HERITAGE STATEMENT

LONDON BRIDGE STATION

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT

1.2 STRUCTURE

1.3 PROJECT BRIEF

1.4 DESIGN APPROACH

2.0 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.2 REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.3 LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

3.0 SOUTHWARK AND LONDON BRIDGE STATION: HISTORIC APPRAISAL

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

3.2 A HISTORY OF THE STATION

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

4.0 AREA APPRAISAL: DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED

HERITAGE ASSETS

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

4.2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: CONSERVATION AREAS

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

5.0 STATION APPRAISAL: DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

5.1 THE TRAIN SHED

5.2 64-84 TOOLEY STREET

5.3 THE 'JOINER STREET BRIDGE'

5.4 LONDON BRIDGE STATION

6.0 DESIGN PROPOSALS

6.1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

6.2 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE NATIONAL PICTURE

6.3 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE LOCAL PICTURE

6.4 HERITAGE BENEFITS

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

6.6 VIEWS AND TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: LISTING DESCRIPTIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STATEMENT

1

This Heritage Statement has been prepared on behalf of Network

Rail in support of applications seeking Planning Permission,

Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent for the

transformation of London Bridge Station. Bounded by Tooley Street

to the north, Bermondsey Street to the east, St Thomas Street to

the south, and Station approach to the west, London Bridge Station

is a major railway terminus based largely on a complex of viaducts

and vaults of nineteenth-century origin. The site contains two listed

buildings, whilst the remainder of the fabric is made up of almost

two hundred years of gradual physical agglomeration dating back

to the station's foundation in 1836.

As a transport terminus, it is widely acknowledged to be confusing,

chaotic, and inefficient, the result of this historic agglomeration,

and a history of divided ownership; the concept of a single station

on this site is one imposed on fabric that does not reflect that

ideal. As part of the Thameslink Programme, funded by the

Department for Transport, it is proposed to remodel the station, in

order to bring a sense of unity and coherence to the station site,

whilst also allowing London Bridge Station to receive up to 18 train

paths an hour during peak times, 24 through central London and

to increase the station's passenger capacity by 66%.

The Thameslink Programme foresees a situation where London

Bridge's current formulation, as a nine-platform terminus station

with six through platforms is reversed; becoming instead a nine-

platform through station with six terminating platforms. In order to

ensure that this new formulation - and the proposed increases in

passenger numbers - can be accommodated, access to the raised

platforms will need to be rethought. These applications therefore

propose that a 'cut' should be made at street level, approximately

bounded by St Thomas Street, Tooley Street, Weston Street and

Stainer Street, to create a large concourse, providing direct, quick

and intuitive access to the platforms above. This concourse, which

will also provide retail space and public realm to the public beyond

railway users, will have high-quality, architecturally engaging

entrances on both Tooley Street and St Thomas Street, drawing

commuters and pedestrians into the station, and south into the

Borough of Southwark.

Finally, in combination with this, a new set of canopies is proposed,

resulting from the necessity to demolish the Grade II listed Engine

Shed of 1864-7, producing a new, more cohesive feel to the

viaduct level of the station.

The purpose of this document is to outline the proposals for this

site with regard to its immediate historic environment, and the

current policy and guidance framework related to the protection of

heritage assets.

1.2 STRUCTURE

2

The overall project and design proposed for London Bridge Station

has been developed through careful reference to the legislative,

policy and guidance framework, as well as taking a rigorous approach

towards responding positively to the historic environment. This

document is intended to explain the design process, laying out how

the scheme has been informed by the context and why the approach

proposed has been adopted.

The structure of the document can be described as follows:

Legislation, policy and guidance: Increasing in focus from a

national to a local scale, the nature of this framework, which

will dictate the nature of the development at London Bridge

Station, is laid out.

Historic site appraisal: An analysis is provided, first and

foremost, of Southwark and the Borough as an area, and of

London Bridge Station in particular, in order to give a full

impression of how the site has evolved, the problems and

opportunities this presents, and the nature of the heritage

value of the site.

Historic Environment Appraisal and impact assessment:

Following on from the previous section, the area around the

station which stands to be impacted upon by the development

is assessed, based around designated heritage assets (listed

buildings and conservation areas) and undesignated heritage

assets (buildings noted by Southwark Council as making a

strong contribution to the historic environment, or assessed

as being 'positive contributors' to Conservation Areas).

Development Principles: With the historic environment and

policy frameworks laid out, design principles can be laid out to

meet the parameters set above. As such, at this point, the

proposals are presented in detail, and the reasons for each

decision is made explicit. This again increases in focus as the

discussion advances, focusing initially on the arguments for

the development being advanced, before talking in more

specific terms about detailing and so on.

Justifications: Continuing on from the previous section, this

section is intended to justify the reasons for major changes to

the historic environment, including demolitions, and the

alteration of the settings of designated heritage assets.

1.3 PROJECT BRIEF

3

The transformation of London Bridge Station represents the final

phase of the Government's £6 billion Thameslink Programme,

delivering longer, more frequent trains to , from and through London.

London Bridge Station will be a major part of this, one of the more

substantial through stations on the route within Central London. It

was founded, however, as a terminus station, and much of its

development between 1836 and 1864 was of this type. The

development of through-tracks was an afterthought, as the station's

current layout and feel shows, and, as such, the station provides

something of a problem to a programme based on through travel. As

early as 1976, during a redevelopment of the station that pre-empted

the original Thameslink Scheme by 15 years, it was declared that,

'The stopper's coming out from the London Bridge Bottleneck'. The

subsequent development of the Thameslink scheme has resurrected

this bottleneck, and this problem, of a lack of through platforms,

combined with the station's wider organisational issues, has led to

the current 'once in a lifetime' plan to improve London Bridge

Station.

The proposed development will increase the station's passenger

capacity by providing wider open circulation spaces, and improving

legibility and access between platforms. This expansion is in line with

Network Rail's predictions on how far passenger numbers will

increase over the coming years. An increase in capacity will

therefore, in turn, allow for a greater number of longer trains at rush

hour periods, stopping at longer, and more, through platforms. With

trains planned to arrive every 45 seconds, there is a strong necessity

to ensure that passenger distribution can take place quickly.

The best, and agreed, solution, is a large street level concourse, with

barriered access directly from the street to the island platform

required.

Station Requirements

Operation:

Increased through services north and south on Thameslink

line

Quick passenger interchange and distribution.

Improved access for passengers between platforms in case of

train changes

Station must remain operational throughout redevelopment

works

Design and Layout:

The Creation of a new north-south concourse, connecting

Tooley Street and St Thomas Street, including unpaid areas;

New entrance to the concourse on Tooley Street,

incorporating an attractive and inviting piece of public realm

space;

New entrance to the concourse on St Thomas Street,

encouraging movement southwards from the station, and

improving the surrounding streetscape;

External designs that express the drama of the large internal

concourse, whilst preserving and enhancing the historic

character of Tooley Street and St Thomas Street;

A dramatic, architecturally expressive roofscape, providing

the station platforms with an attractive covering, and giving

London Bridge Station an attractive, impressive presence

within the wider skyline of Southwark;

Expansion and extension of the western arcade to the west, in

order to meet the new concourse, and provide better

connectivity between Joiner Street, London Bridge

Underground Station, and the new main concourse;

Retail provision within the concourse.

1.4 DESIGN APPROACH

4

The requirement for London Bridge Station to remain operational

throughout the works has had an impact on the design and layout

proposed here. Network Rail predict a substantial rise in the number

of passengers using the station annually, and especially in the

number of passengers entering and exiting the station during rush

hour periods. These factors have been taken into consideration when

producing this scheme.

With capacity for passengers increased by 66% , 18 24 train paths

proposed per hour, and allowances made for 12-car trains, it is clear

that London Bridge Station's role as a vital transport hub within both

Southwark and Greater London will only increase. It has been

identified by both the London Borough of Southwark and the Greater

London Authority as being a key element at the heart of an

Opportunity Area.

The design approach has taken into consideration a wide range of

aspirations for the station, above and beyond the provision of

increased capacity and usability for London Bridge Station as a

transport hub. These include increasing the permeability of the

station, and promoting southward movement into the Borough of

Southwark, and providing facilities and thoroughfares that serve to

benefit not just railway passengers, but also other visitors.

2.0 PLANNING LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

2.0 LEGISLATION AND POLICY

2.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

7

Where any development may affect designated heritage assets,

there is a legislative framework to ensure the proposals are

developed and considered with due regard for their impact on the

historic environment. This extends from primary legislation under

the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990,

and the statutory duties to have special regard to the desirability of

preserving and enhancing listed buildings and their setting as well

as the character and appearance of conservation areas (Section 16

(2) and Section 72 (1)). These statutory duties have been extended

with the introduction, by Planning Policy Statement 5, of the need to

preserve 'designated heritage assets' and 'undesignated heritage

assets' (the distinction between which is explained later in this

chapter). These statutory duties are engaged in this case and the

impact of the proposals on the heritage assets involved is identified

as an important consideration.

While this document lays out the relevant heritage-related policies,

it is important to note that the Planning Statement accompanying

this application sets out the full planning framework for this

development.

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND

CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990

Listed buildings: The Act sets out the legal status and processes

to be applied to listed buildings, noting that, 'no person shall

execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a

listed building or for its alteration or extension in any manner which

would affect its character as a building of special architectural or

historic interest, unless the works are authorised.' (I.II.7)

Conservation Areas: It also sets out the legal limits of

Conservation Areas; 'areas of special architectural or historic

interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to

preserve or enhance'. (II.69.1) The purpose of Conservation Areas,

and the legal duty of local authorities, is as follows, 'special

attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing

the character or appearance of that area.' (II.72.1) As such, any

additions, demolitions or adaptations within a Conservation Area

must be demonstrated to "preserve or enhance" its qualities and

significance as an "area of special architectural or historic interest".

Again, 'a building in a conservation area shall not be demolished

without the consent of the appropriate authority (in this Act referred

to as “conservation area consent”).' (II.74.1)

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 1: DELIVERING

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (2005)

Although not directly focused itself on conservation, Planning Policy

Statement 1 (hereafter PPS1) does demonstrate that conservation

has a role to play in the delivery of sustainable development and is

therefore relevant here. It sets out the government's overarching

objectives for delivering sustainable development through the

planning system. The policy statement emphasises the need for

good design in all new development and confirms that 'design which

is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the

opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an

area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.' (para. 13

(iv)).

That the government believes that the historic environment is

central to this provision of 'a better quality of life for everyone' is

stated in paragraph 5, when it is noted that, 'planning should

facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban

and rural development by... protecting and enhancing the natural

and historic environment, the quality and character of the

countryside, and existing communities...'. This point stands

alongside other, more traditionally "sustainable" concepts, such as,

the 'efficient use of resources', 'contributing to sustainable economic

development', and 'ensuring that development supports existing

communities'. (para. 5)

Furthermore, it is stated that,

The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the

quality of the natural and historic environment. ...Planning policies

should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and

amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A

high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes

and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. Those with

national and international designations should receive the highest

level of protection. (17)

This is extended to development plans which, it is stated, 'should

take account of...the preservation and enhancement of built and

archaeological heritage' (27) Indeed, the historic environment, and

the qualities of townscape and new design, are consistent factors

referred to in discussions about 'sustainable development'.

2.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

8

PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 5: PLANNING FOR

THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (2010)

Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5 hereafter) sets out the current

government guidance on the use of the 1990 Act in relation to the

Historic Environment, moving beyond the vagaries of PPS1. It

replaces Planning Policy Guidance 15 and Planning Policy Guidance

16, which have now been cancelled. The policies included within this

document are 'a material consideration which must be taken into

account in development management decisions.'

Heritage Assets: One of the key elements of PPS5 is the

introduction of the phrase 'heritage assets', referring to any element

of the historic environment, 'positively identified as having a degree

of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions'. PPS5

HE9 reiterates the position of the 1990 Act, stating that, 'loss

affecting any designated heritage asset should require clear and

convincing justification.' With this in place, a distinction is put in

place between designated heritage assets -any 'World Heritage Site,

Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site,

Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation

Area designated as such under the relevant legislation' and

'undesignated heritage assets'.

'Undesignated' heritage assets are identified as largely being locally

listed buildings. It should be noted that in the absence of an extant

local list, HE8 maintains that, 'Where a development proposal is

subject to detailed pre-application discussions... the local planning

authority, there is a general presumption that identification of any

previously unidentified heritage assets will take place during this

pre-application stage.'

Climate Change: HE1 states that, 'Local planning authorities

should identify opportunities to mitigate, and adapt to, the effects of

climate change when devising policies and making decisions relating

to heritage assets by seeking the reuse and, where appropriate, the

modification of heritage assets so as to reduce carbon emissions

and secure sustainable development.' It goes on, more specifically,

to raise that point, in HE1.3, that, 'Where conflict between climate

change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is

unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate

change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of

heritage assets in accordance with the development management

principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate

change.'

Determination of Planning Proposals: Within PPS5 HE6, first

and foremost, the onus is placed upon applicants to illustrate that

any development proposals have been developed from a basis of

research and knowledge. Applicants are required to provide an

analysis and assessment of significance in keeping with the

building's importance as a heritage asset. This should be joined with

an assessment of the magnitude of the potential impact upon the

building's significance as a heritage asset.

From this basis, HE7 provides guidance for local authorities on

determining development proposals that effect heritage assets, and,

emphasising the need to determine the 'significance' of the assets

involved, demonstrates the importance of those ideas should in

HE6. HE10 goes on to maintain that local authorities should treat

favourably applications 'that make a positive contribution to or

better reveal the significance of an asset.' These elements should be

weighed against any harm imposed by the proposed development

on the asset. It is further noted that local authorities should take

advantage of opportunities to improve the settings of assets in such

a way.

Design for the historic environment: HE7 seeks to balance the

presumption in favour of retention of assets with the need to allow

new design. Thus, while, 'local planning authorities should take into

account... the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the

significance of heritage assets, and of utilising their positive role in

place-shaping,...local planning authorities should take into account

the desirability of new development making a positive contribution

to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic

environment. The consideration of design should include scale,

height, massing, alignment, materials and use.'

These points are reinforced by PPS5's practice guide, authored by

English Heritage, that states that a good design for the historic

environment, 'will be one whose design has taken account of the

following characteristics of the surroundings', including 'general

character', 'diversity or uniformity in style', and 'views into and from

the site and its surroundings' (Practice Guide, 5.80). In essence,

new design should seek to 'enhance or better reveal' the

significance of heritage assets and conservation areas.

Conservation Areas: The above point about place-shaping is

further developed when the status of conservation areas is

discussed. It states that planning authorities should, 'treat

favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting

that make a positive contribution or better reveal the significance of

the asset', and that where this does not take place, it is necessary

to, 'weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the

application.' (HE10.1) This is confirmed in HE10.2, when it is noted

that, 'local planning authorities should identify opportunities for

changes in the setting to enhance or better reveal the significance

of a heritage asset. Taking such opportunities should be seen as a

public benefit and part of the process of place-shaping.' (HE10.2)

2.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

9

CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES: POLICIES AND

GUIDANCE FOR THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF

THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (2010)

This English Heritage document, philosophically very similar to much

of PPS5, further promotes concepts of place-shaping and managed

development in addition to more traditional heritage ideas. Thus in

its introduction, it is noted that,

In managing significant places, ‘to preserve’, even accepting its

established legal definition of ‘to do no harm’, is only one aspect of

what is needed to sustain heritage values. The concept of

conservation area designation, with its requirement ‘to preserve or

enhance’, also recognises the potential for beneficial change to

significant places, to reveal and reinforce value. ‘To sustain’

embraces both preservation and enhancement to the extent that the

values of a place allow. Considered change offers the potential to

enhance and add value to places, as well as generating the need to

protect their established heritage values. It is the means by which

each generation aspires to enrich the historic environment.

(Introduction, paragraph 25)

Design and Consent for change: For new design to be permitted,

it is necessary that, 'there is sufficient information comprehensively

to understand the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the

place', and that,' the proposals aspire to a quality of design and

execution which may be valued now and in the future.'(para. 138)

If these elements, of research, and of high quality design, are

followed, then Conservation Principles argues that the elements of

place-shaping have been acceptably followed.

Furthermore, the document states explicitly, in similarity to PPS5,

that,

Changes which would harm the heritage values of a significant place

should be unacceptable unless: the changes are demonstrably

necessary either to make the place sustainable, or to meet an

overriding public policy objective or need... [and] it has been

demonstrated that the predicted public benefit decisively outweighs

the harm to the values of the place. (para. 149)

Thus development that includes demolition or substantial harm can,

in the view of Conservation Principles, be justified if the potential

environmental and policy benefits are substantial enough to

outweigh such any possible loss of significance

BUILDING IN CONTEXT: NEW DEVELOPMENT IN

HISTORIC AREAS (2002)

This CABE document, produced in conjunction with English Heritage,

was an attempt by the two organisations to find some general

principles for new design in historic areas.

The overall aim of the document, so says the foreword, is to find a

means for producing buildings, 'that are recognisably of our age

while understanding and respecting history and context.' This, it is

argued, is achieved by paying,

respect to those places...by continuing the tradition of pace-setting

and innovation that they themselves represent. As always, this is a

question not of style but of quality. And quality, whatever its

stylistic guise, can bring a whole range of benefits – not only

aesthetic but economic, social and environmental.

This guidance argues for an approach to design for the historic

environment which falls between pastiche and uncompromising

modernity; 'respect' for the built environment, in other words,

without mindless copying. Quality of design and material are

referred to, as is a desire for a process of, 'collaboration, mutual

respect and a shared commitment' to a vision for the site between

local authority, developer, architect and others. The document

seeks to provide a balanced 'best practice' concept for new

development.

MOVING TOWARDS EXCELLENCE IN URBAN DESIGN

AND CONSERVATION (2003)

Further developing the ideas presented in 'Building in Context', this

document, produced by Cabe in 2003, largely intending it to provide

advice for local authorities. Despite this original intention, it still

includes some guidance of relevance to major applications such as

this one.

Once more, as in PPS1, development is presented as a balance

between 'often competing economic, social and environmental

needs and pressures.' Urban design and Conservation are then

presented as having the shared aim of 'delivering high quality,

locally distinct and valued built environments', accepting that the

historic environment is, 'a precious asset that must be preserved

for future generations.'

However, it goes on to assert that however precious the existing

environment might be, 'that is not to say that it should not

change...good urban design learns from the past and respects it...'

A cumulative, combined effort and effect is required, it is suggested,

with conservation and urban design acting not as separate,

competing realms, but as a single combined move towards positive

urban environments. Another balance that is required is that

between 'local needs' and national, government objectives; the

London Bridge Station scheme is a classic example of how closely

these elements can compete, but also offer each other mutual

support. Overall, there is a central focus, once more, on 'quality'

through both conservation and design.

2.1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE

10

POLICY AND GUIDANCE ON THE

RECORDING OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

This scheme proposes the justified demolitions of a designated

heritage asset and an undesignated heritage asset, mitigated

against by a programme of building recording. It is therefore

necessary to include in this section the policy framework for the

recording of historic buildings.

PPS5: PLANNING FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Within PPS5, HE12 states that, 'the ability to record evidence of our

past should not be a factor in deciding whether a proposal that

would result in a heritage asset's destruction should be given

consent.' Once demolition is considered to be 'justified', however

local planning authorities should require the developer to record and

advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset

before it is lost, using planning conditions or obligations as

appropriate. The extent of the requirement should be proportionate

to the nature and level of the asset’s significance. (HE12.3)

This information should be published and deposited with 'the

relevant Historic Environment Record', as well as placing any

archive material generated with 'a local museum or other public

depository willing to receive it'.

UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS: POLICY

AND GUIDANCE FOR LOCAL PLANNING

AUTHORITIES (2008)

English Heritage's most recent guidance regarding the recording of

historic buildings, this document is thus relevant for any occasion

where this is a condition for the granting of listed building consent.

This is made particularly relevant by the fact that this scheme

wishes to argue that, 'the degree of unavoidable harm is

outweighed by the benefits of the scheme'. (Policy Statement, 1.5)

English Heritage clearly state here that recording can act as a

'condition attached to the consent or permission', but that any

recording or survey that takes place must be, 'necessary, relevant,

enforceable, precise and reasonable'. (Recording Conditions)

Guidance is then provided on how a report should be laid out,

attempting to ensure that such reports are, 'clear and easy to read,

and well illustrated and present the findings in an accessible

manner'. It is stated that reports should include, besides the

standard location identifiers and summaries,

A planning history of the site and its statutory and non-

statutory designations;

A historical background to the building and site;

Description and analysis;

Summary or statement of significance;

A conclusion.

UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS: A

GUIDANCE TO GOOD RECORDING PRACTICE (2006)

Although this document is essentially the predecessor of the current

recording guidance, this English Heritage document remains

relevant for the exhaustive descriptions and summaries it provides

of what recording reports of various levels should involve. Given the

quantity of information included in this document, only a summary

is included here. It is further believed that given the nature of the

building proposed for demolition, a Level Four survey would be the

most appropriate.

The document provides a detailed understanding of what a Level

Four survey should include, describing it as, 'a comprehensive

analytical record' of the building, 'appropriate for buildings of special

importance'. Thus this survey goes beyond what 'may be deduced

from the structure itself', as required of a Level Three survey, and

draws 'on the full range of available resources and discuss the

building’s significance in terms of architectural, social, regional or

economic history.' (5.4)

This would include a number of measured drawings, perhaps

including cross sections, measured drawings of decorative or

structural details, and "phased" drawings, showing development

over time. (4.3.2) In addition to these drawings, a further visual

record should be provided by photographs giving a comprehensive

view of the building's fabric. These should include: external and

internal general views (including views in its setting or landscape);

oblique elevation views; photographs of detail, internal and

external, structural or decorative, images of any dates, builders' or

makers' marks, or relevant graffiti; and a collection of historic maps

and views to illustrate the building's development. (4.4.7)

Finally, this document provides guidance on the provision of a

written account, in addition to that guidance provided by the 2008

document, and it is here that further detail is provided on, for

example, historical development summaries. These should be

strictly evidence-based, and designed to show changing

architectural development and changes in use; an analysis of

fixtures and fittings; and an analysis of any evidence that suggests

previously demolished structures or lost fixtures and fittings.

Furthermore, this account should provide a detailed account of the

building's significance, 'locally, regionally or nationally, in terms of

its origin, purpose, form, construction, design, materials, status or

historical associations.' The documentary basis for such a recording

study should also not be restrictive, and should go beyond

'documentary sources, published or unpublished' to include

specialist reports previously produced, and other sources, including

oral records from involved architects and engineers.(4.5.2)

2.2 REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

11

SUMMARY

The national planning policies and guidance documents referred to

above establish a framework for managing changes in the historic

environment, based on understanding the significance of heritage

assets and considering change which may sustain that significance.

The policy framework seeks informed management of heritage

assets and promotes opportunities to reveal or reinforce those

values for present and future generations.

It is clear that there is a strong presumption in favour of retention,

and that any demolition of a listed building, or a building making a

positive contribution to a Conservation Area, must be supported by

clear justification. Demolition should be avoided if at all possible,

and not only should it be proven that the building cannot be

retained, it must be shown that the new development offers

substantial developments over the old.

Any new design in a historic area, or impacting on the setting or

significance of a designated heritage asset, should be of a high

quality, and should respect the existing historic townscape.

'Respecting' the historic environment, in the view of the

government, English Heritage, and CABE, is a balance, avoiding

pastiche and insensitivity. There is, in much of the new conservation

policy and guidance, a focus on 'place-shaping', and a belief that the

traditional view of heritage as prescribed and designated by

professionals is outmoded. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that

new development in historic areas makes the historic environment

easier to read, and enjoyable to experience.

Development, furthermore, should be sustainable, and seek to

encourage the use of public transport, cycling, and walking. Central

to PPS1 and other pieces of guidance is the idea that new

development should improve the 'quality of life' of local residents

and the wider population, and thus any development on this site

must ensure that it offers improvements not just in terms of

townscape, but in terms of usability, accessibility and legibility.

2.2 REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

12

THE LONDON PLAN

The current Spatial Development Plan for London is the London

Plan, first published in 2004, and last consolidated with

amendments in February 2008, although a new 'Draft London Plan'

has been produced, consulted upon, and supported by an Inspector.

Design and Planning: The London Plan focuses chiefly on creating

a 'compact city', demanding the promotion of 'high quality design'

and the respect of 'local context, history, built heritage, character

and communities'.

These ideas are later expanded, and, in particular, policy 4B.8

states that, 'the Mayor will and boroughs should work with local

communities to recognise and manage local distinctiveness ensuring

proposed developments preserve or enhance local social, physical,

cultural, historical, environmental and economic characteristics.'

Furthermore, Policy 4B.11 determines that,

The Mayor will work with strategic partners to protect and enhance

London’s historic environment. DPD policies should seek to maintain

and increase the contribution of the built heritage to London’s

environmental quality, to the economy, both through tourism and

the beneficial use of historic assets, and to the well-being of

London’s people while allowing for London to accommodate growth

in a sustainable manner.

Transport: The value that the Mayor of London and the GLA put on

the Thameslink Programme is suggested through the London Plan,

and it is put forward that there should be a conscious effort to

'ensure the integration of transport and development'. This includes,

'seeking to improve public transport...for the areas of greatest

demand and areas designated for development and regeneration,

including the...Central Activities Zone, Opportunity Areas [and]

Areas for Intensification...' (3C.1)

More specifically, 3C.12 states that,

The Mayor will work with strategic partners to improve the strategic

public transport system in London, including cross-London rail links

to support future development and regeneration priority areas, and

increase public transport capacity by: ...Completing the Thameslink

Programme, incorporating Thameslink 2000.

London Bridge Opportunity Area: The immediate area

surrounding, and including London Bridge Station, has been

identified as an 'Opportunity Area' by the London Plan. It is

described by the plan as being:

The riverside between London Bridge station and Tower Bridge is

already accommodating a significant increase in office stock.

Redevelopment and intensification of London Bridge station and its

environs are proposed within the draft London Bridge framework

together with improved public transport and interchange facilities

and better pedestrian integration with the surrounding area. Parts of

this area may accommodate tall landmark mixed-use developments.

(London Plan paragraph 5.108)

Bankside, Borough and London Bridge 'Strategic Cultural

Area': 'Strategic Cultural Areas' are broadly defined by the London

Plan as being areas where, 'internationally important cultural

institutions' are supported by 'their settings'. Thus, it is vital that

any development at London Bridge protects and enhances these

areas' cultural value. Indeed, this section goes on to refer to directly

to Chapter 4B, 'Designs on London', which seeks to promote such

good design, and focuses on, among other elements:

'Maximising the potential of sites';

The promotion of 'high quality inclusive design' and the

'enhancement of the public realm';

'Contribution to adaptation to, or mitigation of, climate

change';

Respect for local context and the historic environment;

Accessibility, usability, permeability and legibility;

Sustainability, durability and adaptability;

And the promotion architecture which is 'attractive to look

at', and can, 'inspire and delight'. (Policy 4B.1)

Central for any design at London Bridge would be its adaptation

and enhancement of the historic environment, through a design that

is of a high quality, and seeks to respect the existing built

landscape. Furthermore, there is a clear sense to which an

improvement of London Bridge Station would square firmly with the

concepts of legibility, permeability and accessibility; it is proposed

to dramatically improve the way that London Bridge Station is

perceived, and to substantially enhance its role in defining the

historic environment of the Borough area.

2.2 REGIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

13

DRAFT REPLACEMENT LONDON PLAN (2009)

In October 2009, a consultation draft was produced of a new spatial

strategy for London, to which alterations were made in September

2010. An Examination in Public took place during the summer and

autumn of 2010, and concluded on 8 December 2010; the

document is proposed for final publication at some point during

2011. On 3 May 2011, the draft plan was declared 'sound', and the

document has therefore been sent to the Communities Secretary for

evaluation. It is intended to be more concise and strategic than the

existing London Plan, but overall, the focus, as far as heritage is

concerned, is very similar to the existing Plan.

Policy 7.8 deals directly with heritage assets, supported by Policy

7.9, which supports the idea of heritage-led regeneration. It

supports the identification and preservation of those elements that

make up London's historic environment, as well as the necessity for

ensuring that all new development 'should preserve, refurbish and

incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate.' It also states that

new development in the setting of heritage assets, and within

Conservation areas, 'should be sympathetic to their form, scale,

materials and architectural detail.'

The focus of this document's approach to heritage is on ensuring

that the 'rich texture' of the historic environment within London is

preserved, and that ensuring that high quality modern architecture

can meet well preserved historic material to preserve a sense of the

old and the new. Linking into this is the concept that developers

should take advantage of opportunities to enhance the city's culture

by 'providing easy access to the history of the city and its places.'

LONDON VIEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVISED

SPG (2010)

The latest Revised London View Management Framework SPD was

published in July 2010, and provides supplementary guidance

protecting strategic views within London.

The London Plan contains a policy, 4B.18, that states,

'The Mayor will, and boroughs should, assess development

proposals where they fall within the assessment areas of Designated

Views against general principles of good design set down in this plan

[and] local urban design policies...' (4B.18) As such, the GLA

produced, in 2010, the London View Management Strategy, which

designated, 'Landmark viewing corridors', including foreground and

background sections, each relating to their position between the

chosen viewpoint, and the landmark the view focused on.'

This piece of legislation is particularly relevant, as the London

Bridge Station site stands directly in the path of 2 Protected View

'Background Assessment Areas', one from Parliament Hill to St

Paul's (2A.1) and another from Kenwood to St Paul's (3A.1) It is

stated that 'New development should make a positive contribution

to the characteristics and composition of the Designated Views.' It

should be noted that the Shard, and the proposed 'Quill' and 'Three

Houses' buildings, will both stand within this corridor.

SUMMARY

The London Plan and the guidance associated with it has a clear

focus on the notion that London, as a 'world city', should prove to

be a world class place to live, work and visit. Infrastructure and new

development are central to this. It is demonstrated that, as with the

national guidance, new development should be driven by

sustainability: new developments should not only mitigate against

climate change, they should be socially sustainable, promoting

social inclusivity and providing pleasant environments in which

people can live. Furthermore, design should be of a high standard,

even 'uplifting'; a site of London Bridge Station's prestigious and

highly visible nature, should take advantage of the opportunity to

provide London with something outstanding.

Further arguments are made for ensuring that sustainable modes of

transport are supported and developed, and that the London Bridge

area is, essentially, taken advantage of; the plan presents the idea

that a real 'opportunity' is offered on this site.

In short, new development should seek, in a number of ways, to

shore up existing positive features of its location, and provide new

benefits to the area.

2.3 LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

14

SOUTHWARK PLAN (2007)

The Southwark Plan, as finalised in 2007, acts, for the time being, as

a means for providing specific planning and development

management policies for the Borough of Southwark. It should be

noted that some of the policies included in this document were

superseded on 6 April 2011 by Southwark's Core Strategy, but others

have been saved, and used to supplement the Core Strategy.

