would argue that trustees can only fulfil their fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the charity, to use their charitable resources appropriately and to further the purposes of their charity by considering all possible options. So, can the proposed redevelopment of London’s Liverpool Street Station find the middle ground of meeting both operational upgrade needs and the preservation of its Victorian heritage? We hope so.