{"id":925548,"date":"2026-04-29T04:25:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T04:25:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/925548\/"},"modified":"2026-04-29T04:25:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T04:25:26","slug":"gla-design-panel-had-significant-concerns-over-acme-liverpool-st-plans-report-reveals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/925548\/","title":{"rendered":"GLA design panel had \u2018significant concerns\u2019 over ACME Liverpool St plans, report reveals"},"content":{"rendered":"

A report from the Greater London Authority\u2019s (GLA) London Review Panel in late 2024 recently discovered by the AJ raised \u2018significant concerns\u2019 about the huge overhaul of the terminus and over-station development. The plans were approved by the City of London<\/a> in February.<\/p>\n

In the report, unnamed members of the London Review Panel outlined concerns over several elements of ACME\u2019s designs, including the station entrances, scale, commercial units, public realm and carbon cost. The panel \u2018strongly\u2019 recommended changes to the scheme and a follow-up design review.<\/p>\n

However, the AJ understands the late 2024 review was the only GLA review of the ACME proposals before Network Rail\u2019s planning submission in spring 2025.<\/p>\n

\u2018While the reduced height from previous schemes is noted, the panel remains unconvinced that the scale is appropriate and would welcome further justification that the massing of the building is the right approach in this context\u2019, said the report.<\/p>\n

It added: \u2018The panel strongly recommends revisiting several aspects of the proposal to address identified shortcomings and deliver a project that reflects the site\u2019s importance as a gateway to London [\u2026] Further engagement with the panel is encouraged to address their concerns.\u2019<\/p>\n

While some concerns raised by the London Review Panel appeared in the City of London\u2019s officer\u2019s report ahead of February\u2019s planning committee hearing, the full design review was not included in the agenda pack, nor was it published on the corporation\u2019s own planning portal. None of the groups opposing the scheme contacted by the AJ had seen the full document.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2018The panel remains unconvinced that the scale is appropriate\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The AJ understands the full London Review Panel report was uploaded to the GLA\u2019s website in December 2025, a year after the panel took place and just weeks before the planning decision.<\/p>\n

In response, The Twentieth Century Society (C20) told the AJ: \u2018So now we know. The mayor\u2019s own expert, independent review panel strongly expressed their view that the proposed office block at Liverpool Street station \u201clacks clear justification\u201d and they \u201cremain unconvinced that the scale is appropriate \u2026[or that it] is the right approach\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u2018Most unambiguously, the panel \u201cacknowledges the need for improvements and upgrades to Liverpool Street Station [but] questioned whether this scale of intervention is necessary to achieve the desired operational improvements for the station\u201d.\u2019<\/p>\n

Heritage groups told the AJ that Network Rail continued to refuse to share details of a baseline scheme of station improvements against which the ACME proposals with overhead development could be tested. Network Rail told the GLA\u2019s independent review panel this scheme exists but has not been shared.<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for the Victorian Society, which leads the Liverpool Street Station Campaign (LISSCA), a group of mainly heritage bodies opposing major redevelopment of the station, said: \u2018The London Review Panel exists to advise the mayor on projects of strategic importance to London.<\/p>\n

\u2018In this case its advice was clear: while (like the Victorian Society) it actively supported the principle of improving the station, it nonetheless raised significant concerns about the scale, massing and justification of the over-station development and questioned whether that level of intervention was necessary at all.<\/p>\n

\u2018The panel also identified a wide range of unresolved issues \u2013 including heritage impact, public realm, daylight, environmental concerns and design quality \u2013 and explicitly called for the scheme to be revisited to address these shortcomings. In addition, despite the fact a baseline scheme was requested (and said to have been commissioned by Network Rail), that has never been released.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ACMEs submitted Liverpool St scheme<\/p>\n

The Victorian Society added: \u2018Set against the unprecedented level of public opposition, it is striking that concerns about the scheme extend not only to heritage bodies and the public, but also to the mayor\u2019s own independent design advisers.\u2019<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, SAVE added in comments to the AJ: \u2018The report by the mayor\u2019s independent design experts highlights a number of \u201csignificant concerns\u201d around the justification, design and heritage impacts of this highly contentious scheme that echo those raised by SAVE and other national organisations since the plans were first revealed.<\/p>\n

\u2018Like us, they also asked to see a study showing improvements to the station independent of commercial development to provide a baseline against which the proposals could be tested. The panel strongly felt further consultation with the panel was needed.<\/p>\n

\u2018The report raises a number of important questions: did Network Rail\u2019s project team provide the panel with the information they requested and engage with them further as they asked for? Why weren\u2019t these views of the panel included in the City of London\u2019s report and recommendation to councillors as part of the planning process?\u2019<\/p>\n

The GLA was consulted alongside other statutory consultees, such as Historic England and St Paul\u2019s cathedral, which also raised concerns about the scale of the over-station development. The AJ understands Network Rail\u2019s own internal review processes raised concerns. However, details of those findings are unknown.<\/p>\n

\n

\u2018The report raises a number of important questions\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Last month, the AJ reported that the ACME scheme was\u00a0subject to a legal letter<\/a> raising concerns about Network Rail\u2019s procurement of the practice to the job \u2013 replacing Herzog and de Meuron, developer Sellar and transit operator MTR \u2013 and the funding for the new designs.<\/p>\n

C20, the Victorian Society and SAVE have all called on Khan to rule on the scheme and refuse<\/a> the proposals on the basis that ACME\u2019s designs would introduce harm to built heritage and cause a decade of unjustified disruption for commuters, while requiring a 97m-tall office tower over the concourse to fund around \u00a3500 million of improvements to the station.<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Network Rail insisted feedback from the GLA\u2019s panel on ACME\u2019s initial designs had informed the final submission.<\/p>\n

Resulting amendments included changes to the entrances, an increase in the number of escalators, larger lifts for wheelchair users, wider staircases, bus station access and better integration with surrounding public spaces with a clear wayfinding strategy.<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Network Rail said: \u2018The GLA\u2019s London Review Panel formally reviewed the emerging Liverpool Street station design at Stage 1.<\/p>\n

\u2018Network Rail and its design team used the panel feedback, along with other stakeholder comments, to evolve the scheme. The final design submitted to the City of London in April 2025 comprehensively responds to suggestions made in the report.\u2019<\/p>\n

They added: \u2018Following positive determination by the City of London\u2019s planning committee, we will continue to engage with the GLA as part of its Stage 2 process.\u2019<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

ACME\u2019s submitted Liverpool St scheme (April 2025)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A report from the Greater London Authority\u2019s (GLA) London Review Panel in late 2024 recently discovered by the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":925549,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[7757],"tags":[210362,748,393,4884,72544,257,1836,16,15],"class_list":["post-925548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-london","tag-acme","tag-britain","tag-england","tag-great-britain","tag-liverpool-street","tag-london","tag-network-rail","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/116486100201120987","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/925548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=925548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/925548\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/925549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=925548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=925548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=925548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}