Nonetheless, it is useful to take this document into consideration, as

a good number of its policies have been 'saved' to act as specific

guidance in line with the new Core Strategy.

Policies 3.15 to 3.17 deal specifically with the historic environment,

and deal specifically with conservation areas and listed buildings.

Policy 3.15 Conservation of the Historic Environment:

This policy seeks to provide its own identification of what the 'historic

environment' constitutes, in addition to English Heritage's national

definition of 'heritage assets', stating that it includes,

conservation areas, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, protected

London squares, historic parks and gardens and trees that are

protected by Tree Preservation Orders, trees that contribute to the

character or appearance of a conservation area and ancient

hedgerows.

It supports wider guidance by stating that, 'development must

enhance the special interest or historic character or appearance of

buildings or areas of historical or architectural significance. Planning

proposals that have an adverse effect on the historic environment will

not be permitted.'

Conservation areas should, furthermore, be 'recognised and respected

in any new development within these areas.'

Policy 3.16 and 3.17 Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings:

The wording of these two policies is near-identical, and thus the way

the borough regards both can be considered simultaneously.

New development within conservation areas and regarding listed

buildings, it states, should, 'respect the context of the Conservation

Area, having regard to the content of Conservation Area Appraisals...'

and, 'preserve...[listed] buildings and its features of special

architectural or historic interest.'

New Development should also, it is stated, 'use high quality materials

that complement and enhance' conservation areas, and should 'not

involve the loss of existing traditional features of interest which make

a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the

conservation area.' 'Non-traditional' materials, or 'design details or

features that are out of character with the area' should also be

avoided.

Demolition is also referred to directly, and as elsewhere, 'a general

presumption in favour of retaining' listed buildings and 'buildings that

contribute positively to the character or appearance of a conservation

area' is noted. It states that demolition of either can only be

permitted if, among other factors, 'there will be substantial planning

benefits for the community from redevelopment which would

decisively outweigh loss from the resulting demolition' and, if the

building is in a conservation area, that, 'the replacement development

will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the

conservation area and has been granted planning permission.'

London Bridge Opportunity Area:

Southwark's 'vision' for the Opportunity Area is of:

A successful central London mixed use district town centre, full of

vitality and providing commercial activity, jobs, an evening economy

and high quality homes, supported by thriving tourism, arts,

entertainment and cultural activity and a very accessible, integrated

public transport system within a unique historical area.

Under Policy 6.2 of the Southwark Plan, this idea is investigated more

specifically, and it is stated that, 'development at London Bridge

should seek, among other things,

The best use of land and transport resources, developing high

density, sustainable buildings on key sites;

An improved and highly efficient public transport interchange;

To integrate development with public transport nodes and

walking and cycling routes within the Transport Development

Area;

To secure major improvements through the development

process to public transport to increase capacity and promote

ease of use for all groups including people with a mobility

disability;

That proposals for tall or large scale buildings respect the

setting of the proposed London Bridge Tower, and are of

exceptional design quality, and located within a planned

strategy for the siting of tall buildings with reference to the

London Plan;

Improvements to the environment, especially the public realm

and pedestrian environment;

Improvements to the distribution and quantity of public open

space whilst also seeking to maintain its quality;

To increase employment especially of local people in

commercial, tourism, health and retail activities;

Active frontages to encourage footfall, improve safety and

further create a sense of place. There is an additional

requirement for retail as the predominant ground floor use

along Tooley Street and Borough High Street;

To preserve or enhance the historic character of the area,

especially Conservation Areas;

That all developments meet the highest urban design

standards;

2.3 LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

15

It is also noted, in addition to these points, that,

All new development will be required to achieve the highest

standards of design. This could transform the area into one of

London’s key commercial and visitor locations. This will only be

achieved if the issues around poor public realm, regenerating the

railway arches and access are resolved to ensure that the local

environment complements the new high quality buildings making

London Bridge a place where people want to work, visit and live.

(6.2.457)

SOUTHWARK CORE STRATEGY (ADOPTED 6 APRIL

2011)

Southwark Core Strategy was adopted on 6 April 2011, and is now

the central element of the borough's Local Development Framework.

It should be stated that, as elsewhere in the country, the absence of

a finalised Development Management Development Plan Document

(DM DPD) requires that some specific elements of the Southwark

Plan remain in operation, providing specific guidance and policy. This

is particularly relevant to how the borough responds to Conservation

Areas and Listed Buildings, as these are not dealt with particularly

specifically by the Southwark Core Strategy.

It is framed, first and foremost, around a set of central 'Strategic

Objectives'. One of these, 2F, states that the borough should,

'conserve and protect historic and natural places'. It determines that,

' Southwark’s historic buildings will be protected and improved

particularly in conservation areas.'

This is expanded through a number of Strategic Targets Policies

(STPs), beginning with 'STP1: Sustainable Development', which, in

line with PPS1, argues for 'making sure development makes the most

of a site's potential and protects open space.' 'STP12: Design and

Conservation', further states that the following situation must be

aimed for:

Development will achieve the highest possible standards of design for

buildings and public spaces to help create attractive and distinctive

places which are safe, easy to get around and a pleasure to be in.

This, according to the strategy, is to be achieved by, ' Expecting

development to preserve or enhance Southwark’s historic

environment, including conservation areas, archaeological priority

zones and sites, listed and locally listed buildings, registered parks

and gardens and scheduled monuments.'

Once more the focus is on, 'improving people’s quality of life and

making places more attractive', as well as helping to, 'attract

businesses to the area.' New development should be, 'carefully

thought through and take into account how the development is part

of a wider place and how a place’s uniqueness and historic value can

be used to stimulate regeneration and improvements.'

London Bridge, as an Opportunity Area: The designation of

London Bridge as an Opportunity Area, and the policies regarding the

area included in the Southwark Plan, are further expanded and

cemented within the Core Strategy. Here it is stated that London

Bridge should become a 'thriving centre of activity', while the station

itself, it is maintained, 'should prioritise links to buses and train

stations within Southwark.' In addition, the council states that it will

work with Network Rail, 'to make sure the railway arches continue to

be well used for a mix of entertainment, cultural, leisure and business

uses. The frontages of railway arches will be improved and where

possible opened up onto the street to bring new life to areas, such as

along St Thomas Street.'

BANKSIDE, BOROUGH AND LONDON BRIDGE DRAFT

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT AND

OPPORTUNITY AREA FRAMEWORK (2010)

In 2010, Southwark Council began the production of the

Bankside, Borough and London Bridge Draft supplementary

planning document and opportunity area planning framework.

This proposal was superseded, in 2011, as the council intended to

apply for what was then known as 'neighbourhood planning

vanguard' status. In April 2011, having been selected for the

scheme as 'Community Planning Front Runners', the council

entered into a process whereby they would produce two

neighbourhood plans, in cooperation with local community forum

groups.

These developments have held up the production of the draft

Opportunity Area Framework, but it is included as it gives a

strong sense of Southwark's approach to planning in this area,

and is considered to useful for informing new development. The

introduction sets the tone, noting that,

The Thameslink improvements and the Jubilee Line upgrade will

make London Bridge station one of the most important transport

hubs in the capital. Until now, it has been seen very much as a

gateway to places north of the river with most of the people leaving

the station in the morning peak heading straight across the bridge to

the offices in the City. There is a great opportunity now to make

2.3 LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

16

London Bridge a more important destination with developments in

and around the station carefully planned so that people living and

working there will find it attractive, convenient, lively and friendly

and the maximum benefit is achieved for the local area and for

London as a whole.

Design Policy: It is stated that, 'London Bridge has a varied built

form and urban grain, that includes historic 18th and 19th century

warehouses and modern office buildings with large floor plates that

do not respond to the historic character or original street pattern'. It

goes on to state that new development should:

Respect and improve the character of its immediate environs

and

integrate with the historic street pattern;

Present a high quality frontage to the River Thames and

protect and enhance the River environment;

Create a strong and consistent building line along streets and

the Riverside and define the public realm with active

frontages;

Respect and improve the scale and setting of historic

buildings and buildings of townscape value, such as the 18th

and 19th century row of buildings at the western end of St

Thomas Street;

Be sensitive to the character of the Tooley Street and

Borough High Street conservation areas.

CONSERVATION AREAS AND THEIR APPRAISALS

The existing Conservation Area Appraisals for Southwark note the

relevance of some 'saved' policies from the Borough's 1995 UDP.

These are, in fact, no longer saved, and it is clear that the appraisals,

as such, are in need of updating.

Policy E.4.2 concerns 'proposals affecting Conservation Areas', and

focuses, first and foremost, on demolition. It states that, 'consent for

demolition in Conservation Areas will not normally be granted',

particularly in the case of, 'the redevelopment of, or partial

demolition of buildings, or part of buildings which make a positive

contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation

Area..'. In these cases, 'accepted and detailed plans' for the site must

be presented before permission is granted.

Policy E.4.3 concerns planning permission in Conservation Areas, and

this maintains that where any new development may only be granted

planning permission if, 'the design of any new development or

alteration demonstrates that a high priority has been given to the

objective of positively preserving or enhancing the character or

appearance of the Conservation Area'. This includes special regard to

' historic building lines, scale, height, and massing, traditional

patterns of frontages, vertical or horizontal emphasis, plot widths and

detailed design...' Proposed building usages and designs for buildings

in, or adjacent to, Conservation Areas, should not adversely affect its

character. It is a universal concern of all the appraisals that, 'there is

no objection to good new building design in Conservation Areas in

contemporary styles.

Beyond this, the four Conservation Areas adjacent to London Bridge

Station's development site are all provided with appraisals to assess

their importance and to inform new development.

Borough High Street: Here, the individual design focus is on

ensuring that usage, often retail, is in keeping with the existing

environment, along with a relevant scale; the narrow burgage plots

in Borough High Street are identified as being in need of retention.

Classical proportions and features, albeit in a slightly vernacular, or

minimalist form, are recognised as being in need of respect; this

could be reflected in cornicing and parapets to building roof lines and

a general adherence to classical proportions in places. There is a

relative consistency of material usage in the buildings of this area

also, and an adherence to the brick character of the area would, in

many cases, be advised. Overall, however, the focus here is on the

fact that, Borough High Street has throughout its history had to

accommodate change, and part of its character is due to the

immense variety that change has brought', and that, 'the success of

modern design in Conservation Areas comes not from aping the style

of 19th century buildings, but in building on the unique townscape

opportunities of density and height that the development pattern

affords.'

Tooley Street: Recognised as having a 'metropolitan' character, the

most important features here are recognised as being its visible

importance as a major route, and its large, industrially proportioned

buildings. Elements of design that are identified for inclusion in new

developments are the full use of plots, right to the edge of the

carriageway, and with tall, vertical facades; 'plain flat facades with

little modulation in plan', a minimum of three storeys in height and

'blocky' masses. The appraisal was completed before much of the

modern development along Tooley Street, in particular More London,

but it is noted nonetheless that successful new design should, '

employ a crisp simplicity of form and materials, echoing the

functionality of the earlier environment in a modern idiom.'

2.3 LOCAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE

17

Bermondsey Street: It is stated that new development should

reflect the historic environment by following some basic principles of

layout and use. This includes maintaining the existing building line,

and the burgage plot form, as well as ensuring that service activities

are conducted to the rear of plots, away from the street facade. 'Self-

consciously modern' design is described as acceptable, so long as

new design, 'echoes the narrow module of the traditional building

plot, creating strong rhythms with architectural elements along the

street and expressing verticality.'

Tower Bridge: Slightly more removed from the station itself, this

area is shown as requiring new design that 'enhances' the area's

character. Most of the advice is similar to that offered for Tooley

Street, a reflection of the similar historic uses and building types in

this wharf-side area. Again, a preference is shown for tall, vertical

facades of a minimum of three storeys, in combination with 'simple,

"blocky" masses, with the possibility of a vertical element, such as a

tower or chimney, to “mark” the building in townscape view

SUMMARY

The Southwark Plan and Core Strategy further condense

ideas promoted in national and regional policy.

The Plan focuses strongly on the area around London

Bridge, which is identified as an Opportunity Area and a

Strategic Cultural Area, and falls within a number of other

important areas.

Once more there is a focus on ensuring that transport is

well-integrated and efficient, as well as sustainable

communities. It is clear that the development at London

Bridge Station should respond well to the environment,

and provide an asset for the area.

3.0 HISTORIC APPRAISAL

3.0 HISTORIC APPRAISAL

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

21

The character of the area around London Bridge and North

Southwark has been dictated, throughout its history, by its position,

south of the river, and away from the heart of the old city. Transport

and trade has dominated building work and streetscape development,

through coaches, the river and the railway. As such, the presence of

the station as a dominant force in the area is simply a continuation of

hundreds of years of gradual evolution.

With the arrival of the Romans in Britain in 43AD, a permanent

bridge was constructed over the Thames close to the later location of

its more famous medieval successor, and despite a wet, marshy

environment, a 'bridgehead' community began in Southwark, acting

as a suburb for the more tightly planned community on the North

bank. The layout of parts of the Borough area were established very

early on, dominated by the presence of two Roman roads from the

South Coast, Watling Street and Stane Street. Richard Tames notes

that Roman Southwark, 'may have covered 20 to 24 hectares', and

was about one seventh the size of Londinium, on the opposite bank.

After the Roman withdrawal from Britain, the population fell sharply,

and there is little archaeological evidence for any occupation at all

between 400AD and 850AD; the decay of the Roman bridge may

have precipitated the complete desertion of the area. Noted as a

'burgh' in the Anglo Saxon 'burghal hideage' of 910, the Borough's

name clearly references its defensive role in the early medieval

period; indeed, the name Southwark is a derivative of Suđringa

geweorch', 'the defensive works of the people of Surrey'. Whatever

'defensive works' were in place, an attack in 1012 by Sweyn

Forkbeard saw Southwark taken; two years later, Aethelred II 'The

Unready' and Olaf of Norway retook the settlement. The latter was

commemorated in the name of the church whose site St Olaf House

now stands on; this was first mentioned in 1096.

By the time of the Domesday Book, Southwark was an established

trading area, being recorded as possessing a dock and a herring

fishery alongside its fifty houses. Despite its relatively limited size, it

gained a minster at some point late in the Anglo-Saxon period, when

what is now Southwark Cathedral was founded as the Augustinian

Priory of St Mary Overie. Later, in the 13th century, the canons

founded St Thomas' Hospital, whose presence was of vital importance

until its departure in the nineteenth century. The road that was to

become Tooley Street was a substantial route east from London

Bridge to the Pool of London (see figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Southwark as shown on Hogenburg's Map of 1553-9, showing the presence of Tooley Street and Borough High Street. It remained, at this point, little more than a bridgehead, a distinct community from London itself. The future location of London Bridge Station was largely unoccupied at this point.

Figure 3.2: A section of Wenceslas Hollar's 1636-42 Panorama of London, showing the future site of London Bridge Station, including St Olaf's Church, on the site of St Olave House, and some early wharf buildings.

Figure 3.3: The Tabard Inn, as shown in an etching of the 19th century.

Figure 3.4: Winchester Palace, one of many diocesan houses that stood on Bankside in the medieval period. A small fragment remains on Clink Street as the only reminder of this vital part of Southwark's Past.

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

22

London Bridge: 2000 Years of River Crossings

There has been a river crossing on or near the site of London Bridge

since 50AD, when the Romans built the first wooden crossing next to

the site of their new settlement, Londinium. This temporary measure

stood for only five years before its replacement by a more permanent

piled bridge, which, in its turn, was destroyed by the armies of

Boudicca in 60AD. A replacement was built shortly after, and an early

history dominated by repeated destruction and replacement had

begun. This last Roman bridge fell into disrepair following the

departure of Roman influence from Britain in the 5th Century, and it

seems that a new was not built until Aetheled's reign, in the closing

years of the 10th century. This bridge, in its turn, was destroyed in

1014 by Olaf II of Norway, and its successor fell foul to a tornado in

1091. William Rufus had this replaced, using forced labour, before

this crossing was destroyed by fire in 1136.

Over the next century, piecemeal and ad hoc rebuilding projects

ultimately led to the construction of a bridge that was to stand for

over 700 years, and become one of the world's most iconic

structures. 'Old' London Bridge, completed in 1209, was built of

stone, with 19 arches, and a drawbridge and Gatehouse at its

Southern end, on the Southwark bank. Waterwheels filled in the

arches nearest to each bank, and the bridge itself became occupied

in the early years of the 13th century; it became lined with shops

and businesses built onto the bridge, creating the famous image of

the bridge known today. This narrowed the roadway, and created

such enormous quantities of traffic that it could take over an hour to

cross the river. It was only in 1756 that royal permission was

received to remove the shops and houses from London Bridge, the

roadway was widened, and works were undertaken by the architect

George Dance to update and upgrade the old bridge.

By the end of the eighteenth century however, this too was

considered to be outmoded, and plans were made for a new

construction. The result was John Rennie's granite bridge,

architecturally uninspiring, but a simple and elegant solution to the

need for increased traffic provision nonetheless. It opened in 1831 on

a new site 30 metres west of the old bridge, which remained open

during the works. In modern terms, the new bridge cost around £123

million.

Finally, in the 1960s, Rennie's bridge too fell foul of progress, and a

new bridge proposed. The Victorian bridge (or at least its granite

facings) were sold to the American businessman Robert McCulloch,

and the bridge now stands in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Mott, Hoy

and Anderson's new concrete bridge, with its wide central span, was

completed in 1972.

The area's position on the outskirts of London, with easy access to

agricultural areas to the South, led to the foundation of the Borough

Market, taking place on the High Street from 1276. There is

substantial evidence for the presence of inns along Borough High

Street from an early point, particularly The Tabard, founded in 1307

as a hostel for Hyde Abbey, and mentioned in Chaucer's Canterbury

Tales, 'Bifel that in that season on a day/ In Southwerk at the Tabard

as I lay/ Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage' (fig. 3.3). The Tabard

was joined by several others, including, according to Stow

commenting in 1598, the 'Spurre, Christopher, Bull, Queen's Head,

...George, Hart, King's Head, etc.' The remaining evidence of these

institutions can be found in a series of yards in narrow and deep

burgage plots on the Eastern side of Borough High Street, for

example King's Head Yard and White Hart Yard, along with a section

of the George Inn, still in use as a pub.

The driving force behind the presence of inns in Southwark was

partly the construction of a fortified London Bridge, built between

1176 and 1209, and the introduction of a curfew, which saw the

bridge's gates closed nightly. Being outside the city gates, Southwark

provided a good place for early morning departures on foot or by

horse, as well as offering direct access to roads south from the city.

The area's position outside the city also saw it develop as the location

of various, potentially 'undesirable' industries, including crafts

undertaken by religious refugees and tanning, along with the

presence of brothels, theatres and prisons, particularly the Clink,

Borough Compter and King's Bench jail (fig. 3.5). Being beyond the

control of London, it was also able to run itself independently, a not

entirely satisfactory situation for the city across the river. Martha

Carlin has described how, 'to the Londonders of its own day,

medieval Southwark was a headache. It was an asylum of

undesirable activities and residents, a commercial rival, an

administrative anachronism and a perpetual jurisdictional affront.'

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

23

Throughout the medieval and into the Tudor period, Southwark and

the Borough played host to a number of large houses, the residences

of wealthy abbots and magnates. The most grand and notable of

these was Winchester Palace (fig. 3.4), the ruins of which still remain

on Clink Street. The presence of these buildings enabled the area to

remain relatively respectable, despite the aforementioned

'undesirable activities and residents'. However, their dispersal in the

16th century, precipitated in part by the Reformation and the

Dissolution of the Monasteries, led to a decline in the area's

character. A huge population increase (Southwark's population

doubled during the reign of Elizabeth I), and continuing

administrative issues surrounding law and order in the area, led

Southwark to become even more attractive to undesirables. In the

early 17th century, Borough High Street was also described as 'a

continued ale house with not a shop to be seen', perhaps

unsurprisingly given the number of inns that still traded along the

route; in 1631, 238 alehouses were recorded in Southwark.

By the 17th century, the stretch of the River Thames facing onto

Southwark and the Borough was known as 'London's Larder', having

gained a reputation as an area for storage of dairy products and

meat. Hay's Wharf became so named after the purchase in 1651 of

an area between Tooley Street and the river by Alexander Hay, a

business that rapidly expanded along the street to include a large

number of warehouse buildings.

The 18th century and early 19th century saw the heyday of the inns

and of agricultural trading in Southwark, as improvements in the

road system, and the lack of alternative transport before the arrival

of the railways, saw coaching and other road transport become the

main form of intercity travel. Substantial increases in traffic in this

era saw the removal of Borough Market away from the main road to

ease congestion. Additionally in this period, St Thomas' Hospital was

joined on St Thomas Street by Guy's Hospital in 1721 (fig. 3.6), a

change that further came to affect the character of this area south of

the current Station site.

Figure 3.5: The King's Bench Prison, one of several in the area, as seen in 1808.

Figure 3.6: Guys Hospital as it was when constructed in 1721. This view shows the building's now much-altered prospect towards St Thomas' Street.

The Borough Market, 1276-2011

Borough Market's development has, throughout its life, been closely

linked to its location at the southern end of London Bridge, and next

to a number of key transport interchanges. The first known mention

of the market being held on the Southwark side of the river comes

from 1276, when a market held until that point on London Bridge was

moved because of traffic congestion. The market was held thereafter

on Borough High Street until 1754 when, once more, traffic

congestion led to it being moved, to a part of the site that it now

occupies, which had, until 1604, been the site of the Bishop of

Rochester's London residence.

During the nineteenth century, it became an increasingly vital trading

point, due to its location next to the wharves of the Pool of London,

and the main routes from Kent to London. The majority of the

current market halls were added in 1851, and the Hop Exchange was

opened on the site in 1867 to serve the now-thriving brewing

industry in Southwark. The nineteenth century market was

dominated by railway viaducts from a very early stage, with the

construction of the through tracks from London Bridge to Cannon

Street and Charing Cross in 1864, and the market thrived beneath

their arches; the construction of further Art Deco market buildings in

the early twentieth century further increased the scale of the

market's provision. The history of Borough Market is closely tied in

with the commercial nature of Southwark, as a gateway to the

capital.

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

24

The Great Fire of Tooley Street, 1861

Southwark had become used to fires during the 19th century,

and saw, for example, Topping's Wharf nearly destroyed in 1843

(taking St Olave's Church with it, by and large), and a fire in

1855 devastate Bankside. The fire that struck at Cotton's Wharf

on the 23 June 1861, was simply enormous, and led directly to

the formation of London's first publically-funded fire brigade.

Cotton's Wharf was not alone in being engulfed, as Scovell's

Bonded Warehouses (which contained a volatile mixture of

saltpetre, cotton and tallow), while the fire ultimately stretched

over three hundred yards along Tooley Street. The fire burned

for two days, and caused over £2 million of damage. It was said

that the fire was, of an extent never equalled since the

foundation of the Insurance Offices [after the Great Fire in

1666].'

The fire also caused the death of James Braidwood, the

Superintendent of the London Fire Engine Establishment, the

insurance company-run fire service. His funeral, which drew

enormous crowds, was compared to the Duke of Wellington's

state funeral, and the publicity his death and the fire drew, led

to the formation of the London Fire Brigade in 1865.

Figure 3.7: A plan of St Thomas's Hospital in 1853, shortly before its purchase

and substantial demolition by the Charing Cross Railway Company. The buildings

marked in red are all that remain of the hospital.

Figure 3.8: St Olave's Chuch, shown in 1810, as it was after being rebuilt by

Henry Flitcroft in the 18th century, and before it was destroyed in the fire of

Tooley Street. . The bustle of the docks can be seen taking place around it.

In 1831, the development of Sir John Rennie's new London Bridge

took place, 180 feet upstream from the old bridge. It led to

substantial alterations to the street plan at the northern end of

Borough High Street, where a larger, grander, somewhat more

rational approach to the bridge was created. Shortly after, the arrival

of the railway in 1834 had a dramatic impact on the area, directly

leading to the departure of St Thomas' Hospital and the decline of the

coaching inns. The latter's business was destroyed by the presence of

several new rail routes to the South East from 1844, and in a

dramatically blunt demonstration of changes in transport usage, the

inns and their yards almost all became purchased by railway

companies for storage. St Thomas' Hospital and its 17th century

buildings were driven out of Southwark in the 1860s by railway

developments. In 1861-4, the construction of the 'through tracks' at

London Bridge led to St Thomas' left moving from their Southwark

site. The new line to Charing Cross was forced to divert southwest to

avoid Southwark Cathedral, and this necessitated crossing a corner of

the site; after the 'Charing Cross Railway Company' (funded by the

SER) attempted to buy just the land they needed from St Thomas',

they became obliged by their Act of Incorporation to purchase the

entire site, in exchange for £296,000. The majority of the hospital

was ultimately demolished, leaving little more than the buildings in

the south-west corner of the site (fig. 3.7)

3.1 SOUTHWARK: A HISTORY

25

As the railway developed, so did the dockland area by the Thames,

and Hays Wharf saw a substantial campaign of rebuilding between

1851 and 1857. 'London's Larder' had become a key storage point for

tea, tallow and other commodities; Hays Wharf's owner, John

Humphery Junior, must have loomed large over the area with the

scale of his trade, land ownership and political involvement.

In 1861, the Great Fire of Tooley Street devastated Cotton's Wharf.

The fire lasted for two weeks, and led directly to the formation of the

publically-funded London Fire Brigade. As a result, many of the 19th

century warehouse buildings west of Hays Wharf are rebuilds from

the early 1860s.

While Hibernia, Cotton's and Hay's wharves dealt with substantial

amounts of international trade and storage, the growing rail and road

network led to the further development of agricultural trade and

commodity production. Hops seem to have become one of the most

traded commodities in the area, as demonstrated by the presence of

various hop factors' buildings along Borough High Street, and the

Hop Exchange, completed in 1866. Easy access to such agricultural

produce saw the development, in the 19th century, of several

brewing and distilling companies; Courage's Anchor brewery building

still stands on Shad Thames, while the former Boord and Sons

distillery offices are on Tooley Street.

Trade continued to flourish into the 20th century, a fact

demonstrated by the architectural flourish of St Olaf's House, built as

a headquarters for Hay's Wharf. Second World War bombing, and the

movement of most of London's cargo freight from the Pool of London

to Tilbury Docks at the mouth of the Thames, however, led to a

period of sharp decline and economic depression for the area.

This period of decline has been followed, since the 1980s, by a period

of substantial recovery, particularly in the area directly beside the

Thames. The Hays Galleria development was begun in 1987, around

the same time as a similar project at Shad Thames, while the recent

completion of More London (fig. 3.11), and the projected completions

of the Shard and Quill buildings (fig. 3.12), points towards a general

upturn in the development and wealth of the area, once more taking

advantage of its proximity to central London, and its separation from

the City itself.

Figure 3.9: The chaotic appearance of Duke Street (now Duke Street Hill) in the 19th century. Directly connected to the docks, this was an area of slum-like housing and poor lodgings for travellers.

Figure 3.10: Hay's Wharf in the early 1960s, with St Olaf House in the centre. Even by this late stage, the wharf and river bustled with activity.

Figure 3.11: More London, developed from 1998 onwards, using the site of derelict wharves, once serving the Pool of London.

Figure 3.12: The Quill, which received planning permission in December 2010; one of several new high-rise, high tech, recent developments in Southwark.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

26

The history of Southwark provided above gives some sense of the

complex, ever-changing urban environment that London Bridge

Station was introduced into. As shall be seen, it was literally,

physically, imposed from above onto an existing streetscape. It was,

as figure 9 shows, a chaotic, largely poverty-stricken area,

dominated by wharfs, inns, and industrial development.

As a phenomenon, the early development of railways in Britain was

purely capitalist, driven not by a desire to create a coherent

'network', but by individuals seeking to make their fortune. London

Bridge Station fully illustrates this story and is, arguably, the London

terminus with the most fraught history. Understanding this

development allows us to get a sense of why the station as it stands

now is so problematic, and why it has such a direct, intrusive effect

on Southwark.

PERIOD 1: A STATION DIVIDED 1836-1857

1836-1839: The London & Greenwich Railway: The brainchild of

a civil engineer, Lt. Col. George Thomas Landmann, and funded by a

small group of wealthy investors assembled by one George Walter,

the London and Greenwich Railway was developed over the early

years of the 1830s. It was intended to take advantage of the fact

that an estimated 2,000 people per day travelled the 5 1/2 miles by

road from Greenwich to London, and was designed to be carried

entirely by a viaduct of 878 arches; this enabled to skirt above the

marshy ground by the Thames and the myriad lanes of Bermondsey.

So huge an undertaking was this that the price of bricks rose within

London after work had begun as the development caused a city-wide

shortage; 10,000 bricks were being laid daily for the viaduct. The

railway was brought right up to John Rennie's newly completed

London Bridge, opened in 1831, dramatically improving access from

Southwark to the City, and providing London with its first railway

terminus; the station's proximity to the new London Bridge meant

that travellers were delivered right 'to the gate' of the City of London.

The station, formerly opened on 14 December 1836 was simply the

terminus of the viaduct from Greenwich, with two parallel tracks and

a central island platform. the whole was fronted only a set of iron

gates. The company built a tall building adjacent to the viaduct,

which contained a booking office, waiting rooms and offices, but

there was no 'station building' as we would know it. Comically, in

1840, the building was inspected, and it was discovered that the top

floors were never used, and had, in fact, never had floors inserted;

the Greenwich company at this point agreed to pull down the top

couple of storeys, bringing it to viaduct height. Access to the viaduct

was provided by a carriageway that swept up to the end of the

terminating tracks.

Figure 3.13: An artist's impression of the new railway in 1836, running

from London Bridge in the foreground towards Greenwich. The broad

curve is a product of the artist's imagination.

Figure 3.14: An early, not entirely accurate drawing of the London &

Greenwich Railway's London Bridge terminus. More a conclusion to the

viaduct than a station, the building to the rear of the viaduct acted as its

booking hall and offices, although the top floor was never used

Figure 3.15: The site of the London and Greenwich Railway terminus at

London Bridge in 1837.

Figure 3.16: A map of the London and Greenwich Railway's route from

its prospectus, produced before work begun in 1832.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

27

1839-1840: The arrival of the London & Croydon Railway: As

early as 1835, another company, the London & Croydon Railway, was

granted incorporation, and was empowered to build a line from

Croydon to a junction with the Greenwich railway, some 1 3/4 miles

from London Bridge. From here, they were permitted, with the

payment of tolls, to use the London and Greenwich's tracks to

London Bridge Station itself. The construction of a terminus for the

Croydon company began in 1838, to the north of the original station

site, despite the fact that the Croydon line peeled off to the south;

the L&G, apparently being obstructive, refused suggestions that the

new company should build to the South, or take over the location of

their terminus. Regardless of this complication, the new station

opened on 5 June 1839, including a building of a broadly classical

deign with entrances from both street and viaduct level. It was

described as follows in 1839 by the author of The Croydon Railway

and its Adjacent Scenery,

The London Station of the Croydon Railway...consists of four ranges

of vaulting, with a north and a west front, and supporting a

handsome passenger shed or covered way 212 feet in length, 26 feet

high and 56 feet breadth, for the protection of passengers arriving or

departing by the trains...Passing the end of the carriage approach to

the Greenwich Railway, we reach the west front, which is an elegant

facade of stone in the Roman style of architecture. This leads

immediately into a vestibule 60 feet in length, 30 feet in breadth, and

22 feet high, the roof of which rests on a double range of Roman

Doric columns, coated, as are the walls of the interior and of the

staircases, with a new kind of white cement, capable of a polish equal

to that of marble.

Some of the white cement columns of this, the first grand proper

station building on the site, can still be found in the vaults of the

station, hidden from public view, and swamped by later building. It is

interesting to note how far the Croydon railway dwarfed its lowly

landlord, the Greenwich; a drawing of after 1841 rather comically

shows how far the new terminus dwarfed the L&G's booking 'office'

(figs. 3.18 and 3.19) .

Figure 3.17: The monumental arch proposed in 1835 as a dramatic entrance to

London Bridge Station. It was never, ultimately, built, as later images

demonstrate.

Figure 3.18: London Bridge Station as it stood after 1841, with the new Brighton

& Croydon Railway terminus dwarfing the 'booking office' of the Greenwich &

Deptford Railway.

Figure 3.19: These arches on Joiner Street, leading to an escalator bank, appear

to remain from The London & Croydon Terminus of 1841.

Figure 3.20: A plan of the viaduct arches at London Bridge Station following the

development of the extension for the Croydon company. Shows the extent of the

ramp over Joiner Street to the front of the station, and the spread of the station by

this point.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

28

1840-1845 : The Joint Committee Station of the Croydon,

Brighton and South Eastern Railways: Further expansion of the

network heading south into Kent and Sussex took place throughout

the early 1840s, and London Bridge, and in particular, the London

&Croydon Company's station, became the starting point for other

railway companies' routes. The South Eastern Railway (SER) began

services to Ashford in 1842, and reached Folkstone, and then Dover,

in 1843 and 1844, while the London & Brighton Railway Company

opened a service to Brighton in 1841.

To accommodate these new routes, it was decided to widen the

viaduct to carry four tracks; the lateral expansion of London Bridge,

which would result in it stretching from Tooley Street to St Thomas

Street, had begun.

A Joint Committee between the London & Croydon, London &

Brighton and South Eastern Railway Companies was then created,

with the express purpose of forming a single, shared station;

preferably, they felt, on the site of the London & Greenwich terminus.

Ultimately, they got their way, and between 1842 and 1844, the

London & Greenwich Railway were forced to see sense, buying the

Croydon Railway's previous station for £3,500 and selling their site to

the Joint Committee, who went on to build the 'Joint Committee

Station', completed in 1844, built to an Italianate design, complete

with a campanile(figs. 3.21 and 3.23).

1845-1857: The South Eastern Railway and The London,

Brighton and South Coast Railway: The 1840s continued to be a

period of complex inter-company rivalry and development, and in

1845, the South Eastern Railway 'moved out' of the Joint Station,

after receiving authorisation to lease the entire operation of the

London & Greenwich Railway Company. Although the company

continued to exist for financial purposes, the SER essentially

consumed it, leaving it in a position to develop a new station to the

north of the Joint Station, and on the site of what had been, just

three years earlier, the terminus of the London & Croydon Railway.

Finally, the complex years of the forties led to some sort of

rationalisation, with the Croydon and Brighton Railways combining

with a group of other small companies to create the London, Brighton

and South Coast Railway (LBSCR). Thus, from 1846 to 1923, the

London Bridge site consisted of two distinct termini, with the SER

station to the north, and the LBSCR to the south. This led, initially, to

the demolition of the five-year-old Joint Station building in 1850, and

the two companies began to develop their own, quite distinct

buildings.

Figure 3.21: The proposed design for the 'Joint Station' that was

eventually opened in 1844. This design was intended to incorporate some

accommodation for the London & Greenwich Railway as well, but

ultimately this was not required, and the facade was completed in a

shorter form than shown here, shown in figure 3.23.

Figure 3.22: The temporary SER station of 1848-51, which the company

used until the development of their larger, Samuel Beazley-designed

station in 1851.

Figure 3.23: The Joint Committee Station as it was constructed,

noticeably shorter than that planned (figure 19).

Figure 3.24: The small Booking Hall which originally acted as the main entrance to the LBSCR station, built in 1850.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

29

The SER Station: To the North, the SER developed, between 1848

and 1851, an entirely new viaduct-level layout. This featured a new

station building, designed by the architect Samuel Beazley in an

Italianate style, and which the Illustrated London News described as

being, 'of less merit than its predecessor'. It's only interesting feature

was its characteristic curved facade. . This formation was due to the

fact that the building fronted onto, essentially, three separate engine

sheds, serving their three main routes, to Greenwich, 'North Kent'

and Dover; their differing terminal points led to the station's odd

shape. Despite the limited architectural merit of their new station

building, the SER went out of their way to create a substantial new

entrance to their station; a large forecourt was created, featuring a

long shopping arcade, and waiting space for carriages (fig. 3.27).

The SER's sheds were by no means as grand as that which the

LBSCR were to build to the south, and little remains of them, except

for a section of wall surviving from the Dover shed; decorated with

pairs of round-headed arches, it would, as an 1853 drawing shows,

have formed the frame for a simple wooden roof (figs. 3.25, 3.26 and

3.28).

Figure 3.25: All that remains of the SER station, the internal wall of the Engine Shed

for trains to Dover. This abuts the northern wall of the surviving LBSCR shed.

Figure 3.26: the blank arches of the 'Kent shed' of the SER station, still extant and

shown in figure 19, can clearly be seen in this view of the station in operation in 1853.

Figure 3.27: A photograph of prior to 1864, illustrating the arcade and SER

Station building flanking Tooley Street before the current bridge over Borough

High Street was constructed.

Figure 3.28: A view of the SER's various seperate engine sheds from the east, in

1853.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

30

LBSCR Station: The LBSCR began their terminus reconstruction with

the building of a small 'booking hall' in 1850, a simple, single-storey

structure, with a central canopied entrance flanked by canted wing.

This was soon to prove insufficient, as a new financial venture led to

the company expanding its operation. A number of the company's

directors had interests in a company that had bought the Crystal

Palace, and moved it to a position on Sydenham Hill, not far from the

London to Brighton line; realising its potential, a spur was

constructed to serve the new tourist attraction in 1854. Indeed, from

London Bridge, it was noted in The Illustrated London News, 'that

portion which is at present used by the Croydon trains will be

devoted to Crystal Palace traffic'. It is clear that a substantial amount

of space and finance was to be devoted to this new project, and so it

should have been; Alan Jackson has noted that on one day in 1859,

112,000 people were transported to Crystal Palace from central

London, including 70,000 from London Bridge. The new station

building that followed, serving all of the LBSCR's routes was, once

more, a simple structure of brick with stone dressings, three storeys

tall and, once more, of a vaguely 'Italianate' form (figs. 3.29 and

3.30). Pedimented windows and channelled giant pilasters broke up

the long facade, which, as maps of the time show, sat slightly further

to the east than the frontage of the SER's station.

Although a slightly later construction, it is worth noting the 'Terminus

Hotel', built in 1861 (fig. 3.32). It was, in a perfect mirroring of the

general character of London Bridge, an independent commercial

venture, squeezed into the unoccupied corner of St Thomas Street

and Joiner Street. Built at a cost of £110,000, with 150 rooms, to the

designs of Henry Currey, surveyor to nearby St Thomas' Hospital, it

abutted the viaduct next to the LBSCR station, it apparently failed to

be much of a financial success, and was purchased in 1893 by the

LBSCR for use as offices.

Figure 3.29: A close-up view of Samuel Beazley's 1853 terminus building.

Figure 3.30: The 1853 LBSCR station, completed in an Italianate style.

Figure 3.31: A late 19th century photograph of the LBSCR station building (on the

left), and the Terminus Hotel (on the right), showing their proximity.

Figure 3.32: The Terminus Hotel as it was designed to look, shown in The

Illustrated London News in 1861.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

31

Period 2: Still a station divided: Terminus and Through-Station (1857-1923)

1857-1893: Constructing the 'through station' and the

Engine Shed: After a few short years of retrenchment and

establishment, both railway companies once more embarked on a

substantial building programme.

The SER 'Through Station': Since the 1840s, there had been

much lobbying by the companies based at London Bridge to try

and obtain permission to construct a continuation of the line to

the West End of London. This got off the ground in 1857, when

support from within the House of Commons allowed the 'Charing

Cross Railway Company' to be formed, securing incorporation in

1859, and gaining permission to build a route from Charing Cross,

through Waterloo Junction (now Waterloo East), to London

Bridge; their remit was further expanded in 1861, as they were

granted permission to build another extension to Cannon Street.

Despite the name of the company involved, the project was, in

essence, an SER project; they instigated the new company, and

provided £300,000 for the project.

The new route, initially to Waterloo Junction, was far from

straightforward, as the most direct routing was blocked by

Southwark Cathedral. As a result, the lines curved to the

southeast, through the site of the ancient St Thomas' Hospital

(fig. 3.34). Attempts to buy only what they needed, a small

corner of the site, were rejected, and using a clause in the act of

incorporation, the hospital obliged the SER to purchase the entire

site for £296,000 pounds, and moving the hospital, eventually to

its current Lambeth site.

Substantial works were required to facilitate the project, but the

most important of these for the current station was the work

necessary to carry the new tracks over the station forecourt and

access ramp. The line was raised by a gradient of 1 in 103, and

the problematic higher level tracks and viaduct of the through-

station were created, to allow the new tracks to pass comfortably

out the station and over Borough High Street. The project also

involved the demolition of part of the SER's station building of

1851, just over a decade after its construction (figs. 3.34 and

3.35).

Figure 3.35: An etching of the construction of the viaduct for the through tracks

in 1863.

Figure 3.34: St Thomas Hospital, shortly before its purchase and

demolition for the construction of the through tracks to Charing Cross.

The LBSCR terminus and Terminus Hotel are visible in the background,

showing the proximity between the two sites.

Figure 3.33: A Plan of the through tracks as proposed in around 1865.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

32

LBSCR Station: At almost exactly the same time, the LBSCR

embarked on a similarly 'landmark' development, constructing the

large engine shed that still stands on the site between 1864 and

1867 (figs. 3.37 and 3.39). The new shed was to be attached to the

rear of their Italianate 1853 station building, and can be attributed to

F.D. Banister, who had been appointed as the railway company's

chief resident engineer in 1860. It is based on a tripartite plan, with a

central barrel-roofed 'nave' and two flat-roofed 'side aisles'. With its

decorated iron columns, which originally had floral capitals, and

ornamental wrought iron spandrels, it was clearly intended to

impress, and acted as a dramatic improvement on the engine sheds

that had previously stood on the viaduct at London Bridge. Indeed,

The Engineer noted, in 1865, that, 'in the florinated bases and

capitals [of the iron columns] are fine examples of art, applied in a

manner and to objects that erewhile were thought unworthy of such

an application of the artistic faculty.' (see fig. 3.37) The article went

on to declare that it felt that the shed, 'will be at once one of the

spacious in area and accommodation, and the best lit in the United

Kingdom.'

The shed was probably in part the result of an 'arms race' on the part

of the railway companies, seeking to impress, and in competition with

their adjacent neighbours. Indeed, it is interesting to note the

attention that was paid, not only to the roof, but to the shed's

retaining walls, where a polychromatic brickwork design was applied,

in combination with a Romanesque architectural treatment (fig.

3.38). The whole was the work of Charles Henry Driver, who worked

extensively for the LBSCR; it also included the construction of a new

parcels office to the southeast of the terminus hotel, essentially as

part of the train shed.

1893-1923: The calm after the storm: Although the period

between 1836 and 1867 was a period of frantic and repeated building

and rebuilding, the period that followed was one of relative calm, as

little substantially changed about the station during this period.

Figure 3.36: F.D. Banister and C.H. Driver's 1864 Engine Shed in 1882. Without

the raised, louvred lanterns added to the side aisles at the turn of the century, it

presented quite a different aspect to that seen today.

Figure 3.37: Photographs captured in the 1970s of the decorative capitals, now removed, that once proliferated within the LBSCR engine shed.

Figure 3.38: The St Thomas Street elevation of the Parcels Office, designed by C.H. Driver as part of the development of the LBSCR engine shed.

Figure 3.39: A view of the interior of the engine shed in 1905, with horse-drawn cabs awaiting fares.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

33

SER Station: The SER did undertake some track expansion from

1893-4, essentially filling in the gap between the station and Tooley

Street, and completing the geographical spread of the station.

Following this, a new office building, the 'South Eastern Railway

Office' was erected at 64-84 Tooley Street, adjacent to the newly

extended viaduct. Five storeys in height, with polychromatic

brickwork and stone dressings, the building is of an unusual shape,

being almost impossibly narrow at its western end to fit into the

space afforded between the road and the railway.

The company essentially amalgamated with the London, Chatham

and Dover Railway in 1899, becoming the South Eastern and

Chatham Railway (SECR), and the new company undertook

substantial changes to the tracks and sheds at London Bridge. The

'Dover Shed' detailed earlier had its roof removed, and an overhead

footbridge built to connect the platforms, which were now covered by

individual canopies. Furthermore, track arrangements were

'rationalised', and a platform-less 'passing loop' was introduced; the

viaduct over Borough High Street was also widened to accommodate

four tracks (fig. 3.43).

LBSCR Station: Around the turn of the century, the aisles of the

train shed were raised, to give their current shape, with each section

between the girders raised to give a prism-like profile to each one

(fig. 3.42); the parcels office also contracted in scale around this

time. The company also extended its electrification programme,

expanding its electrified run from London Bridge to Crystal Palace,

having begun to electrify on the South London line in 1909.

Figure 3.40: The station approach in 1900, showing the two stations and the

Terminus Hotel; this is the complex station that the Southern Railway inherited in

1923.

Figure 3.41: The station just prior to unification, showing the raised aisle roofs of

the LBSCR engine shed, and the roofs and footbridge of the SECR's through station.

Figure 3.42: A busy London Bridge station in around 1920, again showing the LBSCR shed's new profile.

Figure 3.43: The bridge on the left in this view was added to widen the

viaduct to four tracks in the early 1900s.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

34

Period 3: Make do and Mend: an unsatisfactory

station (1923-2011)

1923-1939: The Southern Railway years: Following the bringing

of the railways under state control during World War One, the

amalgamation of the railways became a prominent issue, with its

advantages having been made clear. As such, the Railways Act,

which came into place in 1923, created the 'Big Four' railway

companies, the LMS, the GWR, the LNER and, for London Bridge,

Southern Railways (SR). London Bridge presented Southern Railways

with major problems, as it remained, to all intents and purposes, a

site with two separate stations, without any access between the two.

As such, in 1928, the two adjacent stations were joined through the

introduction of an overhead footbridge, and the wall of the former

LBSCR engine shed was cut through to provide for this. In the same

year, the platforms at the station were renumbered 1-22, and the ad

hoc unification of London Bridge Station, driven by increased

passenger services and frustration at running, in essence, two

separate stations, had begun.

1939-1972: World War Two Damage and renewal: The newly

unified station had further change thrust upon it by the effects of

World War Two, as on the night of 29-30 December 1940, the

Terminus Hotel was destroyed (fig. 3.45), along with C.H. Driver's

parcels office. These buildings' proximity to the engine shed clearly

meant that the shed itself accrued damage, although an aerial

photograph of 1941 (fig. 3.47) gives little sense of how structural and

significant this was. Thereafter, substantial damage was caused to

the main station buildings fronting the platforms, and the top floors

of these buildings were subsequently demolished. With rebuilding

after the war being slow, it seems that London Bridge was left

stunted and untidy; there is even an image available which shows

the southern aisle of the engine shed being supported by a large

temporary pylon.

The full nationalisation of the railways took place with the creation of

British Railways in 1947, but the new owners did little to redevelop

the station in the post-war period, and a photograph of the late

1960s shows that the only real change that had taken place was the

demolition of the old SER station frontage (fig. 3.44).

Figure 3.44: A post-war aerial view of London Bridge Station, now owned by

British Rail. The stunted remains of the LBSCR's station building, and the 1864

shed remain of the Victorian stations, but little else.

Figure 3.45: Henry Currey's 1861 Terminus Hotel, along with C.H. Driver's Parcels

Office, were destroyed during the Blitz. As can be seen here, the damage to the

former was dramatic.

Figure 3.46: An image of London Bridge Station in the 1950s, showing the sort of

footbridges and platform canopies that had existed prior to 'Operation London

Bridge'

Figure 3.47: Bird's eye view of London Bridge Station during the aftermath of the

Blitz and the clearance of the destroyed Terminus Hotel. Shows the extent of the

damage to the southeast corner of the site.

3.2: A HISTORY OF THE STATION

35

1972-1978: 'Operation London Bridge': By 1972, John Betjeman

was able to describe London Bridge Station as, 'the most

complicated, muddled and unwelcoming of all London termini...its

platforms are narrow and draughty, it seems to be several stations in

one, and they are connected by toilsome footbridges and mysterious

underground passages.'. As such, during the years that followed,

London Bridge underwent a period of substantial remodelling, a

scheme which would completely change the western approach to the

station, and totally remove most traces of the Victorian station at

track level. The development was completed in conjunction with the

construction of the Southwark Towers, and was coordinated by

British Railways' architect for the Southern Region, Nigel Wikeley.

The station had to remain operational throughout the works and a

total re-planning was therefore out of the question. Despite this, it

was possible to extend the length of the platforms, rearrange the

track layout, and construct a new footbridge to provide better inter-

platform access (fig. 3.48). Finally, a new control centre was built to

replace the old signal box; this now dominates views of the viaduct

from Bermondsey Street.

Most substantially, a new station concourse was constructed at the

western end of the station, on the site of the Victorian station

buildings and the two westernmost bays of the engine shed (figs.

3.49 and 3.50); this was to include a bus station, as well as a large

shopping and circulation area under a 'space frame' roof, illuminated

by 114, three metre tall pyramidal roof lights. The theory was that it

would be 'an overall canopy with all sorts of little buildings

underneath it'. It was fronted by the bus station and a large pillared

entrance under an area of curtain walling. The effect was to produce

something approaching rationalisation from the western end of the

station, although the confusion of entrances from street level still, to

a large extent remained. Nonetheless, it has been described

subsequently as, 'one of the best modern station reconstructions in

Britain'.

1978-2011: Continuity: Since the 1970s reconstruction, little work

has been done on the station, and, despites its improvements, an

image of the station as chaotic and confusing has developed. The

only really substantial development has been through the

construction of the underground station's Jubilee Line platforms,

which necessitated the demolition of many of the vaults to the west

of Joiner Street. The vaults to the east of Joiner Street have,

meanwhile, been opened up to provide a shopping area, the Western

arcade; escalator access from the arcade to the platforms has also

been added.

Figure 3.48: Two publicity posters for 'Operation London Bridge'. In the context of

the works proposed, it is useful to note that this 1970s project claimed to be taking

out 'the stopper' from a major bottleneck.

Figure 3.49: Aerial photograph of the station in the early 1980s, following the construction of the Southwark Towers and Operation London Bridge. It can clearly be seen that a large proportion of the station's west end was demolished during this period.

Figure 3.50: View of the demolition works that preceded the main building phase

of 'Operation London Bridge'. Illustrates the complete demolition of the remaining

Victorian station buildings, as well as the level of destruction required to cut back

the train shed to fit with the new concourse.

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

36

Station Development

This plan illustrates the story above by providing building dates for each part of the station's viaducts. It illustrates a basic, but key, point about London Bridge Station: it

developed through gradual accretion, and that all stages of work, from the 1830s to the 1970s, still remains on site. These elements are subject to different levels of public

visibility and survival, and they have served to create a complex station that is often difficult to understand and complex to navigate.

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

37

This map progression is intended to illustrate the narrative above, demonstrating that the station's

development is extremely complicated, particularly at platform level, where the station, at various points,

had up to four engine sheds running parallel to one another.

Figure 3.51: This copy of Horwood's Map of 1819 has had the route of the future London Bridge terminus of the London and

Greenwich Railway superimposed upon it. This shows clearly the dense urban environment that the station was constructed

into.

Figure 3.52: The London Bridge Joint Station, as it stood between 1845 and 1848. The Joint Station building itself, with a

shorter facade than intended, stands in front of the central shed, while a triangular office building stands to the south, in

front of the 'spare carriage house' site on which the LBSCR's station would later be built.

1830s 1848

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

38

Figure 3.53: The South Eastern Railway's section of London Bridge Station in 1851, showing the building constructed by the

company to replace Beazley's joint station, and the three quite separate sheds that essentially stood behind it.

Figure 3.54: 1st Edition Ordnance Survey Map of 1872, shows the presence of the through-station; the LBSCR station;

Terminus Hotel built up against the viaduct; and the new Engine Shed, with its inbuilt Booking and Luggage Offices.

1851 1872

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

39

Figure 3.55: Ordnance Survey map of 1893-4, still here marking the different stations that existed at the time. The unusual, stepped-back frontage of station is particularly noticeable.

Figure 3.56: 1937 Plan of the Sothern Railways-run, unified London Bridge Station. This plan illustrates the complicated plan that emerged as a result of combining what were essentially separate stations.

1893 1937

3.3 STATION HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT: MAPS AND PLANS

40

Figure 3.57: Detail of the relevant London Bomb Damage Map, revealing the level of damage to the terminus end of London

Bridge Station. With black denoting 'total destruction', light red being 'reparable at cost' and purple 'damaged beyond repair',

it can be seen that the Terminus Hotel, and much of the booking and luggage offices, were destroyed, while the main station

buildings were seriously damaged.

1945

4.0 AREA APPRAISAL

4.0 AREA APPRAISAL

43

This document assesses the impact of the London Bridge Station

development upon its nearby heritage assets is considered. The

works involved, and the structure they ultimately produce, will

have a presence within the historic townscape that is larger than

the site itself, and will impact upon historic areas, and the

settings and contexts of heritage assets.

Heritage assets, as has been shown above, can be divided into

two types: Designated Heritage Assets, and Undesignated

Heritage Assets. The former, consisting of those heritage assets

that have received statutory protection consist, for the purposes

of this townscape and built heritage survey, of Listed Buildings

and Conservation Areas. The latter, meanwhile, are essentially

all locally listed buildings, either identified as such individually by

the council, or featured in the various Conservation Area

appraisal documents as Positive Contributors.

This study seeks to use these heritage assets as a means for

further explaining the character and significance of the

surrounding area, as well as a means for assessing the impact

this scheme will have on its surrounding townscape.

This section is broken into three divisions:

Designated Heritage Assets: Listed Buildings;

Designated Heritage Assets: Conservation Areas;

Undesignated Heritage Assets.

It is laid out through the means of a geographical 'walk around',

as illustrated on the map associated with this section, beginning

at the top of Borough High Street, and circumnavigating the

station until the High Street is reached once more. On the

following two pages, a map and index are provided, listing the

buildings in the order that they appear, in order to make them

readily identifiable and easily located.

4.0 INDEX AND UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS ASSESSED IN PARTS 4.0 AND 5.0

44

4.0 INDEX AND UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS ASSESSED IN PARTS 4.0 AND 5.0

45

SECTION 4.0: DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

AROUND THE STATION

DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

1. Southwark Cathedral (Grade I Listed)

2. 6, 8 and 10 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

3. Bridge House, 4 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

4. Hibernia Chambers, 2 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

5. Archway beneath southern end of London Bridge, crossing

Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

6. Olaf House, Tooley Street (Grade II* Listed)

7. London Bridge Station Riverside Block, Tooley Street (Grade

II Listed)

8. Denmark House, 15 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

9. London Bridge Hospital (part), 17-25 Tooley Street, 'Emblem

House' (Grade II Listed)

10. 29, 31 and 33 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

11. 47 and 49 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

12. The Counting House, 51-67 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

13. Hays Galleria, Counter Street (Grade II Listed)

14. Shipwrights Arms Public House 88 Tooley Street (Grade II

Listed)

15. 115-121 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed)

16. Fire Station, 139 and 141 Tooley Street (Grade II Listed

17. Guys Hospital Main Building, including wings and chapel, St

Thomas Street (Grade II* Listed)

18. Gates, gate piers and Street Railings to Guys Hospital

(Grade II Listed)

19. Statue of Thomas Guy in Courtyard of Guys Hospital (Grade

II Listed)

20. Alcove from Old London Bridge in Inner Quadrangle of Guys

Hospital (Grade II Listed)

21. K2 Telephone Kiosk outside 17 and 19 St Thomas Street

(Grade II Listed)

22. Mary Sheridan House (Part), 15 St Thomas Street (inc.

railings) (Grade II Listed)

23. Mary Sheridan House (Part), 11-13 St Thomas Street (inc.

railings) (Grade II* Listed)

24. 9 St Thomas Street (Grade II* Listed)

25. 9a St Thomas Street/London Bridge Street (Grade II*

Listed)

26. 4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street (with attached railings)

(Grade II Listed)

27. Bunch of Grapes Public House, St Thomas Street (Grade II

Listed)

28. Post Office, 19a St Thomas Street (Grade II Listed)

29. King's Head Public House, King's Head Yard (Grade II

Listed)

30. 53 and 53a Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

31. 55 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

32. 67 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

33. George Inn, 77 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

34. 28 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

35. 32 and 34 Borough High Street (Grade II Listed)

36. 1b Southwark Street (Grade II Listed)

37. The Globe Public House (Grade II Listed)

UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

38. 88a Tooley Street

39. 56-58 Weston Street

40. 60 Weston Street

41. Hop Warehouse, Vinegar Yard

42. Railway Arches, St Thomas Street and Crucifix Lane

SECTION 5.0: HERITAGE ASSETS ON THE STATION SITE

43. Platforms 9-16 London Bridge Station (Train Shed) (Grade II

Listed)

44. Bridge Over north end, London Bridge Station (Joiner Street

Bridge) (Grade II Listed)

45. 64-84 Tooley Street (Undesignated Heritage Asset)

46. London Bridge Station (Undesignated Heritage Asset)

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

46

Southwark Cathedral (Grade I listed)

The most significant heritage asset in the area, Southwark

Cathedral is also one of the closest assets to the main approach of

London Bridge Station, although it is somewhat concealed behind

the existing bridge carrying the 'through tracks' to Charing Cross. It

only became a cathedral in 1905 with the creation with the London

Diocese of Southwark; previously the church was known as the

Church of St Saviour and St Mary Overie.

The first record of a church building on the site is the mention of a

'minster', in the Domesday Book. In 1106, the church was

refounded as an Augustinian Priory by Henry I; it would remain as a

priory church until the reformation, and was attached to St Thomas

Hospital across the road, possibly founded shortly after

the priory. Following a fire in 1220, a rebuilding program begun,

and the East front, Choir and Retrochoir all date to between 1214 to

1260. The nave, meanwhile, is a Victorian copy, having been rebuilt

in 1839-40 by Henry Rose and again in 1890-97 by Sir Arthur

Blomfield, following a broadly Early English 13th century style. The

transepts were also heavily remodelled in around 1830, as were the

ceiling and external pinnacles of the Choir. As such, the Cathedral

can be said to represent, in essence, a nineteenth century rebuilding

of an early medieval church.

While there are substantial quantities of thirteenth and fourteenth

century work within the building, and it is structurally of this era,

the overall form and feel, internally and externally, are nineteenth

century creations. This does little to harm its intrinsic interest and

significance, as is the one major piece of fabric in this area that has

stood continuously throughout the medieval era, and is

demonstrative of the evolving nature of gothic church architecture

in London.

Externally, the building is faced largely in knapped flint with

limestone dressings, some almost forming flushwork decoration in

the buttresses. The external elevations are of a mixed gothic

character, with Early English lancets, original and Victorian,

predominating; the transepts, in contrast, have more perpendicular

windows. Gilbert Scott's hand is obvious across much of the

exterior, and the East End, in particular, looks like a more elegant

version of the West End he constructed at St David's Cathedral,

Pembrokeshire. The most striking external element is undoubtedly

the tower, which is visible from a number of vantage points across

the Borough and the City of London. It was built between the 14th

and 15th century, and is of a light, warm-coloured ashlar, with tall

transomed windows and similar louvred bell openings above; the

whole is topped with a band of decorative flint flushwork and

medieval-style nineteenth century pinnacles.

Significance: The most significant heritage asset within the direct

sphere of influence of London Bridge Station, the cathedral

represents a key piece of medieval Gothic fabric within London,

rarely replicated elsewhere. It provides a direct link to many

aspects of the area's history, including the hospitals south of

London Bridge Station, the very first inns and the bishops' palaces

that once dominated the Borough. Similarly, containing, as it does,

a substantial quantity of fabric from the 13th century, the

Cathedral stands as a constant landmark in an area dominated by

change.

Impact: Negligible. The setting of the cathedral is already heavily

influenced by 19th century, industrialised design. The through

tracks of 1861-4 from London Bridge Station to Charing Cross and

Blackfriars pass within 15 metres of its East end, while the halls

and yards of Borough Market abut its narrow precincts. The

cathedral's setting is thus somewhat unique in standing as a small

island of medieval calm in a bustling, developed environment. The

work at London Bridge can be argued to take place within the

confines of existing Victorian work as far as the cathedral is

concerned, and would be fully concealed from the cathedral by the

approach viaducts.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

47

6, 8 and 10 Borough High Street (Grade II

Listed)

A large, stucco-faced building, on a prominent site next to the

southern end of London Bridge, 6, 8 and 10 Borough High Street

was built, initially, as a commercial building. It was clearly

deliberately designed to present a somewhat impressive exterior to

the world from its highly visible position, being designed in the style

of an Italian Palazzo. Its stucco exterior is decorated with pilasters

and a frieze at ground floor, and pedimented windows, string

courses and friezes higher up; the whole is finished with a frieze and

cornice at roof parapet level. Finally, the most notable element of

the building is its decoratively curved corner, facing south down the

High Street.

It was probably built during the 1830s or 1840s, following the

completion of London Bridge, and its new road layout, in 1831. Its

neighbour, Bridge House, was completed in 1834, and it seems

likely that 6, 8 and 10 Borough High Street was built at a similar

time, taking advantage of an excellent plot next to the bridge and

the market. The building today still contains offices on its upper

levels (known as Bank Chambers), with the ground floor being

occupied by the 'Barrowboy and Banker' Public House. The names of

these two elements reflect the fact that for a long period (until the

2000s), it was a bank; the interior still possesses a decorative

banking hall.

Significance

One of a number of impressive commercial buildings in the area, 6,

8 and 10 Borough High Street is a good example of the sort of

large-scale commercial development that took place following the

reconstruction of London Bridge, and the realignment of the roads

approaching it. It is a strong part of the surrounding townscape,

forming a representative group with its near-contemporaries, Bridge

House and Hibernia Chambers; all three of these listed, early

Victorian buildings were built as a result of the changing economic

conditions in this part of Southwark.

Impact

Negligible. Sited at the western end of the station, detached from

the main body of the works, no element of the proposed station

design will impact upon the setting of the listed building, given the

distance of the asset from the works.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

48

Bridge House, 4 Borough High Street (Grade II

listed)

Built in 1834, Bridge House is the product of the architect George

Allen (1798-1847), from designs by Robert Smirke, according to the

listing description. It is of a mannerist classical design, with a

rusticated ground floor acting as a plinth to ionic engaged columns

and pilasters of the giant order through the 1st and 2nd floors,

surmounted by a full entablature, cornice and attic storey, or

belvedere, with curved lead roof.

The building's architect, George Allen, was the district surveyor for

Southwark, and was heavily involved in the shaping of this area in

the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1827-8, he produced a

document, 'Plans and designs for the future approaches of London

Bridge' which had a strong influence on the way that the southern

approach to the bridge was laid out. Given this building's date,

quickly following the construction of new London Bridge and its

approaches, and shortly preceding the completion of the station,

this is clearly a building whose development was linked directly to

the new transport links that dominated the aea. Indeed, the

building is noted by Pevsner as being 'one of the first grand hotels

in London, serving the new railway terminus opposite'. John

Betjeman, in his work on London's railway stations, notes that it

was built by the Hay's Wharf Company, and this would make a

certain amount of sense; those at Hay's Wharf were never far from

the forefront of transport or money-making.

Allen's firm, based in offices on Tooley Street, would continue to

exert an influence beyond his death, as it came to be taken over by

William Stooke and Henry Stock, architects and surveyors, who

designed many of the warehouses that face onto Tooley Street

itself; Allen was thus something of a progenitor for rather more

industrial design elsewhere in the area.

Significance: There is substantial significance to this building

through its connection to how transport, and therefore Southwark,

changed in the nineteenth century. That it is a grand hotel,

feeding off the growth of the railway, is vital in an urban context

that contained a large number of coaching inns, for whom the

railway sounded a death knell. This, in combination with its design

and geographical proximity to London Bridge, makes Bridge

House an interesting artefact of how the layout and economy of

Southwark and the South Bank changed within a fifty-year period.

Furthermore, through George Allen, its architect, it is directly

linked to a large number of other buildings in the area designed

by William Stock and Henry Snooke, who took over his firm after

his death in 1847.

Impact: Negligible. Standing back from the through tracks, and

the viaduct that crosses Borough High Street, Bridge House would

not be unduly influenced by the London Bridge development; the

majority of work would happen away from its key sightlines, and,

indeed, its setting may see some improvement from the improved

approaches to the station, and the quality of its architectural

design.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

49

Hibernia Chambers, 2 Borough High Street

(Grade II listed)

Hibernia Chambers is a large, mixed-use building, associated with

the once-thriving Hibernia Wharf that stretched west from London

Bridge. It was constructed in 1850, to the designs of William

Cubitt, for the businessman and wharfinger John Humphery Junior.

Cubitt (1791-1863), not to be confused with Sir William Cubitt

(1785–1861), was a builder, engineering contractor and politician;

he was Lord Mayor of London between 1860 and 1861, an

Alderman, and MP for Andover from 1847 until 1861 and in 1862.

He was responsible for substantial building work in Belgravia,

Bloomsbury, Pimlico and Camden, as well as Cubitt Town in the

Isle of Dogs. He appears to have had a close personal relationship

with the businessman John Humphery junior, owner of the Hays

and Hibernia Wharves; it was arranged for Humphery's two sons

to marry Cubitt's two daughters. Humphery was himself an

Alderman, Lord Mayor of London in 1842 and was a Whig MP for

Southwark from 1832 to 1852.

Hibernia Chambers was constructed in 1850, when Humphery's

business was booming, as a combined warehouse and office building

for Hibernia Wharf. The bottom two storeys of the building, below

bridge level, were originally used as warehousing, but have been

subsequently converted. The building is of an Italianate design, with

contrasting yellow stock brick and Portland stone, a recurring theme

in the area, with heavily dressed windows, a modillion cornice and

balustraded parapet. In many ways, this is one of the more visually

misleading of the dock buildings that flank the Thames along this

stretch. It does not have the muscular, minimalist character that the

buildings of Hays Wharf, for example, possess, instead

demonstrating a more commercial, or even domestic character.

With the new, trade-focused London Bridge Station recently opened

and extended opposite, and transport north and south over London

Bridge passing yards from its door, this is clearly a building

designed for show, an expression of gentility and sophistication

even in the heart of commercial London.

Its position directly proximate to the remaining arch of Rennie's

19th century London Bridge is also of interest. The bridge was

originally flanked, on both sides, by a grand set of stairs down to

the river, and by placing Hibernia Chambers next to the bridge, this

one must have been obliterated, for the good of commercial

development.

Significance: A mid-19th century wharf building, Hibernia

Chambers has a direct thematic and historical connection to a

large number of other buildings along this stretch of river, not

only as a result of its original purpose, but through its architect,

William Cubitt, and its commissioner, the ubiquitous John

Humphery Junior. Furthermore, its prestigious design and

position, for such a workaday building, ensures that it is unusual

among buildings of this type. It makes a very positive contribution

to the approach to London Bridge.

Impact: Negligible. The context and setting of Hibernia Chambers

is focused more towards London Bridge and the Thames-side than

towards the station itself, and it is therefore arguable that the

impact of the London Bridge Station development would be

limited. Like Bridge House, it also stands away from those areas

of the station where the most substantial work is planned, and as

such, should avoid substantial harm and impact.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

50

Archway beneath Southern End of London

Bridge, Crossing Tooley Street (Grade II listed)

This archway, of granite ashlar, is the only remaining portion of the

previous London Bridge, famously sold to Robert P. McColluch in

1967 and re-erected over Lake Havasu in Arizona. The archway,

with the bridge, was constructed to the designs of Sir John Rennie

the elder by his son, John Rennie the younger, in 1831. The ashlar

is struck deeply, with obvious voussoirs and horizontal channeling.

The bridge's parapet, solid and blank, is carried on a dentilled

cornice.

Its significance lies largely in the fact that it is all that is left of

former London Bridge, as well as a product of the Johns Rennie,

elder and younger, a well-known engineering dynasty in the

nineteenth century.

The bridge's position, directly in the line of the current London

Bridge, has something to tell us about the way the immediate road

layout developed in the 19th century. 'Old' London Bridge has stood

some 180 feet further South East, and remained in place during the

construction of the Rennies' bridge. This facilitated a dramatic

change in road layout, straightening and widening Borough High

Street at its most Northern extent; the remaining arch remains

partly as a testimony to this change in the Borough's character, and

the beginning for substantial new building like Bridge House and

Hibernia Chambers.

Significance: As the only in situ remnant of the Rennies' 1831

London Bridge, it is a vital artefact of a departed piece of Victorian

London. Furthermore, it provided the site and routing for 'New'

London Bridge in 1967, and its construction led directly to a major

realignment and re-ordering of the northern end of Borough High

Street. Its current position and existence act as evidence for this

major 19th century work, which changed the face of this area of

London in the 1830s, particularly considering that the bridge's

construction precipitated the building of other nearby buildings,

such as Hibernia Chambers.

Impact: Negligible. The setting and context of the archway is

already substantially compromised by development above and

around it. Severed from the bridge it was designed as the

approach to, it is clear that the arch's context is already limited,

but to the east, the archway has been imposed upon by

subsequent development, leaving it constricted; any further

impact would be limited, particularly considering that the arch is

out of sight of the station. While to the east, the archway is better

preserved, it remains true that this remnant is not vulnerable to

changes at London Bridge Station.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

51

Olaf House, Tooley Street (Grade II listed)

The chunky yet sleek lines of St Olaf House were constructed in

1931 as offices for the adjacent Hays Wharf. Its architect was the

scholar and designer Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendell (1887-1959),

whose substantial study of the Victorian gothic saw him rise to

become Slade Professor of Art History in 1933-36, and RIBA

President between 1937-39. Little of his built work remains, and

certainly nothing of this style; it represents an unusual departure

from his usual style of muscular, brick-built churches and houses.

More famous, perhaps, for his work beyond architectural design, his

involvement is nonetheless a relevant detail in the design of what,

clearly, is an important piece of modernism, built at the age of 44,

while he was rising towards substantial academic and architectural

recognition.

The building was constructed on the site of St Olave's Church,

incarnations of which had been on the site since before the Norman

Conquest. In 1926, the building that stood on the site was a 1740

design by Henry Flitcroft; the industrial growth of this area had led

to massive depopulation over two centuries, and left the church

redundant. Following its partial demolition in 1926, the site was

cleared in 1928.

St Olaf House's unusual T-shaped plan, designed partially to deal

with the difficult site the church had left, also had to cope with being

right in the centre of the busy wharf. The riverside section of the

building is raised on slightly ungainly looking stilts, to allow for

traffic movement along the river, and the shape of the building

allows it to have impressive facades to the Thames and Tooley

Street, while allowing for substantial yards to exist to east and west

with access through the river.

It is built of Portland stone on a steel frame. To the river, the

building is a somewhat gaudy advertisement for Hay's Wharf,

decorated by a set of large, central relief panels by Frank Dobson, in

Doulton faience. These panels represent "the chain of distribution"

in the Futurist style he favoured earlier in his career; he had mostly

moved towards producing more 'realist' sculpture by this point.

The Tooley Street facade, facing the station, is no less eye catching.

It is nearly, but deliberately not, symmetrical, six storied, and with

a dramatic, wide central bay, continuously glazed. The flanking bays

are punctuated by narrow windows, with those on the right hand-

side being stepped to express the presence of an internal stair. It is

a dramatic expression of art deco design principles, and is

characterized principally by its substantially glazed central bay, and

applied art work, in the form of bold gold lettering, reading 'St Olaf

House' and, on the facade's left corner, a carving of St Olaf, again

by Dobson.

Significance: It is considered by the listing description to be

important for a number of reasons, most notably as an example

of a Continental, and more specifically Swedish influenced,

modernist style, imported into Britain at this period. It is certainly

a striking part of the townscape of this area, particularly

considering the lack of other examples of Art Deco work in this

part of Southwark. It also, in a more representative fashion, has

a great deal to tell about the lifespan of London's wharves. That

the Hays Wharf Company, as late as 1931, allowed the

construction of such a substantial and expensive building, is

evidence of the way that the Thames-based economy continued

to flourish despite the early rise of air and motorised road

transport.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Although set back from the station,

standing as it does on the section of Tooley Street that runs down

from the Old London Bridge archway, the immediate setting of St

Olaf House is nonetheless vulnerable to works at London Bridge.

Its modern lines and proportions ensure that it is less likely to be

adversely affected by a contemporary development at the station.

The quality of the proposed development, providing a dramatic

improvement on the existing site, will improve the setting of this

landmark building, one of the most striking and unique in the

area.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

52

London Bridge Hospital Riverside Block, Tooley

Street (Grade II listed)

This warehouse building, now part of the London Bridge Hospital,

was constructed at some point in the 1860s, after the substantial

Tooley Street Fire of 1861, and was part of Chamberlain's Wharf. Its

main facade runs along the river frontage, and is substantial, 11

bays wide, and 7 stories high. Decoration is minimalist but highly

visible, including rendered cornice and ground floor, and heavy

pilasters that run through the height of the building. Facing the

station, the dominant sense is of starkly industrial brick, topped

with a cornice, but otherwise little decorated, and punctured by

aligned, round headed windows.

Denmark House, 15 Tooley Street (Grade II

listed)

Denmark House was built in 1908 by S.D. Adshead for the Bennet

Steamship Company, a company based in Goole in Yorkshire that

ceased trading sometime after the Second World War. The building

is not particularly large for a headquarters building, being only of

three bays along its longest side, but is tall, at 5 stories, and in a

highly visible position. It is of eye-catching orange-red brick, with

artificial stone dressings, and while the whole is based on a squat

ground-floor colonnade, the eye is drawn upwards to the balconied

fourth storey, interspersed with swags, and the fifth, where panels

of artificial stone create the effect of shutters. The most significant,

and highly decorated, element of the building, however, is at roof

level, where an elaborate sculpture effectively forms a pediment to

the building. The sculpture incorporates a decorated central panel,

flanked by putti, and topped by a sculpted steam ship, the whole a

somewhat historicized advert for the company within.

The architect, Cheshire-born Adshead, moved to London in 1890,

and there responsible for much of the house-building work that took

place on the Duchy of Cornwall's estate in Kennington around the

turn of the century, in conjunction with SC Ramsay. Many of these

are now listed. He also produced a number of work in southern

coastal towns, including a similarly Queen Anne styled, red-brick

and stone detail library at Ramsgate.

Significance: Obvious significance lies more in the riverside

frontage than towards the station, but nonetheless, the building

speaks of an industrialized past, where the river and the station

were interlinked as methods for transporting goods. The

architectural style and proportions expressed in this warehouse will

mirror, to a certain extent, those found in the essentially

contemporary viaducts and vaults of the station.

Impact: Negligible. Thames-facing, and largely concealed behind

Denmark House and 17-25 Tooley Street, any development at

London Bridge Station would not be likely to have a noticeable

impact on the context of the Riverside Block. This is particularly

the case given the various modern additions the building has

received and the development of the adjacent Cottons Centre.

Significance: The building can be considered to be a relic of an

earlier age, when small shipping companies existed in a busy

market, often locally based, but with headquarters in major ports

like Liverpool and London. That the Bennet S.S.C. had the

resources to build a London headquarters speaks volumes of the

money to be made in steam in the early 20th century. The building

makes a strongly positive contribution to the immediate

townscape, being highly decorative, and built on an unusual scale.

The building works well paired with Emblem House, as it provides

the two, being based on contrasting axes, dominate views down

Tooley Street from a number of directions.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Although sited close to London Bridge

Station's Joiner Street entrance, Denmark House's main facade

faces away from the station, towards London Bridge itself, and so

the impact of any potential development is somewhat lessened.

While within such a compact townscape, the building is somewhat

vulnerable to insensitive development, the proposed works will

have a minmal and positive impact on the designated heritage

asset.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

53

London Bridge Hospital (Part), 17-25 Tooley

Street, 'Emblem House' (Grade II listed)

Another office building related to the adjacent wharves, similar in

age to Denmark House, but substantially larger, with a rather

grandiose facade to Tooley Street. The architect was Charles

Stanley Peach, of Peach and Reilly; little information appears to

exist about either man, and this is the only building by Peach that

has been considered worthy of listing.

Baroque features abound, freely used in a mannerist fashion,

presenting a classically Edwardian facade. The whole is certainly

elaborate, with a symmetrical facade bookended with protruding

wings of buff terracotta decorated by broken pediments at third

floor level. The majority of the building is of orange-red brick, with

mullioned and transomed windows, again of terracotta, with the

whole contained beneath a hipped slate roof containing 'weaving

shed' dormers; the roof apex is accented by two long brick chimney

stacks.

The whole has something of a wedding cake feel to it, but the

overall finish is effective, and the building, like many others along

Tooley Street, demonstrates the extent to which architecture was

utilised as a means for advertising the businesses underway beside

the Thames; its significance is bolstered by its group value with the

other buildings that line the north of Tooley Street.

29, 31 and 33 Tooley Street (Grade II listed)

Said to date from 1840, and, as a result, a rare survivor of the 1861

Fire of Tooley Street that destroyed most of Cotton's Wharf. A direct

reference can be found to this on the Eastern side of the building,

where a decorative stone tablet memorialises the death of James

Braidwood, chief of the then-insurance company-sponsored London

Fire Brigade, and a constant agitator for a publically funded force.

He was killed during the fire when a wall of masonry fell on him.

While of a relatively simple design, the classical features used are

quite refined, as the whole, of stock brick and render, is

symmetrical and accented by the fact that the three central bays of

the building stand proud of the rest. The first floor windows of this

central portion are pedimented, and surrounded by a frieze, to

further add to the sense of refined simplicity, especially in

conjunction with a modillion cornice that stretches, as a string

course, along the facade.

Significance: This elaborate early twentieth-century building

makes a positive contribution to Tooley Street by virtue of its

substantial decoration. Its facade, directly onto the street itself, is

highly visible, and helps to characterise views along Tooley Street,

particularly those from Duke Street Hill and Borough High Street.

The building has a perceptible group value with Denmark House, as

they are stylistically similar, and both of red brick with stone

dressings.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Emblem House faces directly onto the

northern Joiner Street entrance to London Bridge Station, and a

hundred metres or so from the site where it is intended 'the cut' will

be made to provide a new ground floor concourse. These works, and

the introduction of a new fifth elevation to the station, will improve

its setting, providing a substantial improvement on the current,

compromised setting of Tooley Street. The proposed removal of the

bridge to Cottons Centre is particularly noted as having the potential

to improve the asset's setting.

Significance: Pre-dating all of the other wharf buildings along this

stretch, 29, 31 and 33 Tooley Street represent a rare example of a

building which survived the 1861 Fire of Tooley Street. A direct

connection with this is provided by the presence of a plaque

commemorating James Braidwood, the fire fighter and campaigner

for a publically-funded fire service, killed on a site near this

building. Its classical proportions, despite the simplicity of the

building, make a positive contribution to this area of Tooley Street,

where the road begins to narrow to the east.

Impact: Moderate, beneficial. While the works to London Bridge

Station are substantial, and within close proximity of the asset,

they are designed to be sympathetic to neighbouring assets, and

will therefore serve to enhance the setting and significance of the

asset.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

54

47 and 49 Tooley Street (Grade II listed)

A large warehouse building, Italianate in flavour, and designed by

Henry Stock. Stock had been a pupil of George Allen (the architect

of Bridge House), and took over business after his death with

William Snooke in Allen's old offices on Tooley Street. 47-49 dates

to the 1860s, a replacement for those destroyed by the 1861 fire,

and is the only remaining remnant of Cotton's wharf, the location of

the fire's ignition.

It has windows set into regular arched recesses, the whole accented

by stucco and artificial stone dressings, which contrast with the

yellow stock brick that constitutes the majority of the building.

Overall, the feel is of a higher class of warehouse, slightly less bare

than other 19th century designs, and its four story height ensure

that it makes an imposing and dramatic impact on the townscape of

Tooley Street.

Significance: One of a number of wharf buildings by Snooke and

Stock along Tooley Street, 47 and 49 Tooley Street stands out as a

rather more decorated example of the type, more self-assured and

less simplistic than other warehouses by the same practice. The

building's design ensures that it makes a strong contribution to this

first part of the 'canyoned' section of Tooley Street.

Impact: Moderate, beneficial. Standing on one of the most narrow

points of Tooley Street, and adjacent to the location of the proposed

'cut', this building is particularly vulnerable, along with its

neighbour, the Counting House, to changes undertaken at London

Bridge Station. It is intended that the industrial, rhythmic elements

of the design ensure that its setting is enhanced; the opening up of

public realm space on the former site of 64-84 Tooley Street, will

also open up views to the building, without the removing the

canyon-like feel of Tooley Street at this point.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

55

The Counting House, 51-67 Tooley Street,

(Grade II listed)

Another work by Snooke and Stock, largely by Stock according to

the listing description, and with some continuity from the nearby

design of 47 and 49 Tooley Street. This is a later work, of the late

1880s, but there is noticeable continuity in style from earlier Stock

and Snooke works on Tooley Street. The building is of six stories,

the bottom two incorporated into one apparent 'basement' storey,

grounding the structure, and acting as a plinth. Punctured by tall

arched recesses, this form gives the impression of almost of a

shopping arcade. Above this, the windows of the 1st to 5th floors

are placed within slight, arched recesses, with the protrusions in

between acting almost as massive, simple pilasters; indeed, these

protrusions are given the impression of possessing capitals. In

conjunction with a dentilated cornice to the building's parapet, light

classical detailing defines this building, despite the utilitarian

approach taken to its construction.

It occupies an entire block, being directly related in plan to what is

now Hays Galleria to the rear, and, with its strong, canted corner

treatments, has something of a landmark feel, despite its relative

plainness. Furthermore, as noted above, it has a very strong

connection to two directly adjacent buildings, 47 and 49 Tooley

Street, and Hays Galleria. It is not only stylistically and

proportionally closely related, it is also closely linked in terms of its

scale, being of a near-identical height to both of its contemporary

neighbours, as well as to the extant South Eastern Railway building

across the road.

Significance: Forming a group with Hays Galleria and 47 and 49

Tooley Street, the tall, vertical facade with its limited and stark

decoration makes a strong contribution to an area of Tooley Street

characterised by a canyon-like feel, and the presence of

nineteenth-century warehouses. Its corners are strongly treated,

ensuring that it dominates views from the east and west along

Tooley Street, and, through their canting, open up views down

Hays Lane and Battle Bridge Lane.

Impact: Moderate, beneficial. Of all the surrounding listed

buildings, this is the one whose setting would be most directly

affected by the insertion of the ground floor concourse between

Stainer and Weston Streets. The planned demolition of the South

Eastern Railway offices, and the insertion of a large new entrance

to the station opposite The Counting House would obviously

substantially change its setting. Its muscularity, simplicity and

scale reduce its vulnerability to degradation, and the quality of the

design and public realm proposed will protect the significance of

the building's setting, while enhancing the quality of its

surrounding townscape.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

56

Hays Galleria, Counter Street, (Grade II listed)

Another rebuilding of a warehouse from the aftermath of the 1861

Tooley Street fire, these offices and warehouses, designed once

more by Snooke and Stock, follow the architectural pattern of most

of the buildings to the North of Tooley Street. The building work is

attributed once again to William Cubitt (architect of Hibernia

Chambers and ally of Hay's Wharf owner John Humphery). Being

sited at a point where Tooley Street has moved further from the

Thames, it is of a much deeper plan form than most of the other

remaining wharf buildings along this stretch of riverside. In terms of

historic use, and therefore architectural approach, they are most

closely related to the 'Riverside' buildings of London Bridge Hospital.

The building was built on a cranked plan, originally around a wet

dock, for easy transportation of goods directly from ship to

warehouse, and this has now been infilled and covered as part of

the Hays Galleria shopping development.

Although the longest axis of Hays Galleria is aligned perpendicular

to Tooley Street, it still manages to have a direct and noticeable

impact on the streetscape abutting London Bridge Station. These

long side axes are visible down Hays Lane and Battle Bridge Lane,

as well as from the precincts of More London, and in combination

with the other warehousing along Tooley Street, there is a

noticeable consistency to this area's architectural character.

Significance: Hays Galleria is the only building along this stretch

between London Bridge and Tower Bridge that is ranged around a

dock, and is thus identifiable from the river and from the air for its

u-shaped form and open end. It also covers an enormous area,

forming the centrepiece of the remaining buildings of Hays Wharf.

It forms a group with the Counting House and 47-49 Tooley Street,

being of similar height, style and materials. Dominating views from

More London, and down Hays Lane and Battle Bridge Lane, it has

an impact on the area that belies its slightly 'hidden' position.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Hays Galleria stands directly to the rear

of The Counting House, and is thus somewhat protected from any

impact that the work at London Bridge Station may create. Its

scale and industrial character ensure that it is has only limited

vulnerability to change; this fact is demonstrated by the fact that it

sits comfortably next to the uncompromisingly contemporary

development of More London. Its immediate context will remain

unchanged after the station's redevelopment, and its access and

visibility as a site will be increased by the changes.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

57

Shipwrights Arms Public House, 88 Tooley

Street, (Grade II listed)

One of five pubs in the immediate area of the station that have

been considered worthy of listing, the Shipwrights Arms' name

dates back to the late 19th century, when the pub was built; the

yard which stood next to it was known as Shipwrights Yard in 1896.

Its building date, based on studying the OS map, can be identified

as being between 1872 and 1894; it is probably a near-

contemporary of the South Eastern Railway Office of 1893. It

contains a wall of tiles that are monogrammed with the name of

Charles Evans and Co., a West London based tile manufacturer. This

piece of decoration is nautical themed.

Externally, the building has a few pieces of unusual and noticeable

decoration, most notably the crouching Caryatid figure above the

main corner doorway, with outstretched arms to apparently support

the bay window above. This, in keeping with the pub's name, is

quite deliberately similar to a figurehead. Furthermore, the ground

floor is further decorated with scrolled consoles, bunches of grapes,

and acanthus leaf-like decorations. For a small pub, forced into an

uncomfortable site, the level of external decoration is striking.

Significance: A landmark building on a prominent corner site, and

following an unusual plan, the Shipwright's Arms' impact on its

immediate area is arguably disproportionate from its architectural

quality. Its elaborate external decoration is particularly noticeable

given the small size of the building, and its name, and internal

decorations, ensure that it is an artefact of period when the

wharves and river transport dominated the area. A decorative

example of a common building type, it makes a strong contribution

to this area.

Impact: High, Beneficial. Its setting will be substantially changed

by the proposed development at London Bridge, considering that

the adjacent Southeastern Railway Offices are proposed for

demolition. This would open up the Eastern prospect of the pub,

including its corner caryatid, making it a landmark for approaches

from the west. When built, this end of the building would have

been exposed and, as such, this development will reinstate, to a

certain extent, the site's historic appearance. Furthermore, it

would become a central focus of the new public realm space to be

opened up in front of the station's new north entrance.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

58

115-121 Tooley Street, (Grade II listed)

This office building, built for Boord and Sons, distillers, was

designed by Aston Webb, and completed in 1900-1901. Webb was

the architect responsible for the current appearance of Buckingham

Palace, as well as Admiralty Arch, the Royal School of Mines, parts

of the Victoria and Albert Museum and various governmental

buildings; his involvement in this case can be considered to be

somewhat unusual. It can almost certainly be explained by a

personal connection to the Boord family through the parish of St

Bartholomew the Great, in Smithfield, where his brother, E.A.

Webb, was churchwarden; the Webb family crest features on the

gatehouse, and Aston Webb was commissioned to restore the

church from the 1880s onwards. Parish records reveal that Boord

and Sons were based in the area, and Mr Joseph Boord was a

churchwarden, with a distilling business originally in Bartholomew

Close; it would appear that they felt the need to expand, and thus

chose a new site on Tooley Street. The new Boord site was certainly

substantial, with distillery buildings and warehouses stretching,

according to Pevsner, from the current building to the river. It is

unclear when the Boord family business moved into Tooley Street,

but the 1893-4 Ordnance Survey map shows buildings on the site

marked as a 'distillery'.

While this personal connection makes the building an interesting

and unusual one in Webb's oeuvre, it is clear that the building itself

is of some interest and importance. It is built in a free classical

style, and is not altogether dissimilar from its nearby

contemporaries, Emblem House and Denmark House. Square in

plan, with a central courtyard, the building is given a somewhat

castellated feel by the presence of two tourelles on the corners of

the Tooley Street facade, although the decoration is entirely of a

Classical origin, with tall sash windows, a dentilated cornice below

the fourth floor and a substantial hooded entrance of stone. The

rear of the building has a distinctive diaperwork pattern applied to

it; this pattern had been replicated in the distillery buildings

themselves, which had stood adjacent.

Significance: Significant largely as one of the few commercial

works produced by Sir Aston Webb, despite a large number of

buildings by the architect being listed; the personal connection that

appears to have led to its construction is also interesting, and adds

significance to the building. Furthermore, the building is an unusual

and attractive one, which makes a positive contribution to this area

of Tooley Street.

Impact: Negligible. Standing further away from the station than

other assets in the area, there are, nonetheless, views between the

current site of the South Eastern Railway Office building, and 115-

121 Tooley Street. These views would not substantially altered by

the changes to take place at London Bridge Station, and if the

entrance to the ground floor concourse were of sufficient quality, it

seems clear that an improvement of the building's context could be

achieved. Given the distance from this proposed station entrance,

and the more immediate effect that the development of More

London has had, it seems clear that any impact on 115-121 Tooley

Street will be limited.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

59

139-141 Tooley Street, (Grade II listed)

139-141 Tooley Street was originally built as a fire station, noted as

being part of the second wave of such buildings, following the

formation of the London's fire public brigade. As noted above,

following the Tooley Street fire of 1861, and the highly publicised

death of James Braidwood, it was decided that a municipal, publicly-

funded fire service was necessary.

The Metropolitan Fire Brigade was founded in 1866 following an act

of parliament, and through the political will of its first

superintendent, Captain Eyre Massey Shaw, a large building boom

began which reached its peak in the late 1870s and early 1880s.

The Tooley Street fire station is an example of a structure from an

early stage of this period of construction, a product of the

Metropolitan Board of Works Architects' Department, built in 1879.

It was designed by Alfred Mott, who worked widely on fire stations

whilst with the department; many of the features found at 139-141

Tooley Street can be found as standard on other, slightly designs.

The building is of a simple, broadly Gothic Revival style, a

picturesque, asymmetrical composition of various elements.

Prominent chimneys, various gables, and a small, stone-detailed

bay window on the ground floor, add character to the building's red

brick facade. Otherwise, the building is distinguished largely by its

scale, being surprisingly tall for its small ground plan, as well as by

its two large ground floor doors, originally providing access to

stabling and storage for wagons. The building's most notable feature

is the large, chimney-like, tower feature on its western flank wall;

this was originally built as a fire watch-tower, a common feature

among early fire stations. The top storey of this tower, with its

arcade-like windows, is a very recent reconstruction, following its

demolition at some point in the twentieth century. As part of the

More London redevelopment, the building has undergone a

substantial renovation programme, including substantial internal

demolition and conservation work.

The Fire Station remained in its original use until 1928, when it

became clear that the building, designed for horse-drawn wagons,

was no longer suitable for the busy, fire-prone dockland area it

served. It retains significance within the historic environment as a

very early example of a municipal fire station, constructed before

the substantial building booms of the 1880s and early 1900s. An

attractive and solid building, now incorporated attractively into the

More London development, it forms a valuable part of this section of

Tooley Street.

Signifiance

A good example of an early Municipal Fire Station, built just a

few hundred yards from the site of the Great Fire of Tooley

Street, which led to the introduction of a public Fire Brigade for

London. Its early date is not, in this context, surprising, and this

direct connection to the foundation of the Fire Brigade makes it a

significant structure in the history of these very particular

buildings.

It is, furthermore, attractive and well-built, a strong contributor

to the immediate townscape, and a successful and attractive

example of mid-late Vicorian municipal architecture, with

unusual features, like the watch tower. Finally, as suggested

above, as an early product of the London Fire Brigade's first

building boom, it has a useful role to serve as an example of

early fire station design.

Impact

Negligible. Whilst still being incorporated into the More London

development, the building, now heavily altered, stands

sufficiently distant from the development site at London Bridge

Station to ensure that the works will not impact upon the

building or its setting. There is only extremely limited and

distant intervisibility between the two sites.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

60

Guys Hospital Main Building, including wings

and chapel, St Thomas Street, (Grade II*

Listed)

Guys Hospital was built opposite the extant St Thomas' Hospital, by

Thomas Guy, a benefactor of the latter, for 'incurables' from the old

hospital. Work begun in 1721 on the central block, the earliest part

that survives today, which was designed largely by Thomas Dance,

who is described elsewhere, in a Survey of London document, as a

'plasterer'. The East wing was completed by John Steere, who

succeed Dance as surveyor to the hospital, in 1738. The West wing,

and central portico were completed by Richard Jupp, in the 1770s.

Jupp, an architect most notable for the design of the now

demolished East India Company Headquarters, which stood on

Leadenhall Street, and Severndroog Castle, a folly on Shooter's Hill,

remodelled the exterior in a broadly Palladian Style.

The building itself is of a near-symmetrical composition with a cour

d'honneur, where the eye is drawn towards the doric portico of

Portland stone, contrasting strongly with the dark stock brick from

which the majority of the structure is constructed.

Significance: Including parts of the original 1721 building,

founded and funded by Thomas Guy, this building represents an

important artefact of an area, prior to the building of the station,

that was dominated by hospital land usage, through the presence

of Guys' and St Thomas', originally sited opposite. It retains a

strong group value with other, classically proportioned buildings on

St Thomas Street. A fine piece of 18th century civic architecture, it

is an extremely significant asset in its own right, but it also has a

role to play in determining the character of St Thomas' Street,

which has an older, more domestic character than its neighbouring

thoroughfares.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. The setting of the hospital, and other

assets on St Thomas Street, is being affected substantially by the

construction of the 'Shard of Glass' building. There is a sense to

which this ultra-modern tall building development enhances the

historic setting of St Thomas Street purely by contrast, producing

an effect similar to that of the view of 30 St Mary Axe and St

Andrew Undershaft in the City of London. The effect produced is of

an isolation of this 18th and 19th century quarter from the area

that surrounds it. The development of the street level concourse

and station fifth elevation will be somewhat concealed from the

hospital by the bend in St Thomas' Street, but nonetheless, the

new station entrance onto St Thomas Street, complete with its

additional public realm, should enhance the streetscape leading up

to the hospital's entrance.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

61

Gates, Gate Piers and Street Railings to Guys

Hospital (Grade II listed)

A set of gates, railings and piers to St Thomas Street, identified as

being from 1741, and therefore completed shortly after the first of

the hospital's two front wings was completed. This suggests that

they are the work of John Steere, surveyor to the hospital at the

time. The gate formed the main entrance to Guys Hospital, and are

adorned, over the gateway itself, with Guy's coat of arms.

The piers are decoratively rusticated, fronted with small alcoves,

and topped with ball finials. They form, with the main hospital

building, a significant and instructive 18th century group.

Statue of Thomas Guy in Courtyard of Guys

Hospital (Grade II listed)

A bronze statue of Thomas Guy, the founder of Guy's hospital,

produced in 1734, the year he died. The piece was produced by the

Flemish sculptor Peter Scheemakers, who received 5000 guineas for

its completion. Scheemakers is most famous for his several

memorials at Westminster Abbey, including those to Shakespeare

and John Dryden. The piece sits on a stone pedestal featuring

bronze religious reliefs, but these are a later addition, as are the

surrounding railings.

Significance: Forming a group with Guys Hospital and the 18th-

century statue on the forecourt, the gateway to the hospital has a

substantial impact on the particular, 18th-century townscape of St

Thomas' Street.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Identical to the impact on Guys

Hospital. It seems that a new southern entrance would increase

passenger traffic along St Thomas' Street, but would also ensure a

'tidying' of the public realm in this area, ensuring that the quality

of the gates' setting would be improved.

Significance: Forming a group with the other buildings of Guys

Hospital, the statue adds to the air of 18th century respectability of

St Thomas Street, and is an interesting artefact of the early hospital.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. The statue's setting has already been

substantially eroded by the use of the hospital's forecourt as a car

park.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

62

Alcove from Old London Bridge in Inner

Quadrangle of Guys Hospital (Grade II listed)

One of the few remaining elements of the medieval London Bridge,

demolished in 1831, and resited to the precincts of Guys in 1858-62

according to the listing description. It was located in its current

position, in one of the hospital's courtyards, in 1902-4. The alcoves

themselves were designed by George Dance in 1758-62, when the

buildings which had stood along London Bridge's length were

removed and the carriageway widened.

K2 Telephone Kiosk outside 17 and 19 St Thomas

Street, (Grade II Listed)

Noteworthy as an unusual example of the K2 box type, an early, 1924

design by Giles Gilbert Scott that preceded the ubiquitous K6 box.

This example, one of over 100 listed, serves a vital role within the

immediate townscape, adding an 'old world' character unique to

London.

Significance: A rare remainder of Old London Bridge, and the

clearance and widening works undertaken by Dance, the Alcove is

one of only two surviving; the other stands in Victoria Gardens. It

also has an historical association with Guys, having been within

the hospital site since the turn of the 20th century.

Impact: Negligible. Hidden within one of the inner quads of Guys,

there will no direct impact on the setting or significance of the

alcove.

Significance: An unusual example of one of Gilbert Scott's early

telephone box designs. The structure adds greatly to the 'old

London' townscape of St Thomas Street which, apart from a few

later additions, was largely complete as it stands today by the end

of the Edwardian era.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. The setting of the box will remain

almost entirely unaltered by the works proposed, although it is

arguable that an increased quantity of pedestrian traffic will alter its

usage and its role within the environment. There is no reason to

consider that this would harm the significance of the building.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

63

Mary Sheridan House (Part), 15 St Thomas

Street (inc. railings) (Grade II listed)

One of a series of 18th century buildings lining the northern side of

St Thomas Street, the majority of them set back slightly from the

carriageway, probably built as part of a substantial building

programme undertaken by St Thomas' hospital between 1680 and

1732. The foundation moved away in 1862, arriving in its current

Lambeth location in 1871; 15 St Thomas Street had been the

Apothecary's house. Of yellow-brown stock brick, with a slate

mansard roof, dormer windows, and a sunken basement, this

building follows after the style of many others of its age in London.

Classical proportions dominate the facade, but decoration is limited

to a pair of stucco bands. The sash windows are perhaps

noteworthy, as they stand flush with the facade, and have an

exposed sash box; this potentially dates them to before the London

Building Act of 1709, which specified a 4" recess was required, to

prevent fire. These windows can be compared to the building's 19th

century addition, on the right, which also includes the unusual

feature of a slight, two storey recess, with a segmental arch forming

a hood over the first floor window; the door, beneath, has a

decorative doorcase.

Mary Sheridan House (part), 11-13 St Thomas

Street (inc railings) (Grade II* listed)

Like the neighbouring, Grade II listed 15 St Thomas Street, these

houses are set back from the main carriageway, behind sunken

basements, and was built originally, as part of the now moved St

Thomas Hospital. Originally these buildings acted as residences for

the receiver and minister of the hospital, as is confirmed by an 1853

plan of the site. Classically proportioned, and built of dark stock

brick, these terraced townhouses have 19th century added, wooden

sashes of various ages (some are flush, and others recessed) and

stuccoed string courses above the ground and third floors.

Furthermore, their doorcases, decorated with console-bracketed

modillion cornicing, are highly decorative elements, adding to the

sense of restrained, but polite, decoration. The roof treatment is

representative of its age, the building having a mansard roof with

dormer windows, partly concealed behind a parapet.

Significance: The building's value lies, first and foremost, is the

part it plays in creating a consistent pre 20th century, Georgian or

classically proportioned character to this section of St Thomas

Street; the level of development here is less extreme than

elsewhere in the London Bridge area, particularly as compared to

the directly adjacent Borough High Street. As a remnant of the old

St Thomas Hospital, it is of obvious historical importance, and has a

strong link to Guys Hospital; a sense can still be gained of a time

when St Thomas Street was bordered north and south by two large,

early hospital.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Direct views to and from the asset will

not be affected by the proposed works, and as such the setting and

significance of the building will not be substantially harmed. It

should be noted, however, that the works are relatively close to the

building's location, and, as such, there is a chance the building will

be impacted upon through the completion of the works and through

St Thomas Street's increased pedestrian usage.

Significance: Like others on St Thomas Street, these buildings'

group value is obvious, contributing to the street's consistent

character and building height. Their direct link to St Thomas'

Hospital, and thus to Guys, is important to the local area's history

and sense of historic identity.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Similarly to its neighbour, although no

direct impact will be felt, the increased usage of St Thomas Street

can be considered to offer benefits to the building's setting

through increasing activity around the site.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

64

9 St Thomas Street, (Grade II* Listed)

Number 9 St Thomas Street was built around 1706 and was, like its

neighbours on the north side of the street, part of St Thomas'

Hospital. The estimated date of construction for the building meant

that it was probably one of the last buildings to be constructed as

part of the major rebuilding programme that the hospital underwent

through the involvement of Robert Clayton. It certainly forms a

group with the similarly styled, Queen Anne former church at 9A St

Thomas' Street.

The building was used as the Treasurer's House, and still served this

use when a plan was made of the hospital in 1853. This plan also

reveals the reason for the building's unusually wide front doorcase,

as it shows it marked as 'Side Door'. It formed the entrance to a

covered passage through the building to 'Edward Square' behind,

one of the quadrangles of the hospital; the plan also shows the area

to the left of the door marked 'Porter'. The door itself has quite a

decorative surround, with coffered pilaster flanks, and an

overhanging, broken segmental pediment. When the entrance

ceased to act as a passage, a later, more narrow doorway has been

inserted into the doorcase, with a fanlight and small windows to

each side.

Otherwise, the building is tall and elegant, with sliding sash

windows, rubbed red brick surrounds and a series of simple string

courses across its brown brick facade. The whole is finished by a

parapet, which part conceals a slate roof with long dormers.

Typically of the time, the whole composition is a stripped-back and

classically proportioned, elegant without being fussy.

Thus this building was, at one and the same time, a gracious and

well-built house for a key member of the hospital's hierarchy, and

an impressive, if ultimately quite small, side entrance to the

hospital.

Significance: As the former Treasurer of St Thomas' Hospital's

house, and containing visible external evidence for its former role

as a side entrance to the hospital, the building plays a substantial

role in informing our understanding of how the now-demolished

hospital interacted with its environment. This building and its

listed neighbours, which now sit back from the street behind an

angled forecourt, retain a street line that dates back centuries,

and this, as much as anything about them, is to be valued.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Similar to its neighbours, noted above;

while no direct impact on views or setting will be felt, it is clear

that a change in the way St Thomas Street is experienced will lead

to a slight change in its setting.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

65

9A St Thomas Street/London Bridge Street,

(Grade II* Listed)

9A St Thomas Street was built as St Thomas' Church between 1702

and 1703, by the architect Thomas Cartwright (1635-1703), who

was employed by Robert Clayton, President of St Thomas', to be the

hospital's architect. He was engaged to rebuild not only the church,

but other buildings within the precincts. It seems likely that he was

involved in the reconstruction of several of the other buildings along

this side of St Thomas Street as part of the hospital's rebuilding.

There was a church of medieval origin on this site previous to the

construction of the present building, which was built in response to

concerns about the safety of the old church; a hospital committee

report of 1697 described the old church as, 'very much decayed and

some part thereof fallen down...it was dangerous for people to go in

it.'

The current building is of a simple, classical, Queen Anne style, with

a prominent square tower placed at the front of the plot. There are

heavy decorative accents in limestone, including quoins, window

frames and occasional string courses. The building's classical

exterior is similar to some of the Wren churches, for example St

James Piccadilly, St Benet's Paul's Wharf, and St Mary-le-Bow;

Cartwright is known to have worked on the last of these, as well as

some other Wren Churches. It is interesting to note that during this

period, Wren was a governor of the hospital, and may have had, if

not a guiding hand, than an advisory role in the building's design

and construction. Although not directly part of this great

ecclesiastical building programme, St Thomas possesses clear

significance by association and styling.

There are, furthermore, indications that the building was worked on

by Jonathan Maine, a woodcarver who was a contemporary of

Grinling Gibbons, and worked on sites such as Burghley House and,

interestingly, some of the Wren churches.

It was built, first and foremost, as a parish church, and the hospital

had its own chapel, as evidenced by an 1853 plan. In 1821

however, the hospital authorities ordered the 'herb garret' in the

roof space be converted into an operating theatre, and the church

became redundant around this time, with the main body of the

church becoming the chapter house of Southwark Cathedral in

1901. It held this role until 1980, and is now a museum.

Significance: The building has significance as a testament to the

changing role of a particularly important part of Southwark, and

particularly the Borough's, history, firstly as a parish church, as an

integral part of the ancient hospital that stood on this site, and with

a direct relationship to the nearby cathedral. It stands as an old

building with an even older history, and in combination with its

attractive Queen Anne appearance, and its group value with the

other 18th and 19th century buildings on St Thomas Street, it has a

strong role to play both visually and historically.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. This building differs somewhat from its

neighbours, as it has a more prominent site and is more clearly of

significance to the casual observer. Thus, despite the fact that the

development will be almost entirely directly concealed, some

intervisibility could be felt between the development and the asset.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

66

4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street (with attached

railings) (Grade II listed)

A row of six terraced, early 19th century houses, the result of one

building programme, and thus all of yellow-brown stock brick, with

recessed sash windows, wooden doorcases and a full run of cast

iron railings. Like their earlier counterparts on the other side of St

Thomas Street, these Georgian houses have little in the way of

decoration, apart from stucco stringcourses at first floor and fourth

floor level and, on some examples, round headed ground floor

windows.

Bunch of Grapes Public House, St Thomas Street

(Grade II listed)

Forming a linear group with 4-8 and 12-16 St Thomas Street, this

was built, again, as a private house, before being converted to a

pub later. The building itself is contemporary with the others on this

southern side of St Thomas Street, being of early nineteenth-

century origin, while the public house conversion was undertaken, it

would appear in the late nineteenth-century. The pub's ground-floor

entrance therefore appears to contain some original nineteenth-

century material, particularly in terms of its leaded and etched

glass.

Significance: The value of this group can be found, largely, in

their cumulative effect on the low-level, little developed

streetscape of St Thomas Street; the area has a distinctly

domestic character, in contrast with Borough High Street, and the

areas directly next to the station, and these dwellings add

substantially to this effect.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Being placed on the opposite side of St

Thomas Street to the St Thomas' Hospital buildings, there is more

of a clear line of sight to the London Bridge Station development,

and thus a greater sense of intervisibility. An improvement in the

street frontage and public realm to St Thomas Street beyond the

Shard will be beneficial to the building's setting, given the

architectural quality and sympathy proposed for this facade.

Significance: As a set of converted Victorian houses with some

strong late-Victorian public house features, the Bunch of Grapes is

a good example of its type, and provides a valuable contrast to the

surrounding domestic listed buildings. It is also a valuable part of

the townscape, as it provides continuity with its neighbours, while

also having a contrasting character through its well preserved

ground floor frontage.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Like its neighbours, there is a small

amount of exposure to the new development for this building to

cope with, but the distance from the development, and its potential

to improve what is, beyond the Shard, a fairly damaged

townscape, should minimise and largely neutralise any adverse

impact.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

67

Post Office, 19A St Thomas Street (Grade II

listed)

Built in 1841-2, this building was originally built as a ward building,

the 'South Wing' for St Thomas Hospital. The hospital was

embarking on what it intended to be a significant building

programme, and an 1853 map reveals another building, the

identical 'North Wing', approximately on the site of London Bridge

Street. These were built to replace the earlier 'Frederick's' and

'Guy's' wards, the latter funded by Thomas Guy. By 1862, however,

the hospital had moved from this site, and the new buildings fell

redundant.

The building itself is a rather fine, neo-classical piece, of Portland

stone, by the architects Samuel Robinson and James Field. With a

channelled, rusticated ground floor plinth, and giant order Doric

pilasters above, it presents a grand face, although, with it having

been originally intended to flank a grand forecourt to its immediate

North, its facade to Borough High Street is rather thin. Its main

facade is currently partially revealed by the substantial works next

door, but this is only a temporary situation.

King's Head Public House, Kings Head Yard,

(Grade II Listed)

The Old King's Head seems to resurrect the name of one of the

substantial coaching inns for which Southwark was famous, and

stands in an eponymous yard that reflects the plot layout that the

long, deep inns favoured. Constructed in 1881, it has a highly

decorative exterior, with Tudorbethan four-centred windows and a

second-floor statue of Henry VIII in the same style. For a small

business, the level of decoration is worth noting, and comparable to

the Shipwright's Arms on Tooley Street, where a similar approach, if

different style, has been taken.

Significance: The only substantial remnant of a planned scheme

of building at St Thomas' that was not only short-lived, but was

also never completed, 19A St Thomas Street is a building with an

interesting history. As a result of this unusual past, and the fine

level of architectural treatment it has received, it also plays a

substantial role in the townscape. Its narrow, almost ungainly,

facade to Borough High Street suggests its previous role as the

southern side of a grand courtyard, and it sits uncomfortably

amongst its neighbours, adding to the interest of the area.

Impact: Negligible. Although the setting of this asset is clearly

substantially changed by the works to London Bridge Place and the

new approach viaduct to London Bridge, the developments focused

on here will have relatively little impact in comparison. Despite its

grandeur and interest, the building has also, for the majority of its

life, occupied a compromised and undignified site. It will almost

impossible to get a direct view of both the Post Office and the new

fifth elevation.

Significance: One of several pubs in the area of 19th-century

date that were built to impress. The building's decorative facade,

including its sculpture of Henry VIII, make this is an attractive and

unusual survival. Furthermore, the pub is the direct successor of

the medieval King's Head Inn that stood on the site. It has a

substantial role to tell in the narrative of this area, showing how,

with the death of the Inns, inflicted by the arrival of the railway, a

quite different kind of drinking establishment was developed to fill

its place.

Impact: Negligible. The pub is concealed within the narrow

surroundings of King's Head Yard, and the new works at London

Bridge Station will not be visible from the site.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

68

53 and 53a Borough High Street, and 55

Borough High Street (Both Grade II listed)

53 and 53a consist of a small red-brown brick building distinguished

by unusually fine windows to the first and second floor. Early 18th

century in origin, but refronted in the 19th, its tripartite window in

particular, complete with a stuccoed architrave and small, dentilled

pediment, seems unusually grand and substantial within such a

narrow facade. These details make it an unusual and interesting

addition to the shop fronts of Borough High Street, despite the 20th

century fascia and shop front inserted beneath. Neighbouring 55

(pictured to the right of 53 and 53a on the above image), dates to

the late 17th or early 18th century. It has, again, been substantially

altered, and its facade is certainly of a 19th century date. It lacks

the elaborate windows of its neighbour, and its later facade and

20th century fenestration ensure that it makes less of a contribution

to the townscape of Borough High Street, but it is nonetheless a

building with an interesting development. It has elements of its

Georgian interior still remaining.

67 Borough High Street (Grade II listed)

A brick-built building of the late nineteenth century, 67 Borough

High Street is a commercial building, almost an advertisement,

stuccoed to give the appearance of being built of red sandstone.

The building is broadly classical, with channelled pilasters and

round-arched windows, but the building's main feature is a large

plaque at second-floor level. It reads, 'W.H. and H. LeMay Hop

Factors', and is surrounded by images of hop pickers at work.

The hop trade was a dominant one within the Borough, with the

presence of the Borough Market, good transport links to Kent

(particularly London Bridge Station), and a large market for beer.

Several breweries existed in Southwark, served by factors such as

the LeMays.

The LeMay family seem to have been in the trade for a long time;

the Survey of London states, "Nos. 66 and 68 [Borough High Street]

have been in the tenure of the firm of Edward Strauss & Co., hop

merchants since 1893 and the previous occupants, W. H. & H. Le

May, were in the same trade." It is worth suggesting that it was at

this 1893 date that the Le May business moved across the road to

67. Furthermore, there is a mention of one Lieutenant A.E. LeMay on

the memorial to 'The Men of the London Hop Trade who died for us in

the Great War', on the wall of Southwark Town Hall, thus showing

the presence of the family in the Hop trade into the twentieth

century.

Significance: The two buildings, some of the older surviving

buildings on Borough High Street, make a strong contribution to

the townscape of the area, and form an attractive group. 53 and

53a, in particular, has a highly decorative facade for such a small

structure, adding to the area's complex townscape.

Impact: Negligible. Again, the setting of these buildings is not

particularly affected by the development, with the proposed works

being distant, and with no direct sight lines to the station.

Significance: This is a highly unusual, attractive, and very visible

piece of architecture, an advert in brick and stucco for a trade that

has now disappeared. It not only makes a substantial contribution

to the townscape visually, it acts as a valuable artefact of the once-

dominant hop trade in action within Southwark in the 19th century.

Impact: Negligible. Without a direct view of the station site, it

seems that the only potential impact that could be felt upon the

building would be if, as predicted, it causes more southerly

movement from the station.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

69

George Inn, 77 Borough High Street (Grade I

listed)

This part of Borough High Street is characterised by the presence of

'yards' running parallel to the main road (King's Head Yard and

White Hart Yard being examples), and it was on stretch that the

coaching inns for which Southwark became famous stood. While the

White Hart, the Tabard, and others have now gone, the George

survives, as the only partial reminder of how the character of this

area developed.

Of timber-frame and brick, and, uniquely, retaining the open

galleries that characterised these coaching inns, it is a building of

major historical importance, as is reflected by its listing; this is

despite the fact that the extant structure only constitutes one side

of a building that once surrounded a courtyard.

The present building dates to 1676, after it was destroyed in the

Great Fire of Southwark; how common fire was in this area prior to

the 20th century is reflected in the sheer number of listed buildings

in the area that can be described as post-fire rebuilds.

It should also be noted that the George has, via a couple of different

means, a direct connection to the railways. First and foremost, it is

clear that its business was directly affected by the coming of the

railways to London from the 1830s onwards, as is reflected in the

fact that all the other coaching inns in the area have now gone. The

inn was sold to the governors of Guys Hospital in 1849 (Survey of

London, vol. 22: Bankside (the parishes of St Saviour and

Christchurch, Southwark, Sir Howard Roberts and Walter H.

Godfrey, 1950. 'Borough High Street', pp.9-30), and they

subsequently leased it to the Great Eastern Railway Company, who

used it as offices, demolishing the other ranges to make way for

warehousing in 1874, the year their new terminus at Liverpool

Street opened. Furthermore, it was noted by H.C. Cameron, in his

1954 book on 'Mr Guys' Hospital' that, 'till early in this century,

every railway company stabled its horses in a yard which bore the

name of a famous hostelry which had stood on the site.'

Significance: As the only remaining galleried Inn in London, the

George is a vital artefact of a period when coaching inns

predominated; it is of particular significance locally, as this was a

trade that once dominated Southwark. The building contains fabric

dating back to the 17th century, unusual for the area, along with

equally interesting later additions. Clearly one of the more vital

heritage assets in the area, and an attractive one, although its

hidden location, part of its charm, ensures that it does not impose

itself much on the townscape of Borough High Street

Impact: Negligible. The George, concealed within its small yard,

has few and limited views out into the surrounding townscape, and

will not be affected by works at London Bridge.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

70

28, Borough High Street (Grade II listed)

In common with 32 and 34 Borough High Street, this is one of a few

bank buildings in the area, built in the late nineteenth century, and

deliberately constructed in an eye catching manner.

Of an Italianate style, but with a good deal of visible decoration, it

makes the most of its v-shaped site by adding substantial features

to its thinnest, most visible end. The ground floor, faced in stone to

create the effect of a plinth, with columns either side of what was

presumably originally the entrance, and panelled pillars, with

acanthus leaves, placed between the windows on the building's two

longest sides. Above, large, rustic quoins, and pedimented window

cases, add to the ensemble. The roof line, completed with a

dormers all around the building, is also decorative.

32 and 34 Borough High Street (Grade II listed)

A somewhat fanciful, overblown palazzo style building, built for the

London and County Bank, most notable for its height, and its

prominent location on Borough High Street. Its architect was

Frederic Chancellor (1825-1914), also noted for being an

antiquarian, the first major of Chelmsford and surveyor to the

Diocese of St Albans . He was prolific, having been credited with

designing over 700 buildings, mostly in Essex, and while he did

have an office in London, this seems to be a rare recognised

example of his work in the capital.

The building is of light yellow stock brick, with Portland stone

dressings, including oversized quoins on the ground floor and

pediments to the first floor windows. The whole is contained

beneath a large overhanging cornice, with decorative, perhaps

French-style, dormers.

Significance: Situated on a landmark corner, this decorative

local bank building makes a substantial contribution to Borough

High Street, despite not actually being a building of outstanding

quality. It has sufficient detailing, along with an interesting plan

form, to ensure that it makes a contribution to the area that

outweighs its individual quality.

Impact: Negligible. The station is, by and large, concealed from

28, Borough High Street, and one can gain the impression, on

site, of the station is substantially more distant than it is. Having

said that, the new through track viaduct, currently under

construction, will be visible from the building.

Significance: Its significance lies mainly in the landmark role it

has to play on Borough High Street; although it is not a building

of particular quality, it is attractive, and contributes substantially

to the townscape. It can probably concluded that this is a good

example of a widespread and relatively common building type;

the nineteenth century regional bank branch.

Impact: Negligible. Although the station and its approaches are

relevant and visible elements of the setting of this building, the

development under consideration here, of the ground floor

concourse and canopies of the station, would have little affect on

the character of the building.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

71

1B Southwark Street (Grade II listed)

A small, early nineteenth-century shop building, with a warehouse

space above. Importantly, its winch, and second floor loading door,

still exist on the facade. As with other buildings, the significance of

this building lies in the fact that it is somewhat unusual, and its

industrial role is easily identifiable from its built form. It reflects the

commercial nature of Borough High Street, and adds, therefore, to

the character of the area.

Significance: 1B Southwark Street has a part to play in telling the

story of Borough High Street's commercial past. A small 19th-

century warehouse, complete with surviving cargo doors and

derrick, the building makes an interesting contribution to the

streetscape, despite its plain architectural treatment.

Impact: Negligible. The setting of 1B Southwark Street is entirely

concealed by the station, which protects it from harm; its almost

vernacular style ensures that it could be vulnerable to development

that does not respect its character.

4.1 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: LISTED BUILDINGS

72

The Globe Public House (Grade II listed)

Like the Shipwright's Arms and the King's Head, this is another

purpose-built public house, constructed, in this case, in 1872, of

yellow-brown stock brick with stone dressings, now painted. It

follows an unusual, curved triangular plan, being tucked up to the

railway on its North side, while following the curvature of the roads

that abut it to the south east and south west.

Its designer was Henry Jarvis, an architect with a substantial

reputation and legacy, later giving his name to a hall at 66 Portland

Place, R.I.B.A.'s headquarters, and a travelling scholarship with the

Association. He also has six of his works listed, including the

elaborate, Venetian Gothic 109 and 111 Farringdon Road,

Southwark Municipal Offices and some London churches. The Globe

is a pub building of some quality, incorporating a variety of gothic

elements, such as ogee arched window openings and carved stone

bosses in the form of flowers. Overall it is a picturesque assembly of

contrasting elements, an unusual design response to a difficult site.

Significance: The building has significance as a work of Henry

Jarvis, a recognised and well-respected nineteenth-century

architect. It is also, however, it is important to note that this is a

building of some quality, squeezed onto an unusual ground plan,

and designed so as to be attractive and picturesque. Designed to

serve Borough Market, which surrounds it on two sides, and built

into the side of the existing railway viaduct, it is an integral part of

this layered Victorian landscape.

Impact: Negligible. The Globe pub is already being substantially

affected by works to provide extra through tracks to Charing Cross

and Cannon Street. The new viaduct passes within 2 metres of the

building's facade, enclosing it between the existing Victorian

viaduct, and the new line addition. Any works to the main station

will therefore, by comparison, be relatively minor; the viaduct will

block out any major sight lines to London Bridge Station from the

Globe.

4.2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: CONSERVATION AREAS

r

73

BOROUGH HIGH STREET CONSERVATION AREA

'A Conservation Area of great diversity', Borough High Street is

characterised in part by the contrast between Borough High Street

itself, its Northern junction with Tooley Street and London Bridge,

and the presence of London Bridge Station, and the 'astonishingly

quiet' precincts of the cathedral to the west, combined with the

presence of the 'bustling, robust environment' of Borough Market. To

the East, the inclusion in the Conservation Area of western St

Thomas Street, with its 'orderly streets and closes', and classical,

domestically proportioned buildings, has another character form

again, altogether quieter, and set in attractive juxtaposition with the

ultra-modern Shard and Brutalist Guys Hospital Tower.

The building forms in this area thus also vary widely, but with the

exception of a couple of 17th century church buildings and Southwark

Cathedral, the area is dominated by classically proportioned 18th and

19th century housing and retail buildings, more eclectically styled

late 19th and early 20th century buildings, and the occasional

elaborate, steel or iron framed building like the Hop Exchange.

The majority of the area's 18th, 19th and 20th century buildings are

of yellow London Stock brick, with Portland stone artificial stone and

stucco dressings. Frequently, there are details or decorative forms in

terracotta and rubbed brick. Roofs are often finished with a parapet,

and there are a large number of painted wooden shop frontages,

particularly along Borough High Street itself.

An area of substantial eclecticism in building style and usage, unified

by a preponderance of classical forms and yellow-brown brick,

characterised by trade and bustling movement.

Borough High Street Conservation Area

Designated in 1968

Extended in 1973 and 1980

Key Listed Building and set pieces:

Southwark Cathedral (Grade I)

The George Inn (Grade I)

9A St Thomas Street (Grade II*)

Guys Hospital (Grade II*)

The St Thomas Street ensemble, including buildings

associated with the former St Thomas Hospital and Guys

Hospital

The buildings of Borough Market, including the Hop

Exchange.

Views:

North along Borough High Street (From around Number

28 and the Junction with Southwark Street):

The provision of a new, agreed, and under construction

viaduct across Borough High Street will alter views along the

Street, along with the agreed and underway work on London

Bridge Place; these developments will largely conceal the

majority of work on London Bridge Station itself.

South from London Bridge and from Southwark

Cathedral:

Although the current presence of the main railway bridge and

entrance into London Bridge Station is concealed by an

existing Victorian railway bridge, it is clear that the fifth

elevation work on the viaduct, above track level, will have an

impact on views from Southwark Cathedral and Bridge House,

for example. The strong designs of the roof canopies are

intended to enhance what is currently an untidy and

unwelcoming landscape.

4.2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: CONSERVATION AREAS

74

TOOLEY STREET CONSERVATION AREA

Focused around a single east to west street, running parallel to the

river Thames, and adjacent to a series of 19th century wharves. The

area is 'hemmed in by London Bridge, Tower Bridge and its approach,

and the railway viaduct to London Bridge Station.'

Architecturally, the area is defined by its position by the river. The

largely 19th century wharf buildings that line most of the northern

side of the road are large, plain, classically proportioned structures,

often with giant pilasters scaling their facades, and surrounding

arched recesses for the windows. Mostly built of yellow-brown stock

brick, with Portland stone, artificial stone or stucco dressings, large,

rusticated or arcaded basements are a frequent feature. There is the

occasional later building, some of them ultra-modern and of glass

and steel, others early 20th century, and dominated by red brick,

mannerist classical facades.

The majority of the buildings in this area were originally built for

industrial or warehouse functions; while there are some office

buildings along this stretch, even these were often built in association

with the wharves.

Buildings, including the railway viaduct, stand right on the front of

their plots on both sides, giving little public realm and, often, a sense

of 'canyoning'; this is a domineering rather than intimate space. Hard

edges predominate, and even the public realm at More London, which

opens the area up somewhat, is dominated by hard-edged forms,

and has little in the way of planting.

Tooley Street Conservation Area

Designated in 1988

Extended in 1991.

Key Listed Buildings and set pieces:

St Olave House (Grade II*)

Hay's Galleria (Grade II)

Emblem House (Grade II)

The run of warehouses designed by Snooke and Stock that

run along the northern side of the street

The unlisted viaduct walls that front the south side of the

street.

Views:

West along Tooley Street from the junction with Duke

Street Hill:

Beyond the existing Brutalist concrete footbridge, a view

opens westward framed by a long run of buildings associated

with the former wharves to the north, and the railway viaduct

to the south. A strong, cohesive character of classically

proportioned, minimalist, industrialised Victorian building

dominates.

East along Tooley Street from More London's main

public realm area, and from beyond the junction with

Bermondsey Street:

From this direction, views open similarly, with the plaza to

More London seemingly focusing its view on 64-84 Tooley

Street, the former South Eastern Railway Offices. The tight,

canyon-like feel of the western extremities of Tooley Street

can be felt here, in contrast to the openness of its junction

with Tooley Street. Here, a few landmark buildings, such as

the Shipwrights Arms, catch the eye.

4.2 DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS: CONSERVATION AREAS

r

75

BERMONDSEY STREET CONSERVATION AREA

For the purposes of this document, the most northerly extremes of

this Conservation Area will be considered, in particular Bermondsey

Street itself, and Weston Street to the west. This area feels decidedly

quieter than the bustle of Tooley Street and Borough High Street to

the north and west. Instead, despite the continued presence here of

19th century buildings of an industrial character, there is a greater

sense of domesticity; it has a 'quieter, smaller scale'. This is partly

due to Bermondsey Street's origin as a causeway to Bermondsey

Abbey; the buildings may be of 18th, 19th and 20th century origin,

but they are superimposed onto a streetscape that is decidedly older,

and therefore of a more limited scale.

The buildings on both Bermondsey and Weston Streets can therefore

be considered of being of a, 'typical 18th/19th century London

setting'. Classical proportions and detailing predominate on

essentially simple buildings, with parapet roofs and cornices to the

roof, and rustication on the main facade. The materials that

predominate are brick, both yellow London Stock and more red

types, with stone or stucco dressings below.

Those buildings that are domestic or designed for small-scale retail

are, especially to the North, small warehouses. These are, again,

small, 'typically four stories, often only three bays wide', with joists

and loading doors.

Bermondsey Street Conservation Area

Designated in 1972.

Extended in 1991 and 1993.

Key Listed Buildings and set pieces:

The dense set of similarly scaled and detailed warehouses

that crowd both Bermondsey Street and Weston Street

The locally listed Vinegar Yard Hop Warehouse

The unlisted polychrome railway arches on Crucifix Lane.

Views

View North from Bermondsey Street, towards the

current London Bridge control centre:

The view down the narrow northern stretch of Bermondsey

Street, dominated by the remarkably consistent architecture

of small, decorative warehouses, terminates in the railway

arches of the London Bridge Station viaduct. Although quite

closed, this is, nonetheless, a pleasant view of a townscape

with a good deal of homogeneity.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

76

88a Tooley Street

Standing directly next to the Shipwrights Arms, this building, of four

storeys and with a narrow, three bay facade, is of a broadly classical

design. It dates, most likely, to the early 1890s, and is definitely

later than 1872, according to studies of the OS maps. The last

expansion of London Bridge's railway viaduct took place in 1893-4,

leaving a narrow gap to Tooley Street on which the South Eastern

Railway Company built their offices. This space also seems to have

been developed at this time for the building of 88a Tooley Street, on

the site of what was, in 1872, a warehouse.

Like the Shipwrights Arms, it is of a crude classical style, with

elaborate surrounds and pediments to the first floor windows, and a

parapeted roof with a modillion cornice. As built, the building would

have had immediate neighbours to the south, stretching down

Bermondsey Street, but with these now being demolished, the

building presents a large, blank facade to the South. Otherwise,

however, the building makes a positive contribution to the

streetscape.

Significance: 88a Tooley Street's significance largely comes from

the positive impact it has (or rather, could have) on the

surrounding Conservation Area. It forms a pleasant small group

with the Shipwright's Arms, and stands on a prominent site on the

corner of Tooley Street and Bermondsey Street. Despite being a

modest building, it has substantial decoration of a restrained,

classical manner, and is a decorative addition to a the street scene.

Impact: Moderate, beneficial. The proposed works will provide the

asset with a substantially improved setting, as works will take place

directly around it to provide an attractive piece of public realm

space. 88a Tooley Street will form an attractive group at the heart

of this public space, with its full significance revealed and

appreciated.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

77

56-58 Weston Street

56-58 Weston Street is a small warehouse building of three stories

and three bays. It is built of yellow stock brick, although the top floor

is picked out attractively in stucco; the eaves line has a heavy, black

wooden cornice, with ovolo detailing. The building has two features of

real interest, the first being this decorative top storey. It is near-

symmetrical, and focused around a central round-arched window of a

classical style, with decorative rusticated voussoirs surrounding it.

The height of the window causes the flat roofline to be broken, and a

small gablet is formed.

The other feature of interest is the usage of the left-hand bay as a

loading area. Picked out in dark blue engineering bricks, each floor

within this bay has a tall wooden loading door, with the whole being

served with an iron derrick, still extant. Elsewhere, the building is

essentially plain, with large casement windows with cast iron lintels

the only other intrusions into the facade. Along with 60 Weston

Street, this small building serves usefully to evoke the historic light

industrial nature of Weston Street.

Significance: The building's significance comes from its role as an

example of a small industrial warehouse of a type common to the

area of Weston Street and Bermondsey Street. It has

sympathetically restored, and is an attractive and interesting part

of the immediate townscape, adding much to the character of the

area.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. While the building is distant enough for

its immediate setting not to be disturbed, there is little doubt that

views to and from the site will be altered by the work taking place

to develop the southern, St Thomas Street entrance to London

Bridge Station. As has been shown elsewhere, the design approach

taken to this project has very much been one in which responding

to the existing built environment is central. As such, it is believed

the rigorously structured, 'industrial' approach taken to the designs

of the entrance concourse will be in keeping with the townscape of

St Thomas Street and Weston Street. The retention of the viaduct

parapet, and the provision of strong, vertical lines to the forecourt,

will be in keeping with the arrangement of the facades of 56-58 and

60 Weston Street, whilst still being a boldly contemporary design.

Furthermore, the reduced height of the viaduct on the southern,

terminus side of the station ensures that a smaller entrance, in

keeping with the smaller scale of the buildings on Weston Street,

will be put in place.

It should also be noted that the southern entrance to the station,

creating a more direct flow of pedestrians south, will make Weston

Street busier, more of a thoroughfare. This has the potential to

impact upon the street's character, and therefore upon the setting

of the buildings along this stretch.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

78

60 Weston Street

This is a small four-storey warehouse, with a narrow facade facing

onto the street, and similar to many others in the area, particularly

on Bermondsey Street. It is of yellow brick, although the slightly

arched windows are picked out at the top in red brick, and the raised

ground floor has a band of red brick decoration. The building, like

many others in the area, is focused around a central 'loading' bay;

the most central of the three bays has loading doors to all floors, and

a surviving, preserved derrick above. This central bay is also

accentuated, like its neighbour at 56-58, by the presence of a gablet,

one bay wide, which breaks through the straight of the building's

straight parapet.

Overall, the building is an architecturally pleasing reminder of a

recent industrial past in which this area of Bermondsey was a hive of

small-scale production and storage. Due to its similarities with the

neighbouring 56-58 Weston Street, it has a certain amount of group

value; the two buildings have a substantial value with the

surrounding townscape.

Significance: Similarly to 60 Weston Street, the key significant

characteristic of this building is its scale and light industrial

character, as well as its restrained, lightly decorative finish; it

makes a strong contribution to the townscape.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. Again, along the same lines as 56-58

Weston Street, it is important that the quiet character of Weston

Street is not reduced too much, and that the design of the southern

concourse entrance is suitably sympathetic to the very particular

characters of these buildings. As such, as noted above, the smaller

scale, modern, minimalist approach shown in the concourse

entrance here will serve to ensure that the building's setting is not

badly affected and, indeed, that it is able to gain some benefit from

this development.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

79

Hop Warehouse, Vinegar Yard

There seems to be some confusion as to the original use and purpose

of this four-storey, mid-19th century warehouse. Whether it was ever

used for the storage of vinegar is unclear, and despite the assertions

of some sources, it is certainly marked as a 'hop warehouse' on OS

maps of the late 19th century. It stands as a rare survivor of a large

number of hop warehouses that filled the area between Bermondsey

Street and Great Maze Pond in the nineteenth century.

The building is of an unusual plan, being largely rectangular, expect

for one canted corner, facing onto St Thomas Street; as it sits in an

area of now-cleared land, it can be safely assumed that the building's

current shape is the result of a building pattern that it now no longer

visible. To support this, the Ordnance Survey map of 1893-4 shows

the building crammed in amongst other buildings, its distinctive plan

corresponding to another warehouse on St Thomas Street which

backed onto Vinegar yard.

Despite its unusual plan, this is a very simple, utilitarian building of

dark brown brick, with stacked loading doors, one for each floor, on a

couple of its faces, and derricks still in position for the lifting of

goods.

Significance: A rare survivor of the large area of warehousing that

occupied the area between Bermondsey Street and Great Maze

Pond in the latter half of the 19th century, this is an attractive

building of an unusual plan form. Retaining its loading doors and

derricks, it has the potential to make a strong contribution to the

surrounding area given some renovation work, fitting in with the

general small-scale warehousing that still dominates the area south

of London Bridge Station.

Impact: Slight, adverse. Standing directly opposite the viaduct on

the southern side of the station, the Hop Warehouse's setting

stands to be altered by the proposed work. Any improvements that

eventually take place along St Thomas Street should serve to

improve its current setting in an area of wasteland with large

advertising hoardings. The current development, however, is

slightly too distant to cause any major disruption or reduction in

significance to the building.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

80

Railway Arches, St Thomas Street and Crucifix

Lane

The railway arches that run along the length of St Thomas Street and

Crucifix Lane, are of a contemporary date to the Trainshed that

covers platforms 9-16, and are of a similar design. They date to

between 1864 to 1867, when the London, Brighton and South Coast

Railway Company (LBSCR), which operated the southern half of

London Bridge Station, embarked on a substantial rebuilding and

expansion programme. The architect was Charles Henry Driver, the

LBSCR's architect, who designed the external flank walls of the

adjacent train shed. He was also responsible for Denmark Hill,

Peckham Rye, Leatherhead and Dorking stations, among others; by

far his most impressive work was the Estação da Luz, in Sao Paulo,

characteristically polychromatic, in cream and red.

The railway arches, engine shed wall, and the now-demolished goods

office are similarly colourful, with yellow stock brick predominating,

and detailing in red brick and stone. The design revolves around the

central motif of graduated triplets of arches, with voussoirs picked

out in red, yellow and dark blue brick; the arches are supported by

carved stone capitals springing from yellow brick pilasters. Above the

arches, the parapet is accented by its placement above a stone

cornice with a band of red brick below, and is supported by brick

modillions.

Altogether, although typical of its age, with many similar examples

visible elsewhere, as well as currently being in a poor state of repair,

the arches are an attractive and distinctive addition to this section of

St Thomas Street.

Significance: Although not entirely unusual, and typical of their

time, there is little doubt that these railway arches have a

substantial and positive impact on the townscape of St Thomas

Street and Crucifix Lane. With their decorative brick and stonework,

they are attractive and rather unusual, and make a much greater

impact than their plainer, more muscular counterparts facing onto

Tooley Street.

Impact: Slight, beneficial. The arches themselves will be subject

only to limited physical works, including the introduction of a

service entrance, so largely, any impacts would be indirect. Is is

true that works to demolish the train shed will somewhat reduce

the context of the arches, but the renovation of the ground floor

arches of the shed, along with the new roofscape and concourse

entrance will improve their setting. These works, as a whole, will

provide a slight improvement to the way these arches are

appreciated, as the works will both draw the eye towards them,

and facilitate long-term aspirations for their improvement and

renovation.

4.3 UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

81

St Thomas Street

Although not designated as a Conservation Area, there is little doubt

that the eastern section of St Thomas Street (that section, east of

the Shard, which does not fall within the Borough High Street

Conservation Area) is an area with a recognisable character that

requires careful consideration when works that might affect its

character are proposed.

Historically, this section of St Thomas Street follows the line of the

'Broad Way', a thoroughfare that can be found on older maps of the

area, and which connected, via a few doglegs, to St Thomas Street,

and the entrances to the two hospitals of St Thomas' and Guys. This

was a complex area of backstreets, alleyways, and courtyards before

the arrival of London Bridge Station, and there was no clear, direct

route at this point between Guys Hospital to the west, and

Bermondsey Street to the East. An 1848 skeleton plan shows the

street, still called the Broad Way, laid out as far as 'The Maze' (now

known as Stainer Street), but east of this point, a complex picture

still appears to have been prevalent.

Indeed, the street's layout and history is inextricably linked to the

development of Banister and Driver's train shed and viaduct for the

LBSCR in 1864-7. This development defined a northern edge for St

Thomas Street to follow and thus, for the entirety of its life, this

stretch of road has been bounded to the north by the decorative

polychromatic brick arches that still dominate the area.

To the south, a gradual period of development eventually led to the

area becoming dominated by warehouses, particularly for the storage

of hops; the one remaining example, at Vinegar Yard, is a relatively

small example of its type. Thus, by the end of the century, the street

had a recognisably industrial character, with trains for the South

Coast bustling along its northern edge, and a busy network of streets

to the south leading off between four or five storey brick warehouses.

The twentieth century saw substantial decline, however, and the area

is now dominated by open wasteland, large advertising hoardings,

and poor-quality twentieth-century structures. Although a struggling

area that has seen a substantial decline in its architectural cohesion

and quality, it retains some important characteristics, not least its

historically important street line, and the polychromatic 1860s

viaduct, which provides the area with consistency, as well as a

decorative feature.

Significance: Although badly degraded, this stretch of roadway has

an individual character dictated by the presence of the railway in a

way that no other street in the area does. Its significance lies in a

few features rather than the overall effect of the townscape, as this

has rather been lost with the industrial decline that blighted the area

in the twentieth century.

Impact: Substantial, positive. Inextricably linked to the

development of the station, the presence of the viaduct, with its

polychromatic brickwork, is vital to the character, and the Hop

Warehouse on Vinegar Lane should also be retained, as it offers a

strong reminder of the area's past.

However, the proposed works to London Bridge Station, retaining

the viaduct for its entire length, and providing better public access to

the street, and an architecturally impressive fifth elevation, should

provide substantial benefits to the area. It is central to the proposal

that the creation of a new north-south concourse at street level

should alleviate the current isolation of this area of Southwark,

promoting new development to reinvigorate this townscape.

5.0 STATION ASSETS APPRAISAL

5.0 STATION APPRAISAL: DESIGNATED AND UNDESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS

85

The previous sections have sought to assess the impact of the

proposed works on the wider historic environment of the London

Bridge Area, to analyse how far the settings and immediate contexts

of designated and undesignated heritage assets will be affected by

the works. The works, however, will have a very direct impact on

some heritage assets within, or immediately next to, the station

itself:

Designated Heritage Assets

Platforms 9-16 (Engine Shed), Grade II Listed

Joiner Street Bridge, Grade II Listed

Undesignated Heritage Assets

'London Bridge Station'

64-84 Tooley Street, the former South Eastern Railway Offices.

These proposed works involve the full demolition of both the Grade II

listed Engine Shed, and the locally listed 64-84 Tooley Street, and as

such, this section will seek to provide a full history and analysis of

these buildings, in order to inform the decision-making process.

London Bridge Station, largely unlisted, but recognised as a heritage

asset in and of itself, will also receive some analysis to provide a

more detailed understanding of how the proposed works will affect

the station. Finally, the Joiner Street Bridge, which does not stand to

be substantially affected by the works, but which justifies inclusion

here for its position within the site, will be made the subject of a brief

exposition, along with an analysis of the minimal impact proposed to

be made upon the structure.

5.1 THE TRAIN SHED

86

THE TRAINSHED (PLATFORMS 9-16) The trainshed at London Bridge station is a construction of 1864-67,

completed by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway

(LBSCR). The company had, in 1853, erected a new Italianate station

building at London Bridge, facing onto Joiner Street, and reached by

a carriageway that came up from street level to meet the viaduct

level stations of the LBSCR and the South Eastern Railway (SER),

who owned the northern half of the station site.

In the 1860s, the LBSCR were based from two termini, Victoria

(which opened in 1860), in the West End, and London Bridge in the

East End. London Bridge's services were being increased so while it

served the line to Brighton, it also served the South London Line to

Victoria and East Brixton. There was a clear need to enhance the

image of London Bridge station, particularly in the aftermath of the

company's developments at Victoria, and so a new shed was

commissioned. The Engineer wrote that this, 'would make the

Brighton terminus one of the finest in the kingdom', and noted that

the development would serve the dual purpose of overshadowing the

SER station, as it, would be, 'in contrast to the adjoining sheds of the

South-Eastern Company.'

Figure 5.1: One of the original 1864 drawings for the construction of the crescent-truss roof.

5.1 THE TRAIN SHED

87

The designers were the engineer F.D. Banister (1823-1897) and the

architect C.H. Driver (1832-1900); both were employed in long term

contracts with the LBSCR. Banister's designs for the roof were based

on a 'nave and aisles' type plan, with a large, barrelled roof running

longitudinally, and two aisles, originally flat roofed, flanking this

central structure; the whole is slightly curved, to take account of the

track layout, leaving the external walls to be slightly cranked. The

'nave' itself was based on a design known as a 'crescent roof' of

which it is the last of its type left in London. In essence, this type of

roof is based on a set of structural ribs where the top and bottom

chords and both curved upwards, creating a banana-like shape.

Similar ones once stood at Birmingham New Street, Cannon Street,

Charing Cross and Blackfriars; Liverpool Lime Street's roof is the only

other major roof of this type left standing.

Despite this complex and ingenious roof design, the gable-end of

London Bridge's shed presents an ultimately plain face; the whole

end is shielded off so that a semi-circular form is suggested.

Banister's design was, overall, an ingenious and attractive design, a

fact that is aided by the non-structural decorate forms of wrought

iron that cover the building's columns, struts and spandrels. The

fluted columns supporting the roof have decorative bases with

slightly bulbous, leaf covered plinths, on low octagonal bases, while

plans show that they had Corinthian capitals with large, elaborate

acanthus leafs; these have subsequently been removed. Elsewhere,

on the various struts, decorated spandrels have been added, with

vine-like leaf forms and cross motifs; the whole is uncoordinated,

uncontrolled, and surprisingly delicate for such an enormous building.

The walls and roof, it would appear, were quite separately designed,

the former entirely the work of Driver and the other a Banister

design. Driver's walls are of polychromatic brickwork, strongly

structured, with Tuscan pilasters dividing its length into bays, and

semi-circular, Romanesque arches of red, yellow and dark blue brick

in between. In 1865, The Engineer said of the walls,

The brickwork of the station is a great feature, particularly in the new

line of street made by the company -St Thomas Street and its

continuation. This is, we venture, the longest one of the finest

elevations, mainly in brickwork, which is to be seen in London or

elsewhere. Unfortunately it is on the curve, and the whole facade

cannot be commanded from any one point that we know of...In any

case...the public are indebted to the company for having done much

to promote street architecture. The quantity of brickwork in the

structure above and below is enormous, and the quality and style of

the work are of the best character.

The external and internal decorations, including the width and

patterning of the bays, differ strongly, being driven by reference,

internally to the distance between the visual girders, externally by a

more classically applied concept of architectural proportion.

Frederick Dale Banister (1823-1897)

London-born Banister moved to Lancashire as a child, and began

working in Preston on projects that included levelling, surveying and,

eventually, working on railway projects. He moved down to London in

1846, as he was suffering from poor health, and was advised that the

move would do him good. Staying with relatives in Brighton led him to

gain a post with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway,

working under the company's chief engineer, Robert Jacomb-Hood.

Between 1847 and 1849, he oversaw the construction of the branch

line from New Cross to Deptford, but then subsequently left the LBSCR

to open up his own practice in Brighton. A decade of success,

developing the Cliftonville estate, waterworks buildings, and working

class housing. In 1860, upon the retirement of Jacomb-Hood,

Banister, through connections at the LBSCR, returned as Chief

Engineer, a post he would hold for over 30 years, until a year before

his death at the age of 74.

Back with the LBSCR, he was involved with the construction not only

of the works at London Bridge and the South London Line, but with

several other major lines, including those between Tunbridge Wells &

Eastbourne and Chichester & Midhurst; many of the stations along

these routes follow his designs, in particular the impressive station at

Eastbourne. Additionally, he was responsible for the construction of

Newhaven Harbour, with its massive concrete breakwater, sea walls

and lighthouses; this was connected to his work with the LBSCR, and

the company included a wharf of their own in the building work.

Figure 5.2: C.H. Driver's original sketches for the Train Shed at London Bridge, showing its decorative, Romanesque-style polychromatic brickwork.

Charles Henry Driver (1832-1900)

Charles Henry Driver was a well-recognised architect, whose

several large-scale commissions, centred around transport,

drainage and other civic amenities. He began work with LBSCR in

1860, joining in the same year as Banister. He worked widely on

the company's stations and storage buildings, including sheds at

Bexley, and stations at Box Hill, Leatherhead, Peckham Rye and

Denmark Hill.

In addition, throughout his career, he was able to use his

reputation for working on large-scale infrastructure to gain other

substantial commissions, most notably in conjunction with Joseph

Bazalgette. Through this connection, he worked on the

architectural elements of the Thames Embankment and the

pumping stations at Crossness and Abbey Mills. His reputation was

such, in fact, that he was able to gain commissions for railway

companies and engineering projects abroad. He worked in Chile,

on the Boca & Ensenada Railway, as well as the Sao Paulo

Railway, which produced one of his most substantial projects, the

Estação da Luz in Sao Paulo itself, an enormous red brick and

stone building, complete with a clock tower.

Driver's success, at least financially, is demonstrated by the fact

that when he died, he left a fortune of over one million pounds. He

is buried in West Norwood Cemetery.

It should be noted that the building as it now stands is substantially

altered from its original form, as one hundred and forty years of

damage, destruction and alteration have changed its appearance. As

built, the 'aisles' of the train shed roof were of fifteen bays to the

north, and ten to the south, with the whole built on a slight curve;

the western end of this southern aisle incorporated the goods office,

surrounded by walling of C.H. Driver's design. By the end of the

1970s, much subsequent work and destruction substantially altered

the scale of the shed's remains. The first major piece of work took

place in around 1900, when the aisle roofs were heightened by the

insertion of a series of small lattice girders, and the introduction of a

new roof structure, of a similar size and shape to previously, but now

sitting higher than its predecessor. This substantially changed the

look of the shed, particularly from the west; it seems these

developments were driven by ventilation issues.

5.1 THE TRAIN SHED

88

Figure 5.3: A photograph of the shed from 1882, showing its original formation, without the louvred lanterns that were later added to the side aisles.

During the Second World War the station suffered serious bomb

damage, with the Terminus Hotel and the parcels office being almost

totally destroyed on 29-30 December 1940; a further direct hit on

the end of the shed, known as the 'Stainer Street Bombing', killed 68

people on 17 February 1941. These two attacks substantially

damaged the western end of the shed, leading to the complete

demolition of the parcels office, and the replacement of a substantial

amount of the roof glazing and of the five easternmost bays of the

nave. The demolition of the parcel office and a small portion of its

adjacent wall led to the most extreme south-western bay being

supported by a pylon between 1948 and the 1970s; this sat on the

concrete arch that now covers the end of the Stainer Street Tunnel.

Finally, the most eastern bays of the bays were altered at some point

between 1923 and 1948, by the Southern Railway; it is not clear

whether this work was undertaken to rectify problems caused by

bomb damage.

Figure 5.4: Aerial photograph of the bomb damaged shed after World War Two. The Terminus Hotel and Luggage Office have been removed, while substantial damage is visible to the west end of the trainshed itself.

Finally, the 1970s brought substantial demolition and alteration

during the programme of redevelopment known as 'Operation London

Bridge', and the building of the Southwark Towers on the site now

taken up by the Shard. The three westernmost bays of the north aisle

and nave, and the bay that had previously been supported by a

temporary pylon, were demolished to make way for the new

concourse and the Southwark Towers development, while a new hole

was cut in the northern wall of the shed to make way for a new

footbridge.

Overall, therefore, there are few elements of the building which do

not show the mark of change and development, forced or otherwise,

and although a large quantity of the decorative work remains, the

current shed is of a limited, slightly mongrel form, laden with cheap

later replacements for high-quality work.

Significance

The train shed at London Bridge Station is, there is little doubt, of

national importance. Although the structural design of the roof was

not innovative or unusual for its age, the subsequent loss of

crescent-truss roofs has created a scenario where it is the only

example of its type remaining within London, and is exceeded by only

one other example, that at Liverpool Lime Street Station. The roof

has seen a large number of schemes of replacement and renewal, but

this is inevitable for a largely iron building of this type, particularly

considering the subsequent bombings, degradations and exposure to

weather the building has suffered.

The walls of the structure are not particularly important

architecturally, being of a polychromatic brick design, representative

of their age. There are a number of other examples of such walls

across London and the South East, many by the same architect. As

such, the main significance of this part of the building lies in the

positive contribution it makes to the surrounding townscape; while it

is difficult to see this part of the structure as nationally important, it

is certainly of local importance, being an attractive and distinctive

local feature.

Ultimately, the train shed's significance lies in its roof, a particularly

good example of mid-Victorian engineering, which is capable of

producing a space that remains impressively large and spacious,

despite a century and a half of alteration, demolition and the

encroachment of later buildings.

Impact

The complete demolition of the building proposed, and justified in the

following section, would obviously constitute a severe, negative

impact on the designated asset; as has been shown, the building is of

national importance. As such, clear reasons are required to

demonstrate why the building cannot be retained, and justifications

provided to demonstrate that the loss of the heritage asset is

outweighed by other benefits. It would be proposed to undertake a

Level 4 Recording of the building, in line with the significance of the

building, and the impact upon its fabric.

5.2 64-84 TOOLEY STREET

89

64-84 TOOLEY STREET 64-84 Tooley Street is an undesignated heritage asset, recognised as

making a strong contribution to the Tooley Street Conservation Area,

and identified as an undesignated heritage asset by Southwark

Borough Council prior to this application. It was built as the

headquarters of the South Eastern Railway Company, at the point at

which the company was completing its final expansion of the station

viaduct. The building, as such, fills up what little space was left

between the viaduct and the road. It can be dated to between 1894

and 1899, being absent from the 1893-4 Ordnance Survey Map, and

displaying the words, 'South Eastern Railway Company' above its

door; the SER disappeared as a name in 1899, as it merged with the

London, Chatham and Dover Railway.

It makes a strong impression from all angles, being of an unusual,

triangular plan, with an improbably narrow western end, where the

viaduct comes north to almost meet the road. Similarly, from the

east, a canted corner of one bay is presented, along with the

substantial stone entrance to the building. This decorated doorcase

almost acts as a porch, consisting of a simple entablature supported

by four massive, almost overbearing, console-like pillars, with

rustication. This entrance porch seems strangely out of place on the

otherwise minimalist, industrial offices.

Figure 5.5: The SER offices on Tooley Street seen in their early days, in 1910.

5.2 64-84 TOOLEY STREET

90

The building is certainly of a striking design, structured around large

vertical divisions, almost pilasters, and horizontal bands of coloured

brick and stone. Five storeys in height, the building has a substantial

bulk to Tooley Street. The most striking feature of the design, apart

from the aforementioned entrance, comes on the top floor, as the

windows here have curved heads, and are framed by dramatically

modern looking squared voussoirs. In combination with the rest of

the building, an impressive, industrial design is in evidence.

Overall, the building makes a strong contribution to Tooley Street

from all angles, and despite its relatively small floor plan, its scale

and striking, yet simple design, ensure that it is a major presence on

its surrounding area.

Significance: 64-84 Tooley Street, a recognised positive contributor

to a Conservation Area, has a demonstrably local significance. It

represents a late stage in the development of London Bridge

Station, the last hurrah of the South Eastern Railway Company

before its economically forced merger with the Chatham and Dover

Railway at the end of the nineteenth century. Forced into a

strangely-shaped, narrow site on Tooley Street, its development was

very much tied up with the gradual development of the station.

Its primary value, however, is architectural; this is a building that

has a strong impact on its surrounding townscape. This is due to its

striking polychromatic decoration, and its simple, almost modern

sense of minimalism and proportion. Furthermore, its peculiar site

creates an almost alarmingly narrow 'flat-iron'-type western

elevation, which is a striking landmark within the Tooley Street

Conservation Area.

Impact: High, Adverse. The complete demolition of this unlisted,

positive contributor to the Tooley Street Conservation Area will

clearly have a negative impact both on the asset itself, and the

Conservation Area. It is clear that the development proposed in its

place should be of a high quality, and make a strong contribution to

the Conservation Area.

5.3 JOINER STREET BRIDGE

91

Bridge Over North End, London Bridge Station,

Joiner Street

The 'Joiner Street Bridge' as it is known, was built in 1850, and is of

the 'Warren Truss' form, a bridge type that had only been patented in

1848. This engineering form, which is based on the strength to be

found in repeated equilateral triangles, tying together two parallel

members, was designed by the eponymous James Warren, working

with Willoughby Theobald Monzani. The Joiner Street example is of

six parallel Warren truss girders, 11 feet and 6 inches apart, and of

composite form; unusually for a construction of this type, the bottom

chord of each girder is a flat wrought iron bar, to which the other

cast iron elements are attached.

The building's significance, and therefore its listing, is partly the

result of the fact that it replaced an identical predecessor, which

gained substantial attention when it collapsed on 19 October 1850. A

quantity of bricks for building the adjacent SER arcade was piled

upon the bridge, but it is unclear whether this extra strain caused the

collapse. Regardless, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and John Rennie

were consulted on what should be done to replace the bridge, and

declared that it was their, 'joint and decided opinion that the bridge

as constructed was insufficient, and ought not to be replaced by one

of similar construction.'

Given the fame and expertise of these two external witnesses, it is

surprising that the SER's engineer, P.W. Barlow, stated that, 'I

entirely differ from the conclusion at which these two gentlemen have

arrived, as I do not consider the principle of the bridge either

incorrect or objectionable.' Barlow appears to have been an early

supporter of the Warren Truss, commissioning the original Joiner

Street bridge in this form before 1850, so it would appear that to an

extent, his faith in the form partly reflected a need to protect his

professional credibility. He appears to have been vindicated, as the

second Joiner Street Bridge remains to this day in its original form,

as a rare and early example of an engineering form new to the

1850s.

Significance

The Joiner Street Bridge is one of the few remaining visible

remnants of the station's early structure, and is an important

artefact of its early development. In addition, few examples of the

Warren Truss structure remain, and even fewer of this age. As such,

the bridge is an important piece of engineering history, as well as

being vital to the history of London Bridge Station.

Impact: Low, beneficial. The Joiner Street bridge will not be directly

affected by the proposals, but the new connections provided through

'The Vaults' to the new central concourse will dramatically improve

the landscape of Joiner Street, providing a better setting for the

asset. In addition, Network Rail will be removing the ticket barriers

from below the bridge, which will further enhance the assets'

setting. The main Tooley Street entrance to London Bridge Station

will be moved elsewhere, but pedestrian traffic should remain high,

due to the presence of a main entrance to the underground station

from Joiner Street, and the new access to the proposed street level

concourse.

5.4 LONDON BRIDGE STATION

92

LONDON BRIDGE STATION

It is easy to forget, on a site of this scale, and incorporating so many

individually identifiable assets, that 'London Bridge Station' is, as an

overall entity, a heritage asset in itself. This involves every built part

of the station, in particular the vaults, viaducts and arches that make

up its main track level. These elements also involve small fragments

of former station buildings, offices and booking halls, which are now

largely vanished.

Figure 5.6: The original entrance to the shopping arcade that was constructed as part of the London and Greenwich Terminus in 1836. Unlisted, it remains an important reminder of the station's development.

The ground level of the station is made up of a labyrinth of arches,

built up over time, the complexity of which is illustrated by fig. 5.8.

As the history of the station above demonstrated, the structure and

its environs are the result of a complicated and difficult history,

providing us today with a station that is both difficult to understand,

and complex and unpleasant to use. Nonetheless, as a heritage

asset, the station is essentially an amalgam of small remains of

different ages which, combined, act to provide an enormously

instructive palimpsest. This asset could be much better revealed, but

there is little doubting the interest, scale and variety of its fabric.

Figure 5.7: A white concrete column from the London and Croydon Railway Company's booking hall, built in 1841, and long disappeared among later developments.

Figure 5.8: A view of some of the publicly inaccessible vaults underneath the station, illustrating the many overlapping layers that make up this vital part of the heritage asset.

Significance: London Bridge Station is London's oldest central

terminus station, and the main terminus of the oldest elevated

public railway in the world. Its fabric includes works from the 1830s

through to the late twentieth century and, as a whole, supplies a

remarkable and unusual testament to the development of this

complex station.

At the same time, however, the station has limited accessible

heritage value. The majority of the remaining historic fabric is

concealed, away from the public realm, and those elements that are

visible to the public, without any interpretative material, give little

sense of their significance. In addition, the station's lack of usability

ensures that it is not a positive space to use, and gives little in

terms of quality of life or public enjoyment. Overall, it is clear that

what inherent significance the building has is not currently

accessible in any real sense; the building currently fails both as a

station and as a heritage asset.

Impact: Substantial, beneficial. In order to achieve the substantial

public benefits afforded by the scheme, a large chunk of London

Bridge Station is proposed for demolition. It is proposed to cut

through an area stretching from Tooley Street to St Thomas Street,

and including, as a result of the building's gradual growth, vaults

and arches from almost every stage of the station's development.

These elements, while being historic fabric in themselves, are

currently inaccessible, and represent only a fraction of the overall

historic fabric. The heritage benefits afforded by this comparatively

small-scale demolition vastly outweigh the negative elements of

removing historic fabric. By further opening up 'The Vaults', and

connecting them to the new street level concourse, providing a new

linear cut through the station, and generally improving the station's

usability and accessibility, it is the intention of the scheme to

improve the station's accessible significance as a heritage asset.

6.0 PROPOSALS AND JUSTIFICATION 6.0 PROPOSALS AND JUSTIFICATIONS

6.1 PROPOSED WORKS: DESIGN PRINCIPLES

PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE NATIONAL PICTURE

96

London Bridge Station is a major and complex transport interchange

which has been shaped gradually over time, and which does not

respond well to present capacity demands or those predicted for the

future. The Thameslink Programme envisions a dramatic increase in

capacity, but this is only possible with the transformation of London

Bridge Station. This chapter will demonstrate that such dramatic and

necessary work can be achieved whilst preserving and enhancing the

historic environment. This scheme fully considers the statutory

necessity to preserve and enhance the historic environment, while

also delivering substantial public benefits.

The full scheme of works is presented in detail within the Design and

Access Statement, and broadly summarised below.

BACKGROUND

In line with the plan set out for the Thameslink Programme, London

Bridge Station will be altered to increase its capacity for through-

traffic travelling from north to south, through London, by providing a

substantial increase on the number of through platforms available for

north-south trains. Work is currently underway to increase the

station's 'through' provision, and it is proposed to drastically alter the

layout of the station at viaduct level, reducing the number of

terminating platforms, and increasing the number of through

platforms. By the conclusion of the works, there will be 6 of the

former, and 9 of the latter. London Bridge Station will become,

predominantly, a through station, with additional terminating

platforms, removing the existing bottleneck, and allowing for the

arrival and departure of up to 18 train paths an hour during peak

times. The trains, being of 12 cars each, will also necessitate the

provision of longer platforms. This scheme, along with the

development of the Shard building, which provides a new, western

entrance and concourse to replace the existing concourse of the

1970s, will put the station under tremendous pressure in terms of

passenger movement. As such, a new approach and layout are

required that provide for the increased capacity the Thameslink

Programme will generate.

PROPOSALS

In order to provide the level of access efficiency that such

enormous passenger movement will produce, a new

concourse will be constructed, cut through the existing arches

and vaults of the station. This development will broadly take

Stainer Street and Weston Street as its extremes, creating

the largest under-platform concourse in Britain, and a major

access route between Tooley Street and St Thomas' Street.

This concourse will provide direct access from street level to

any given passenger's required platform, increasing overall

travel speeds for commuters and increasing station capacity.

Stainer Street will be pedestrianised and allowed to become a

route to allow members of the public who may not be using

the station, to pass quickly from north to south.

The street-level concourse will be provided with increased

levels of access to Joiner Street and London Bridge

Underground station, as the Western Arcade will be extended

eastwards to meet it, as well as being substantially widened.

This will increase the amount of 'unpaid', public access space

at the station, turning the site into a destination in itself, as

well as a key transport hub, and an important north-south

route within Southwark. It will also allow the arcade to be

more in keeping with the scale, and level of pedestrian

footfall, that the new concourse will create.

New entrances will be provided to the concourse on Tooley

Street and St Thomas Street, which, while being

architecturally responsive to the sensitive historic

environments around the station, will be of the highest

quality. It is intended that these areas will provide a clear

indication, through architectural statement, of the importance

of London Bridge Station, and of the grandeur of the internal

concourse. These new entrances will aid the provision of high-

quality public realm space.

These works, vital to the development of the Thameslink

programme, necessitate the demolition of the Grade II listed

Train shed. This is laid out in further detail later in this

chapter, but is driven largely by the necessity to realign all

the terminating and through tracks and platforms combined

with problems that arise from the structural effect of

removing the vaults underneath the shed.

In addition, the provision of an easily accessible, broad and

architecturally impressive entrance to the street level

concourse from Tooley Street will necessitate the demolition

of 64-84 Tooley Street, an undesignated heritage asset by

virtue of its role as a positive contributor to the Tooley Street

Conservation Area.

Figure 6.1: Diagrams to show the levels of congestion that would occur if the

completed Thameslink Programme works were completed without the proposed street level concourse. Terminating platforms shown above, and through platforms

below. It demonstrates that unacceptable levels of congestion would be reached by 2018 without the developments herein proposed.

6.2 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE NATIONAL PICTURE

97

The operational and policy need case is laid out in detail within the Planning Statement, but a brief overview is provided here, in order to inform this Heritage Statement.

THAMESLINK PROGRAMME

On 10 January 2002, a report from a Planning Inspector appointed by

the Secretary of State noted that the programme then known as

Thameslink 2000 would:

provide very substantial … benefits for the travelling public, for

promoting the use of rail-based public transport over road vehicles,

and for enhancing the conditions for regenerating parts of the centre

of London.

At this point the Inspector's main concern with regard to London

Bridge Station was the design of the concourse and canopies. This

document has already argued that the current designs for these

areas are a vast improvement on previous schemes for London

Bridge Station, providing a more informed response to the historic

environment. With this in mind, this section will demonstrate that the

three substantial positives of the Thameslink Programme for London

Bridge Station, identified above, still remain.

Benefits for the travelling public

Better services, serving a wider area: With the Crossrail project

already substantially underway, the provision of two 'metro' style rail

services, running north to south, and west to east, provides a wide

range of demonstrable benefits for rail travellers. As fig. 6.2 shows,

the Thameslink Programme envisions a broad, high-capacity network

of services that, travelling directly through London, reduce travel

times by limiting the necessity to change. Direct, regular and reliable

access between towns as far afield as Brighton and Ashford, Bedford

and Cambridge, would be of obvious benefit to rail transport users in

the south east.

The reduction of congestion on the London Underground:

In addition, operating alongside Crossrail, the provision of

regular, large-capacity services running through the centre of London

should provide significant alleviation of congestion on the London

Underground and other services, as it serves to increase the level of

capacity on London's transport network in general. Providing direct,

overground access between a number of locations in central and

outer London, it should take on passenger traffic that would other be

using the underground system.

Figure 6.2: Map of the proposed extent of Thameslink services. A large number of

these services, as can be seen from the map, will run through London Bridge

Station.

Figure 6.3: Diagrams to demonstrate the level of service capacity that will be achievable through the Thameslink Programme, including those works at London

Bridge, will produce. Note that these trains will increase in length from 8 cars, as they are currently, to 12 cars.

Peak Hour Train Capacity

for Thameslink services

after redevelopment.

Peak Hour Train Capacity

for Thameslink services

prior to redevelopment.

6.2 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE NATIONAL PICTURE

98

The provision of a legible and user-friendly station at London

Bridge: At present, London Bridge Station is considered by many to

be a confusing, overcrowded and inefficient set of interlocking

spaces, which fail to operate effectively as a major transport

terminus. There is little doubt that the current station is not

commensurate with its role as a key station providing for millions of

commuters to one of the world's great cities.

Central to these proposals is the idea that increasing the station's

passenger capacity is intimately connected to increasing its legibility

and usability. London Bridge Station today is inefficient. Without

clear, intuitive, generous passenger route ways, the station remains

not only unpleasant and difficult to use, but inefficient to run; with

growing passenger numbers predicted over the next few years, the

opportunity to resolve these issues is a valuable one for London and

Network Rail.

By providing a large, easily accessible street level concourse, with

direct access to platforms, and a clearer, wider access route between

Joiner Street and this new concourse, the station will become easier

to use, and a more enjoyable place to be.

Up to 18 through train paths per hour at rush hour, and direct and

clear access routes to and from platforms for commuters; the

potential benefits offered for commuters are wide ranging and

substantial.

Figure 6.4: This Network Rail diagram of Thameslink provides an illustration of the wide

geographical extent to which the London Bridge Redevelopment has relevance; it sits at the core

of a large network of lines.

6.2 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE NATIONAL PICTURE

99

Promoting the use of rail-based public transport

Sustainability and climate change are a key focus of much national,

regional and local policy, and this clearly involves the promotion of

environmentally-friendly forms of transport, and the minimisation of

car use.

The proposed transformation of London Bridge Station as part of the

Thameslink Programme, will play a key role in encouraging the use of

rail transport. Providing regular, direct and reliable services from the

south coast to South, Central and North London, as well as East

Anglia and the Midlands, encourages the use of rail transport, as

journey times between these destinations would be significantly

reduced. Indeed, it is central to Thameslink as a scheme that it

provides the opportunity to circumvent the congestion and density of

London by allowing passengers to pass through the city.

Thus the Thameslink scheme directly supports plans to improve

development throughout the Southeast region. Increased use of

train-based public transport not just to and from, but through

London, ensures that less polluting and more sustainable modes of

transports are being promoted, further fulfilling national and regional

aims.

The improved transport links afforded by a redeveloped London

Bridge Station, furthermore, allow for improved transport provision

for two areas identified for development by the London Plan:

Thames Gateway, an area served by trains through London

Bridge to Dartford;

London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor, further served by

Thameslink by the development of routes to Cambridge via

Stansted.

The Thameslink Programme's support for the use of rail-based public

transport is therefore well established in national and regional policy;

the benefits it offers stretch far beyond London.

The provision of extra capacity on these routes, and increasing train

paths at London Bridge during these peak times from 1 to 18 and 24

through central London will dramatically increase the capacity of the

service, providing the potential for growth, whilst absorbing capacity

from overcrowded London Underground services.

"Enhancement of the conditions for regenerating pars

of the centre of London"

Both Southwark and the GLC, through the London Plan, have

identified the zones around, and south of, London Bridge Station, as

"Opportunity Areas", places to focus new development and urban

improvement. The identification of the Thameslink Programme as a

catalyst for regeneration in the aforementioned Planning Inspector's

report of Janurary 2002, is particularly apposite for London Bridge

Station. The divide between Tooley Street and St Thomas' and

Bermondsey Streets is substantial, with the latter struggling to keep

pace with development north of the station.

The Inspector, in the same report, noted that these benefits would,

'outweigh the harm that would be caused to heritage interests,

principally in the area of Borough Market.' As such, he clearly felt

that the proposals for London Bridge and this area of the Thameslink

scheme, could be justified within national policy, as the required,

clear and convincing justification for any loss of historic fabric was

firmly established.

Summary

The scheme described above is intended to provide a wide range of

benefits to London, to Southwark, and to the wider public over an

area stretching from Brighton, Dover and the South Coast to

Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford. The value of the Thameslink

Programme is undoubtedly a strong one, and central to its successful

completion would be the development of the presently inefficient and

confused London Bridge Station. Permission to develop this scheme

would also allow the full benefits of a series of knock-on effects for

London's transport infrastructure to be felt. Furthermore, such a

project, by opening up the space between Stainer and Weston

Streets, would provide an enormous space, comparable with the very

largest concourses elsewhere in London. Figure 6.5, which in the case

of London Bridge Station does show both paid and unpaid areas,

nonetheless illustrates the enormous scale of the new proposed

internal space.

Furthermore, north to south connections would be dramatically

improved, and the provision of retail and circulation space between

More London and the Thames-side and the conservation areas of

Borough High Street and Bermondsey Street would have

substantial public benefits, economically and socially.

Figure 6.5: Diagram to show the relative sizes of the concourses at several

London Stations. Clockwise from top left: The proposed concourse at London

Bridge Station; Victoria Station; Waterloo Station; Liverpool Street Station;

Paddington Station and Euston Station. Although the London Bridge Station image

includes both paid and unpaid areas, it gives an indication of the relative scale of

the proposed concourse.

6.3 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE LOCAL PICTURE

100

URBAN CONNECTIVITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF SOUTHWARK

London Bridge Station and its approaches have a substantial urban

presence within Southwark. Superimposed onto an existing urban

environment during the nineteenth century, subsequent development

has expanded the width of the viaducts and turned them into a key

and defining element within the built environment. While the impact

of the viaduct is in many respects positive, it nevertheless acts as an

impermeable barrier in the townscape, discouraging north to south

pedestrian movement within the area, as the limited number of

through routes shown in figure 6.6 illustrates.

Further, the station in its current form, is heavily biased towards the

north and west, having been intended to direct passengers across

London Bridge and into the City of London. As a result, it fails to take

the opportunities available to support development and regeneration

to the South and East. The proposed scheme will dramatically

improve this situation and deliver enhanced permeability through the

public realm by allowing more north-south movement to take place.

A number of studies have been undertaken to try and ascertain the

effect that introducing a street-level concourse might have on

passenger and pedestrian movement, primarily by Kim Wilkie

Associates, who undertook a study of the area for English Heritage in

1999.

Figure 6.6: Diagram to show the presence of railway viaducts in Southwark, and

the scale of their intrusion into the built environment of the area.

KIM WILKIE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN REPORT: THE

BOROUGH AT LONDON BRIDGE: UNDERSTANDING THE

BOROUGH (JANUARY 1999)

Wilkie's report describes the Borough and London Bridge area as

having been shaped by responding, 'first and foremost to the

demands of movement and the grimy requirements of servicing a

metropolis'. London Bridge Station and other transport forms are

described as 'thrusting' into the area, ignoring the 'etiquette of urban

form'.

The report supports the view of the design team that this thrusting

presence militates against a growing change of focus within

Southwark:

The area is becoming perceived as part of central London rather than

the bad lands across the water. The City and cultural tourism have

crossed the Bridge and the area is no longer just a transport and

provisioning interchange. The demand for sleek offices and

apartments on the one hand and tourist attractions on the other will

change the social mix as well as the physical form of the Borough.

The report describes Joiner Street, despite its pedestrianisation, as a

'messy' urban environment, without the level of permeability and

legibility that one might desire from a north-south connection at the

front of such a major transport hub. Stainer Street and Weston

Street, furthermore, are rightly identified as 'alien' and 'hostile' for

pedestrians; none of these are viable or sustainable transport routes

for passengers given the predicted levels of growth in the area.

Finally, Wilkie's report identifies the potential for a 'corridor' of civic

space, running through London Bridge, from the Thames to Guys

Hospital, of legible open spaces and connections, using the St Olaf

House and the hospital building as cultural anchors for a connected

route.

Overall, there is pattern of social need here: the massive presence of

London Bridge Station, a potential site for encouraging sustainable

methods of transport, discourages walking and cycling because of the

dramatic and alienating presence it has within the Borough.

SUMMARY

It is clear that the addition of a street-level concourse at London

Bridge Station, particularly one on such an impressive scale, will

open up the area south of the station to the development and

financial investment that has been gained by the area north of the

station. If 'Central London' is spreading southwards, bringing within it

More London, City Hall, Shad Thames and the Shard, then London

Bridge Station remains a pure, physical barrier to further expansion.

The potential exists to shift the station's focus: for it to cease to be

northern-looking, a convenient access to the city, and to be based in

the centre of a thriving hub, with access in all directions to shops,

offices and housing.

Figure 6.7: Diagrams to show the suggested improvements in urban connectivity and pedestrian movement that could occur through the

development of the street-level concourse. Existing to the left, predicted movements upon completion of proposed works to the right.

6.3 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE LOCAL PICTURE

101

A CASE IN POINT: ST THOMAS STREET

The townscape of St Thomas Street, when compared with that of Tooley Street, acts as a useful indication of the extent to which London Bridge Station and its viaducts act as a physical barrier to development.

It is, in essence, a failing urban environment. While the north side of the street is bounded by attractive railway viaducts, it is an essentially dead facade; while it provides the potential for small commercial units, they appear currently to be unable to attract sufficient interest.

More strikingly, to the south of St Thomas Street is an area of obvious decay, of cleared ground, scrubby car parks and billboards.

It is a hostile environment with few active frontages, and feels surprisingly isolated. Overall, there is a sense that there is little pressure on the land; although development plans, for the Quill, for example, exist, development is being slowed by the area's current isolation from the City of London.

Tooley Street, on the other hand, is a highly developed area of restored warehousing, converted to office and commercial use, interspersed with entirely modern developments, such as More London and the Cottons Centre. Active frontages predominate, even, tellingly, under the arches of the station.

It is easy to see here that there is pressure to develop, an eagerness to take advantage of whatever unit space is available.

Easily accessible from London Bridge Station and London Bridge, Tooley Street presents itself as part of Central London.

The divide between the two streets featured here could not be more stark, and their difference is entirely driven by their relative accessibility from London's Central Activity Zone.

PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS

London Bridge's formidable and often alienating townscape presence

is mirrored by its inability to offer anything of any quality in terms of

public realm space. Its boundaries are framed by sheer viaduct walls,

with pavements running up to its borders. For a major transport hub

in a world city, it interacts surprisingly poorly with its surroundings.

It is central to this scheme that these issues are resolved, and that

the major new concourse begins to look outwards into its

surroundings, and provides a quality of public realm in keeping with

the scale and design of London Bridge Station.

To both Tooley Street and St Thomas Street, new areas of public

realm will be created, in front of the impressive, legible new

entrances to the station, both utilising the architectural form of the

colonnade to provide an area of transition between street and

concourse.

TOOLEY STREET

The Tooley Street facade will be provided with a particularly vital

piece of public realm space. Directly facing More London's own area

of open space, and on a substantial corner plot, the removal of 64-84

Tooley Street will allow for the creation of an open space to

substantially complement the hard, canyon-like appearance of Tooley

Street.

Central to this piece of public realm will be the listed Shipwrights

Arms Public House, and 88a Tooley Street, an undesignated heritage

asset; together, they will enable the strong expression of the corner

of Tooley Street and Bermondsey Street, and provide an active,

attractive architectural flourish to the new area of open space.

It must be remembered that the concourse itself, being partly

publically accessible, can be considered as public space, and as a

means for linking the internal and external public areas, a colonnade

has been designed.

This form also mirrors the existing colonnade at The Counting House,

opposite, which Nikolaus Pevsner identified as being almost 'Parisian'

in feel.

ST THOMAS STREET

The redevelopment of the St Thomas Street facade allows for a

perceptible increase in public realm space to what is currently a

narrow, pedestrian-unfriendly piece of pavement.

It is proposed that the development of a new facade to St Thomas

Street will increase the width of the footpath only slightly, but

combined with the accessible internal concourse, and a

pedestrianised Stainer Street, this small area of public realm

expansion becomes part of a wider area of accessible space, with a

direct connection between Tooley Street and St Thomas Street. Thus,

while the physical size of the space offered for expansion is limited,

its impact on the surrounding townscape would be significant.

Summary

Overall, it is clear that the provision of additional and attractive

public realm space allows the station development to be integrated

into Southwark, and to offer benefits to members of the public who

are not using the station. This integrative approach can only be

achieved by the successful development of the public realm.

6.3 PUBLIC NEED AND BENEFIT: THE LOCAL PICTURE

102

The development proposed for London Bridge, despite involving the

demolition and part-removal of some heritage assets, serves to

offer an opportunity to create substantial heritage benefits. It is the

belief of the design team that it is possible to create a modern

station of exceptional architectural quality and amenity, and still

manage to 'preserve and enhance', directly and indirectly, a number

of designated and undesignated heritage assets.

The arguments here revolve around the fact that the values and

language of heritage protection have changed over the last few

years, particularly through documents like Conservation Principles,

to ensure that the conservation and redevelopment of historic

buildings has a 'public value'. Heritage, as an English Heritage

conference of 2006, Capturing the Public Value of Heritage, pointed

out, straddles the dual fields of environment and culture. As such,

the conservation of historic buildings and structures is, on the one

hand, about ensuring that they have a positive effect on the built

environment, by contributing character, interest, and quality; and

on the other hand, that they are able to provide, culturally, a strong

sense of historical development and, in a number of cases, an

uplifting sense of architectural and artistic quality.

This section seeks to demonstrate that London Bridge Station's

value and significance as a heritage asset is not currently being

revealed, and that a substantial programme of works such as this

can, rather paradoxically, greatly improve the accessibility and

public value of a heritage asset, by removing a certain amount of

historic fabric. In short, it is argued that historic material does not

justify its retention by virtue of its age, but that its ability to be

understood, enjoyed, and to enliven environments and

communities, should be prioritised, even if this involves removing

historic material.

HISTORIC FABRIC = QUALITY OF LIFE?

It is clear that passengers currently using the unsuitable facilities at

London Bridge Station get little sense of its history. Its historic

inheritance is one of confusion and inefficiency, rather than a

pleasing enjoyment of an obvious palimpsest or attractive historic

material. While other London mainline stations like St Pancras,

Paddington and Liverpool Street revel in their history, London Bridge

suffers as a result of it. As stated above, it is central to much of the

policy and guidance surrounding the historic environment that

historic fabric should be retained because historic buildings are

valuable to our enjoyment of environment. Heritage assets should

uplift us, provide townscapes with objects of romance and beauty to

enjoy, and to give areas an individual, ingrained character.

London Bridge Station currently fails to achieve these benefits,

partially, as will be demonstrated, because it simply does not

appear to be a heritage asset, but partly also because it fails to

provide quality of life to those who use and experience it on an

everyday basis. Its current lack of usability is the direct result of its

history; in short, it exists as an example of how heritage can restrict

and complicate development. By redeveloping the station, there is

the potential to ensure that it can provide improved amenity and

usability to commuters, ensuring, in turn, that it can provide the

improved sense of quality of life that it should, as a heritage asset,

be able to provide naturally.

In the introduction to PPS5, it is stated as a government objective

that,

''The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment

and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the

quality of life they bring to this and future generations.' (Point 7)

London Bridge Station does not provide for the improvement of

'quality of life', and its significance and value of a heritage asset is

almost entirely hidden by dint of its confusing and user-unfriendly

nature. Thus, any physical harm to the heritage asset is

dramatically outweighed by the heritage benefits it is afforded.

REVEALING LONDON BRIDGE STATION'S HISTORY

A more obvious heritage benefit of the proposed works at London

Bridge Station is that the station's historic progression will be

allowed to come to the fore, and become better revealed to

commuters and users of the street level concourse; this will, in

many ways, be similar to the highly successful development at St

Pancras Station, where the vaults have been used as a central part

of the development.

While, as argued above, the station's current hectic and confusing

layout does not allow for its history to be fully appreciated, it is also

the case that the site currently contains nothing in the way of

interpretation. The station does have a fascinating history, and

every time a pedestrian walks along the length of Joiner Street,

they walk through the station's palimpsest, past visible remains of a

viaduct structure nearly two centuries in the making. This

development provides the opportunity for improved interpretation in

the future, ensuring, with the better revelation of the space between

Joiner Street and the proposed concourse (currently the Western

Arcade), that the station's arches and viaducts could have a

discernibly greater heritage value.

The extension of the Western Arcade to meet the street level

concourse is intended to play a substantial role in achieving this

heritage goal. By 'opening up' and removing the clutter from this

area, it should become a much more attractive space, with a more

obvious historic character than it is currently capable of exhibiting.

In a more physical, literal sense, this work is also intended to reveal

more of the original 1836 viaduct of the London & Greenwich

Railway, bringing it into the public realm through the removal of

later material.

Thus, it is the belief of the project design team that the removal of

some historic fabric from the undesignated heritage asset of London

Bridge Station can lead to a better understanding of the station as a

whole.

SUMMARY

Overall, London Bridge Station currently fails, as a heritage asset, to

act as we might expect such an asset to. It does not uplift, it does

not inform, intrigue or excite those who use it. The frustration and

confusion it causes commuters, the result of its complicated history,

can be rectified to better reveal its qualities. Thus, the preservation

and enhancement of the station's most valuable and significant

elements can take place, partly driven by the removal of some

historic fabric. While it may appear counter-intuitive, it is clear that

such an approach is vital if London Bridge Station is to be both an

effective and user-friendly transport node, and a heritage asset

which serves to enhance its surrounding area, and serve a public

need.

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

103

Ultimately, this scheme is about providing an impressive, legible and

successful piece of design for London Bridge Station, fully in keeping

with its role as a major transport hub in a world city. Above, the key

principles of the development, of the major street-level concourse,

have been explained and justified. The benefits shown in this

document serve to ensure that this work has positive results for

Southwark, London and the South East of England. The works also

have a strong design element, however. This is to be a major piece of

architecture within a concentrated townscape, dominated by the

presence of heritage assets and historic character. As such, the

design team have sought to ensure that the design is fully in keeping

with the local environment, a world class piece of architecture, but

one which takes its setting fully into consideration.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Broadly, the design process has been driven by a desire to ensure:

That the station is a world-class piece of architecture, in

keeping with the status of the station as a major transport

hub, serving a world city;

That this affect is achieved from all angles, including from

above, with a platform roofscape of a world class quality;

That the most significant elements of the station that can be

retained, are retained, and that the works genuinely do

'preserve and enhance' London Bridge Station as a heritage

asset;

That the building sits comfortably within the built

environment. This includes providing a design that is equally

comfortable within the dramatically different surroundings of

Tooley Street and St Thomas Street;

That the entrances to the street-level concourse reflect the

dramatic space within, and that they are sufficiently legible

and attractive to provide amenity to the station's immediate

setting.

The designs themselves are driven by the recognition that the area is

of a primarily industrial character, dominated by mid- to late-

Victorian warehouses and viaducts. The viaducts themselves, to both

Tooley Street and St Thomas Street, are vital parts of the townscape

of this area, and it has been recognised as vital that they are

retained and better revealed as part of the project.

Figure 6.6: A 'high level view of the Tooley Street entrance to the station, showing the public realm.

Figure 6.7: The St Proposed St Thomas Street entrance to the station.

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

104

TOOLEY STREET FACADE

Here, the removal of 64-84 Tooley Street provides an area of public

realm to act as a dramatic forecourt for the concourse entrance.

The space created by this demolition is an attractive, curving corner

site, broadening to meet the retained Shipwrights Arms Public House.

This open space, and the existing viewing corridor through the More

London site, ensure that the new entrance is highly visible, a visual

as well as physical draw within the built environment.

Facade and Entrance Design

This facade's design revolves around the retention and rebuilding of

the viaduct parapet. The viaduct is a strong and consistent element

within the townscape, providing a regulated building line to the

street, as well as a consistent building height; retaining it as an

integral part of the new entrance ensures that this sense of rhythm

and uniformity is retained.

The entrance to the station itself, tied into the viaduct by the

retained parapet, has been designed to provide visibility and

legibility, led by a design to mirror and complement the existing

proportions and forms of Tooley Street. This entrance consists, in

essence, of three main forms: an industrial, rhythmic colonnade;

large expanses of open glazing; and accentuated entrance lobbies of

glazing and steel plating.

The colonnade itself is characterised by tall, rectangular-sectioned

steel pillars, which are not laid out evenly along the facade, but are

designed to increase in density or regularity towards the centre of the

facade. They are also intended to be angled outwards, towards the

edges of the entrance, creating the impression of movement; this

angling ensures as one travels along the front of the facade, the

entrance concourse becomes increasingly more visible between the

pillars. There is a crucial simplicity, rigidity, and massive scale to this

entrance colonnade that is designed to mirror, once more, the

verticality and industrial character of Tooley Street, and its minimalist

warehouse buildings. As is noted above, rhythm is a key element of

the surrounding historic environment, and, in particular, of the

existing viaduct, as its arches allow space, and the street line, to be

regulated, and tied together. The colonnade form allows this rhythm

to be continued through the station's new entrance, ensuring it

becomes an integral part of the existing environment.

Roof form: Improving the entrance's legibility

As will be illustrated later, the roof is to be distinguished by a strong

wave form running through the platform canopies. It is key that the

main canopy 'wave' is situated above the station's entrance,

providing a sense of movement and grandeur, as well as of legibility;

the roofscape provides a means for articulating the location of the

entrance within a long and rhythmic facade.

Public Realm and Historic Environment

The Tooley Street facade and public realm is complemented and

accented by the presence of the Grade II listed Shipwright's Arms,

which becomes a new central feature within this townscape, forming,

along with 88a Tooley Street, a block of characterful buildings around

which to form a new public plaza, with planting and paving.

This part of the development serves the key role of opening up this

area of Tooley Street, and revealing a new and dynamic entrance for

the station, without undermining the character of the Conservation

Area in which it stands. The Conservation Area will be enhanced by

the new development, which would add a new sense of accessibility

to a space which currently does not feel welcome to pedestrians.

Summary

Overall, this design is intended to achieve a legible, landmark sense

of scale, while settling neatly into the surrounding built

environment. There is little in this design that is not informed by

surrounding townscape features, but it is, nonetheless, a strikingly

modern, uncompromisingly self-important structure; London Bridge

Station is the main element in the current townscape and the design

for the Tooley Street facade reflects this reality.

Figure 6.8: An impression of the Tooley Street concourse entrance, showing that the design retains the rhythm and consistency of the viaduct, through retaining the parapet, and introducing a colonnade.

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

105

ST THOMAS STREET FACADE

Here, it is clear that the polychromatic brick viaduct arches form a

central part of the built environment, and should be retained, and

used as a jumping off point for the design process. Nonetheless, the

concept of a striking, legible and inviting entrance to the proposed

street level concourse, remains an integral part of the design

process; the design presented is a balanced combination of heritage

and architectural considerations.

The design presented here, indeed, is a creative response to a

number of issues, as the St Thomas Street facade is of a very

different form to its partner on Tooley Street. The existing viaduct

itself of a substantially higher architectural quality than that to Tooley

Street, and requires a more nuanced approach, while still providing

something impressive and legible.

Main entrance Elevation

Under these proposed designs, the station's main entrance to St

Thomas Street has been, essentially, inserted into the rebuilt viaduct

arches. The arches themselves have been, in many cases, reinstated

or rebuilt, but some remain in their original form. Some of these

arches have been opened up to provide doorways, while others have

been glazed over. This is a particularly discreet and heritage-

conscious approach to introducing a new entrance to the station,

allowing it to sit comfortably within its context, whilst still being

inviting.

This heritage-focused approach does, however, pose a major design

problem; legibility. It has been identified as a key consideration that

the new entrances to the station needs to be clear and inviting,

drawing commuters and other pedestrians into the large concourse.

This has resulted in two design responses:

1. Visibility and Transparency:

The location of the entrance can, in part, be better revealed by

'opening up' the concourse to the street. This is intended to be

achieved by glazing the open arches of the station arches, and

drawing the eye. This section of the long St Thomas Street facade

would thus have a very different feel and appearance to other areas.

The extent of this 'transparency' can be sensed from the proposed

images presented here; escalators rising to the platforms can be

clearly seen through the glazed archways.

2. Roofscape: The aforementioned 'wave' form of the proposed roof,

as well as offering the opportunity to make the roof an architectural

statement in itself, also allows the location of the station entrance to

be drawn out more obviously. As on Tooley Street, the entrance to

the concourse here would be presented beneath a rising mass of

roof, drawing the eye, and accenting this, the most important section

of the station's St Thomas Street flank. Thus it is proposed to place

this rising, wave-like mass on the site of the former train shed, with

its own impressive roof form. The historic location of the train shed is

almost commemorated therefore in the shape of the new roof,

preserving both the feel of the immediate townscape, and ensuring

that the engine shed is not entirely lost.

Summary

A design has thus been brought together for this flank of the station

that is rooted in the station's history, and yet seeks to provide

something strikingly modern, easily legible and accessible; high-

quality contemporary design is thus allowed to balance, preserve

and enhance an existing heritage asset. It is accepted that

considering the previous presence of the train shed, and the quality

and interest of the remaining viaduct arches, this facade is rather

more sensitive to change; this design approach is thus intended to

contribute to, and enhance, the existing quality of the facade.

Figure 6.9: An impression of the new station facade from St Thomas Street, showing its visual connectivity with the Shard building, and the retain horizontality and rhythm of the viaduct's arches and parapet.

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

106

THE PLATFORM ROOFSCAPE

The design of the roofscape has been of vital consequence, serving,

as it does, to tie together the design of the whole station, and

provide it with a substantial presence both from above and from

street level. It is also, however, one of the elements that requires

most consideration of its impact on townscape; its elevated position

ensures that it is a dominant townscape feature, and that it has

intervisibility with substantially more heritage assets than other

external elements.

The design process for the roof has taken into consideration national

policy and guidance with regards to balancing the best of

contemporary design with the sensitivity of heritage assets and the

statutory necessity to preserve and enhance local character.

It was decided at an early stage that given the nature of the overall

station design, a 'canopy' approach was preferred to one that used

one or two large overall roofs; these will provide 100% coverage for

the station's platforms, a more generous formation than is usually

required. Given the fact that the new concourse would be built

beneath the platforms, this was felt to provide the best possible

opportunities for natural light. This intention, to lighten both the

concourse and the platforms, has driven the designs presented here.

Furthermore, following the principle of providing a design that

reflected London Bridge's position as a major transport node within a

'world city', a design approach was required that made a serious

statement within the sensitive historic environment; 'blending in' is

not sufficient for this design.

The Design Solution: 'Wave' Canopies

Lighting the Concourse: The canopies' 'waves' are deliberately

sloped, facing north, to maximise sunlight by providing clear light

channels through the platform level, and into the concourse below.

The sloping southern walls of the waves are rather more solid, with

more occasional glazing to allow light from the south to pass directly

into the concourse. Thus, the availability of natural light to the street

level concourse is maximised, while externally, a world-class

architectural finish is provided, uncompromisingly modern, and

designed to provide a combined mirroring and contrast in glass and

steel to the dormers and parapets of neighbouring buildings.

At concourse level, a sense of clear unification will be perceptible,

and a reference back to the less utilitarian, more 'designed' platform

canopies of the past. Overall, there is a sense of consideration and

design here that provides a valuable sense of overall quality, and

makes the invaluable street level concourse successful in terms of its

access to natural light and legibility.

Figure 6.10: A projected view of the station's proposed roofscape, illustrating its extent, and the elegant, flowing qualities of the canopies.

Figure 6.10: Projected aerial view of the station, showing its flowing lines, and dramatic presence within London's built environment.

Figure 6.11: Projected view of the station's roofscape, illustrating the curving, elegant canopies.

6.5 DESIGN FOR THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

107

Design for the Historic Environment

The visualisations here illustrate the canopy form, whilst allowing the

concourse to receive the maximum possible natural light, also

succeeds in being a successful element of the historic built

environment. From above, the long, flowing roofs are a dominant and

high quality form in the landscape, a signal of the station's

importance. It is a form that has a far more dominant appearance

from above than from street level, where it will be more discreet, but

succeeds, from both viewpoints, in allowing the station to be

strikingly modern, yet sympathetic and shaped by its surroundings.

Summary

While strikingly modern, an openly twenty-first century addition to an

area shaped by centuries of constant development, the design of the

canopies for London Bridge Station is intended to make the station a

key, legible part of the historic environment. Despite its obvious

modernity, its design is inspired by historic precedent, and intended

to mirror elements from its surroundings, and from the viaduct

below. Retaining a historic canopy form, and ensuring that the rising

waves reflect the location of the Victorian train shed, this part of the

station also seeks to provide something that London Bridge Station

has always, infuriatingly, lacked; a sense of unity. The station has

one solid presence within Southwark, but its facades are all different,

often disjointed and degraded. This single unified form will provide a

sense of unity, tying together the complex forms of the viaduct

beneath, and mirroring the purpose of the new street level

concourse.

Figure 6.11: A view of the roofscape from above, showing the elegant wave forms.

Figure 6.14: A view from platform level, providing a sense of the light and space that this design approach provides.

6.6 VIEWS AND TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS

108

In order to assess the impact of this scheme, a number of photomontages were created, to give an impression of how the station will appear within the historic environment, and to support the design arguments provided above.

View 1: The Tooley Street Concourse Entrance, from the entrance to Hays Galleria. This view illustrates the extent to which this proposal is designed to balance the station's essential civic importance, and the scale of the existing historic environment. Evoking the rhythm of the existing railway viaduct, this entrance, along with its associated public realm, announces the importance of London Bridge Station, whilst respecting the industrial, Victorian, brick-built scale and design of the surrounding environment. The new role of the Shipwright's Arms, at the heart of this new public realm, can also be more fully appreciated in this view.

6.6 VIEWS AND TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS

109

View 2: View East from the corner of St Thomas Street and Stainer Street. Here the improvements in legibility and public realm proposed as part of this scheme can

be more fully appreciated. The eye is drawn towards the roofscape's attractive 'eyebrows', which not only add a great deal to the townscape, but also provide aid

wayfinding. The connection here between the most obvious of these and the station entrance can be appreciated in this view. Nonetheless, the station does not seek to

deliberately overpower its environment, while the new roofscape features mirror the well-regulated rhythm of the viaduct arches below.

6.6 VIEWS AND TOWNSCAPE ANALYSIS

110

View 3: View from Elevated Walkway to Colechurch House: This view illustrates the extent to which this proposal aims to achieve massive benefits across a wide

region, whilst managing its immediate impact upon the surrounding townscape. Even from this close view, the development is hidden to a large extent, minimising the

impact of the development upon the settings of designated and undesignated heritage assets beyond the immediate context of the new concourse entrances.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

111

As has been stated above, in order to complete these works, it will be

necessary to undertake the complete demolition of one designated

heritage asset and one undesignated heritage asset, and the partial

demolition of another undesignated heritage asset. The following

section seeks to move on from the justifications given above for the

overall scheme, to provide specific and individual explanations for the

demolition of each asset.

With all heritage assets, PPS5 Policy HE7.1 states that councils

should, 'identify and assess the significance' of heritage assets, and

balance this significance, and the presumption in favour of their

retention, with the wider benefits afforded by the scheme. This

section makes two presumptions: first, that the significance of these

buildings has been discussed in Chapter 5; and secondly, that in line

with PPS5 HE7 and HE9, it has already been demonstrated that 'the

substantial harm or loss of significance is necessary in order to

deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss' of

the heritage assets. These substantial wider benefits have been

discussed in detail in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this report.

Figure 7.1: The train shed from the east, showing its light structure,

essentially of square bays, supported by flank walls or internal columns.

Former LBSCR Engine Shed, Platforms 9-16,

London Bridge Station

As the only designated heritage asset on the station site to be

substantially harmed by the proposed works, there is clearly a strong

need to consider whether the works are a necessity, whether 'the

nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site',

and whether it is feasible to retain the asset as part of a new

development.

Summary of significance:

The shed's history and significance has been fully explained within

chapter 5, but its significance can be briefly summarised here:

A rare survival of a crescent truss roof. While the roof at

London Bridge Station was not particularly innovative when it

was constructed, the subsequent loss of other such roofs

leaves it is as the only one of its type left in London. The only

other sizeable roof of its type in Britain is at Liverpool Lime

Street;

Figure 7.2: The badly degraded, extensively demolished south-west corner of the

shed, showing the untidy appearance the building currently possesses.

Despite subsequent alterations, the gradual degradation of its

fabric, and substantial losses to its western end, it remains an

impressive and decorative piece of Victorian railway

engineering. The involvement of F.D. Banister and C.H. Driver

is interesting in itself, and the station's engineering and

architecture have strong links to a number of other stations in

the area;

Within the context of London Bridge Station, it is an unusually

large and illustrative survival of the station's history,

particularly considering how badly degraded the site as a

whole is. A constant history of loss and reconstruction has left

the engine shed as the only substantial survival at track level

of the Victorian station. It is also noteworthy for containing a

small fragment of the original flank wall of the SER Dover

Shed, another interesting artefact of the station's Victorian

past;

A strong piece of the townscape, particularly to St Thomas

Street, where the tall, polychromatic flank wall, in connection

with the long polychromatic arches of the viaduct wall,

substantially shape the character of the area.

Figure 7.3: A view towards the flank wall which currently divides the terminating

platforms from the through platforms.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

112

Justifications

As has been stated elsewhere, the train shed at London Bridge

Station, which shelters the current terminating platforms, has been

isolated as being in need of demolition in order for the proposed

development to take place. This conclusion has been reached as a

result of an exhaustive study of the future needs of the station, and a

number of explanations for near-total demolition have been

identified, and are illustrated over the following pages. In short, this

section seeks to illustrate that it is simply not feasible to retain the

shed, if a high-quality, workable, and attractive solution to the

station's current capacity problems is to be reached.

The Structure of the Engine Shed

As background explanation to these conclusions, it is necessary to

reinforce the fact that the engine shed has a very particular

structure. Its large, cast iron roof is reliant for support on its two

flank walls, and a small number of comparatively thin, internal

columns. The roof, being of a central nave with two flanking aisles,

is essentially made up of a series of individually supported squares,

which share supports with its immediate neighbours, and the

explanations and diagrams that follow show that the removal of only

a few elements from the overall structure would severely

compromise a number of these 'squares', leading to a need for

widespread demolition.

The following explanations describe a cumulative process of

necessary demolition that leaves no room for retention.

1. The Thameslink Programme and the 'London Bridge

Bottleneck'

As shown above, the Thameslink Programme offers an enormous

range of transport, social, and environmental benefits to a wide area,

from Cambridge, Bedford and Peterborough to the South Coast. As a

result, it has been recognised by the DoE and government in general

that the scheme for expansion of Thameslink services should go

ahead. Many of the necessary developments have already taken

place, and London Bridge Station remains as a 'missing piece of the

puzzle'. It is vital that in order to meet passenger and service targets

for 2018, the overall number of through platforms at London Bridge

Station is increased, and given the limited size of the station site

overall, this requires the number of terminating platforms to be

reduced.

It was suggested, in a 2000 report by Terry Farrell and Partners, that

it might be possible to dismantle only the northern aisle of the train

shed, retaining the nave and southern aisle, as these were the

elements of the shed that would be directly in the way of the new

platforms. However, this conclusion failed to take into the

realignment of the other, terminating platforms at the station; figure

7.9 fully illustrates that there are only a very few columns or walls

that would not stand within areas that needed to be kept clear for

passenger safety.

The engine shed is, therefore, a recognised barrier to development,

standing directly in the way of the proposed through tracks. Once the

necessity for completing the through track development is accepted,

it must be accepted that at least some of the engine shed is in need

of demolition. Overall, figure 7.10 shows that the only major

fragment of the engine shed that would remain would be a three-bay

section of the flank wall to St Thomas Street, isolated,

decontextulalised, and stripped of its significance as a heritage asset.

2. The Construction of the Street Level Concourse

It has also been shown above that in order to achieve the level of

capacity sought through the Thameslink scheme, additional

concourse space is required, and the solution proposed here, the

construction of a new street level concourse, has been accepted as

the most suitable one. However, as has also been shown, the

construction of such a concourse necessitates the demolition of a

large quantity of the viaducts and their vaulting; this, in turn, would

cause substantial problems of destabilisation. Thus, other areas of

the engine shed would require demolition as part of these, quite

separate works, and rebuilding or reinstatement would not be an

option. Given the shed's reliance on its solid flank walls and more

'internal' iron columns, and the necessity, identified earlier, to

provide sufficient light to the proposed concourse, it is clear to see

that there is no realistic means for incorporating part of the roof into

the new design. Figure 7.8, whilst not presenting an entirely up-to-

date visualisation of the street-level demolition proposed, gives an

indicative and illustrative idea of this issue.

3. Transport and instalment during the construction phase

Finally, the current scheme presented for completing the street level

concourse at London Bridge Station contains some large modular

elements, a necessity for completing a scheme of this scale and

importance. As a result, a construction scheme is required that will

allow the introduction of these elements, without total service

disruption. The project's construction team have identified the

current location of the engine shed wall as one of the few acceptable

access points for materials and, therefore, a substantial amount of

demolition and subsequent reconstruction would have to take place

in order to retain some elements of the external wall.

In short, almost the entire structure can be shown to be in need of

demolition in order for the rest of this heritage-conscious, public

service-oriented project to go ahead. The question remains, however,

of whether a token element could be identified for retention on site.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

113

Option 1: Dismantling and Reinstating one bay of the shed at

viaduct level

One option that had been considered during attempts to retain the

train shed at least in part, was the idea that one bay of the shed

could be re-erected somewhere on the station. This would, it has

been suggested, allow the physical presence of the shed to remain,

and be incorporated into the wider redevelopment of London Bridge

Station.

There are several issues with this hypothetical notion, the first of

which is illustrated by figure 7.11: there is simply nowhere for it to

go. Its size is such that it would not sit feasibly anywhere on the

station site following the realignment of the tracks. In addition, other

practical issues occur, including: the fact that this single bay would

be flimsy to the point of dangerous instability; the fact (discussed

more fully later) that the decoration of each side of the brick flank

walls do not bear any relation to each other, or the width of the roof

bays; and the fact that a single element like this would sit

uncomfortably within the overall station site.

Option 2: The Shed Wall to St Thomas Street: Retain or

Remove?

A more realistically discussed option has been the idea of retaining

part of the southern flanking wall of the engine shed. This is the only

section of the shed that, according to the retention feasibility studies

below, could be retained.

Clearly, given the new designs for the roof canopies, any parts of the

shed wall retained to its full height would be somewhat isolated, a

structurally and visually unstable slice of Victorian fabric, devoid of

context. It would be a token exercise, retaining (and, inevitably,

partly rebuilding), an element of the train shed in order to reference

the building's past, but without actually retaining any substantial

heritage value at all.

Vitally, in addition, it is clear from an examination of the engine shed

that the bays that decorate the external and internal flanks of the

wall were not designed to align with each other. This is illustrated in

the general sketch at figure 7.4, and a brief inspection of the fabric

reveals that not only do the two sides of the wall fail to align, they do

correspond at all, in terms of design, scale or overall layout (figs. 7.5

and 7.6). If a section of the wall was therefore retained, the point of

severance on one side would appear strange, slicing through an arch.

Figure 7.5: A view of the inside of the shed's flank wall, clearly showing its arrangement of groups of four arches between large, buttress-like pilasters.

Ultimately, as shown during the above discussion of the proposed

station design, the retention of a small element of the existing shed

would, once more, sit uncomfortably within the reconfigured and

adapted station. When this notion is combined with the level of

rebuilding that would have to take place, it is clear that the heritage

value that such a proposal would be able to offer is actually

extremely limited, and that, as such, it would not be feasible, or

architecturally preferable, to undertake such an approach.

Figure 7.6: An external view of the same stretch of wall, decorated by

triplets of arches, between narrower, less prominent pilasters.

Figure 7.4: A rough sketch to illustrate the difference in the internal and external appearances of the train shed wall.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

114

Figure 7.8: General, indicative diagram to show those elements of the engine shed that require demolition due to the removal of vaults for the street level concourse.

Legend for figures 7.7 to 7.9:

Support columns and pillars that would require removal as a result of works.

Support columns and pillars not directly affected by works

Figure 7.9: Diagram to show those elements of the shed that require demolition as a result of the changes proposed to the platform layout. The new platforms are shown in a light pink shade.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

115

Figure 7.10: Diagram collating the information provided by the two diagrams above, demonstrating that almost nothing of the shed would survive the necessary works to the concourse and platforms.

Figure 7.11: Diagram to illustrate that, due to the extent of the passenger safety zones required around the platforms, there is not a location at viaduct level where the train shed could be moved in order for it to be retained.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

116

Figure 7.12: 64-84 Tooley Street from the west.

64-84 Tooley Street

64-84 Tooley Street has been identified as a 'positive contributor' to the Tooley Street Conservation Area, and can, by extension, be considered to be an Undesignated Heritage Asset. This designation illustrates that the building is recognised to be of limited, essentially local interest.

While the building has been fully explored above, its significance can briefly be summaries here. Its value lies largely in its position within the townscape; despite being relatively plain, it is nonetheless

characterful, and its narrow 'flat-iron' style western end is a recognisable element of the Conservation Area. Indeed, its most notable elements are its unusual form (particularly from the west), its polychromatic brickwork, and its monumental, rather incongruous doorcase. Furthermore, the building has some limited significance as part of the palimpsest of London Bridge Station, providing evidence of the South Eastern Railway, a now-defunct company, at the end of the nineteenth century.

Thus, 64-84 Tooley Street is largely of local townscape importance,

clearly not of national, special architectural or historic interest, but nonetheless responsible for adding some character to the Tooley Street Conservation Area.

Justification

The demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street, it will be shown, will provide facilitate a large number of outcomes that are vital to the completion of the Thameslink project. It will also ensure that the completed station, in terms of operational and architectural quality, will be of a

quality in keeping with its role, as a major transport node, in a world city.

Operational Capabilities

The provision of a large ground floor concourse, with connections to Tooley Street and St Thomas Street, has been shown, above, to be vital to ensuring that London Bridge Station can provide the necessary increase in capacity to allow the Thameslink development to be a success. London Bridge Station will, in the future, be much busier, processing a substantial number more journeys than at present; the large, ground-floor concourse will, it is argued, provide

the best opportunity to meet these operational requirements.

On a purely practical level, the provision of a safe, accessible concourse requires large entrances to both St Thomas Street and Tooley Street, and 64-84 Tooley Street is currently a direct impediment to this development. Retaining the building, and producing an entrance that 'skirts around' the present building, or choosing to only part-demolish the structure, would result in a severely compromised, unsafe, and, ultimately, difficult to use entrance, which would fail to relate to the large concourse behind.

Figure 7.13: London Bridge Station from Tooley Street, with 64-84 Tooley Street visible in the background. The impermeability and illegibility of the station from

this side can clearly be seen here.

Figure 7.14: 64-84 Tooley Street from the public realm axis of More London.

With the viaduct wall sitting directly behind it, it can clearly be seen from this

position that the demolition of this building would open up a key site, and enable a

vital redevelopment.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

117

Figures 7.15, 7.16, 7.17: London Stations have always sought to present

themselves as dramatic and important elements of the built environment. The

design for the Tooley Street entrance to London Bridge Station (bottom) follows

on ideologically, if not stylistically, from a pattern established at St Pancras

(top), and Liverpool Street (middle, seen here as complete, in the late

nineteenth century) stations, among others.

It has been suggested that the upper floors of 64-84 Tooley Street might be retained, rebuilt or jacked up above a new ground floor entrance. This would not, in any way, be an acceptable or successful compromise. It would fail to read successfully as a station entrance, and what little significance remained of the building would be undermined by the substantial, highly visible system of transfer

beams that would be required to retain the building's stability. Ultimately, this would fail to be a satisfying solution, either aesthetically or operationally.

Civic Appearance and Legibility

The redevelopment of London Bridge Station provides the opportunity to restore to the station a civic presence that it has lacked since the Blitz, when it lost a good quantity of the engine shed, terminus buildings, and the Terminus Hotel. Since this point, it has lacked unity and, more importantly, an entrance that reflects its importance as a major station within London (fig. 7.17). This project, in

combination with the Thameslink works, provides the opportunity to give London Bridge Station the civic presence it deserves. Thus, where previously it had sat fairly anonymously into its environment, it would become a much vibrant and integrated element, contributing, rather than detracting, from the quality of this part of Southwark; these outcomes are only possible with the demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street.

In addition, the demolition of this Undesignated Heritage Asset, and its replacement with a new station entrance, will allow London Bridge

Station to accomplish a level of legibility that, as suggested above, it is incapable of achieving. At present, the entrances to the station are not particularly clear, as well as being limited in number in scale, leading to passenger frustration, as well as operational inefficiency. In addition, this approach to legibility is reflective of historic railway station typologies; a clear purpose to the building, and clear routes to the platforms and ticketing areas, have always been important to station design. The demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street opens up the opportunity to provide a highly visible, intuitive, and impressive entrance to the station, dramatically improving the station's presence

in the built environment.

Public Realm, Connectivity and Permeability

Connected to these issues is the problem of London Bridge Station as an enormous barrier of masonry, 'thrust' in the words of Kim Wilkie, into the built environment of Bermondsey and the Borough. As has been noted above, the provision of a concourse with a focus on horizontal connectivity will enable the area to become a much more permeable, legible space. Clearly, the provision of wide, easily legible concourse entrances is a central part of this. In addition, however, it

is key that the station is provided with visual integration into the surrounding environment; the demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street provides the opportunity to create a piece of integrative public realm that links London Bridge Station into its wider environment (fig. 7.18).

This piece of demolition opens up a piece of public space with a spatial relationship to the More London development opposite, with its own 'axis' of public space, and with Tooley Street in general,

which otherwise lacks much in the way of public realm. It feeds directly into a wider realm of historic and more recent architecture, which, in connection with the new concourse's entrance to St Thomas Street, will allow this part of Southwark to have a more highly developed sense of connectivity and permeability.

Figure 7.18: Proposed high level view of the concourse entrance to Tooley Street,

illustrating the proposed public realm, and the new sense of legibility this design

would permit.

Conclusions

In short, the demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street is a justifiable heritage loss, driven both by a desire to provide a station with world class service capacities, and a high quality entrance and public realm

forecourt. This development would, furthermore, ensure London Bridge Station a greater sense of integration with the surrounding environment and connect Tooley Street and St Thomas Street.

In addition, it should be noted that mitigation against this loss is offered, as it is intended to record the building, in line with PPS5, Understanding Historic Buildings: Policy and Guidance for Local Authorities, and Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice.

Overall, it is clear that the demolition of 64-84 Tooley Street would

directly facilitate a large number of desired outcomes. As has been illustrated throughout this report, heritage has been a key concern for this project, and an attempt has been to minimise loss, while maximising the benefits gained from alterations to the built environment. The demolition of this undesignated heritage asset affords a large number of otherwise unachievable benefits and, as such, can be justified against national, regional and local policy.

7.0 DEMOLITION: JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION

118

London Bridge Station

London Bridge Station, apart from those elements identified above (the Train Shed and the Joiner Street Bridge) does not possess a statutory designation of its own. When considering 'London Bridge Station' in this context, this report refers to the all the unlisted fabric of the station, which contain elements from different stages of the station's historic past, from 1836 to the twentieth century. These include not only the viaducts and vaults of the station, but small fragments of the station buildings, booking halls and offices. These elements, while unlisted and fairly nebulous, can be considered as

being of substantial importance, at least locally, and thus represent an undesignated heritage asset.

Summary of Significance

A large and multi-layered piece of fabric, containing elements from most stages of the development of London Bridge Station, London's first railway terminus, and an important part of the capital's history;

A dominant part of the townscape, stretching from Borough High Street to the edge of Bermondsey, which presents a

variety of different, complex facades;

Contains small fragments of attractive and interesting buildings that have now been demolished, and is thus an interesting palimpsest in itself, with much to offer the casual visitor, commuter, and expert.

Justification

Much has been said above about the development of London Bridge

Station, and the demolition that will have to take place in order to

facilitate the construction of the street-level concourse. Ultimately,

London Bridge's palimpsest, in terms of its viaduct, is layered from

north to south and thus, while elements of the structure will have to

be demolished, a good deal of historic fabric from all periods of the

station's history will remain. Given the wider benefits that stand to be

gained from the construction of the new street level concourse, the

demolition of this section of historic fabric is not considered to

represent a substantial or damaging loss to the historic environment.

Furthermore, as discussed in a previous section, this work will allow

certain historic sections of the station to be better revealed; the

improvement and increase of the Western Arcade, for example, will

reveal more fabric from the 1830s. Overall, it is believed that London

Bridge Station does not currently appear as a heritage asset, and

that this development, in better revealing the site's significance, will

offer substantial heritage benefits to outweigh the loss of fabric

proposed.

8.0 CONCLUSION

119

This Heritage Statement has outlined the relevant national, regional

and local planning policy framework concerning conservation, defined

as 'the process of managing change to a significant place in its

setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values, while

recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce those values for

present and future generations.' (Conservation Principles, 4.2).

The report has outlined the historic development of London Bridge

Station and its surrounding area, highlighting the complex nature of

the existing site. It has also identified all the relevant designated and

undesignated heritage assets on the station itself, and within the

surrounding environment, giving a strong sense of this

development's potential influence on the built environment.

The proposed works would allow London Bridge Station to increase

its capacity in line with the wider aims of the Thameslink process, as

well as increasing passenger accessibility, urban connectivity, and

legibility, which would have a more direct and immediate affect on

the London Borough of Southwark. It has been demonstrated that

throughout this design process, the protection and enhancement of

historically and architecturally significant structures, areas, views and

settings, has been a principle concern. This report has shown that at

all opportunities, attempts have been made to conserve as much of

the station fabric as possible, whilst still seeking to provide the

massive regional, local and national benefits that this scheme would

afford.

It is thus contended, principally, that the social, economic,

environmental and infrastructural benefits of this scheme

substantially outweigh the proposed loss of heritage assets. In

addition, however, it is also argued that the development has the

opportunity to offer a perhaps unexpected set of heritage benefits. It

is believed that the settings of several listed buildings and the Tooley

Street Conservation Area will be enhanced, that the value of 'London

Bridge Station' as a heritage asset will be better revealed, and that

the new station will sit more comfortably into its environment.

As was stated at the opening of this report, London Bridge Station's

historic inheritance has not allowed it to afford substantial public

benefits. It fails to offer the usual benefits of quality of life that

heritage assets are expected to afford those who experience them.

Instead it is a hindrance to development and expansion, a confused

and confusing space, and sub-quality transport node for a world city.

The development proposed would allow London Bridge Station to

supply the capacity and customer experience commensurate with its

position within London, and its importance as a terminus and through

station.

Individually and collectively, the proposed works accord with all

relevant national, regional and local planning policies on design and

conservation, and we invite the Council to grant planning permission,

listed building consent and Conservation Area consent to allow the

works to take place.