EIR - Former Greenwich District Hospital Site [Nov 2024]

Key information

Request reference number: MGLA090924-0643

Date of response: Thursday 21 November 2024

Summary of request

Your request

Land at Former Greenwich District Hospital Site London SE10 - formerly known as Heart of East Greenwich, now known as Greenwich Square

This FOI request is in relation to above land registered under Land Registry title number TGL249007, TGL 196230 and SGL 123769 (the "freehold titles"). GLA Land and Property Limited ("GLA") is the current owner of those freehold titles as the successor in title from The Homes And Communities Agency ("HCA").

I am making a FOI request for the following documents:

The Development Agreement dated 20 December 2007 in respect of the freehold titles. The parties to the Development Agreement are believed to be HCA and First Base (East Greenwich Residential) Land Limited. Please also identify the date of all subsequent variations to the Development Agreement (if any) and provide me with copies of the same. You may redact any commercially sensitive information.
All communications received by the GLA from Mace Development (Greenwich) Limited (or its representatives) regarding the variation to the Section 106 Agreement dated 12 November 2018 (of which GLA is a party) (the "variation"). For your information, the variation was eventually agreed to by the GLA under a Deed of Variation dated 6 February 2024.
All communications issued by the GLA to Mace Development (Greenwich) Limited (or its representatives) in relation to the variation;
Minutes of all meetings (including all public, internal and external meetings) attended by the GLA where the variation was discussed or deliberated on.

Our response

Please find attached information that the GLA holds with the scope of your request.

Please note that some of the emails we hold contain information that falls out of the scope of your request. I have therefore extracted out the relevant information that falls within the scope of your request from these emails and copied below:

Log of extracts of emails from Mace to GLA

Log of extracts of emails from GLA to Mace

Some of the content is being withheld as it falls under the exception in Regulation (5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) of the EIR. This is marked where applicable. The purpose of this exception is to protect any legitimate economic interests underlying commercial confidentiality.

This information is commercial in nature because it relates to information around Land value, and disposal costs. The sale of land has not yet concluded, and disclosure would be likely to prejudice the sale and would have a negative effect on GLAP income. The information is not trivial, nor in the public domain and was provided to the GLA on a confidential basis and therefore protected by the common law of confidence.

In applying this exception, we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the

information against the public interest in disclosing the information. We acknowledge that there is a public interest in transparency in relation to the how GLAP undertakes its activities in relation to the sale of its assets. Disclosure of this information would help enable members of the public to understand that GLAP is achieving value and more fully the decision-making processes behind such sales.

Providing detailed information held by public authorities is in keeping with the Government’s transparency agenda and promotes accountability and greater public participation. Furthermore, the public interest is served by the GLAP being transparent and open to scrutiny to increase diligence and working to protect the public purse.

However, on balance, we consider that it is not in the public interest for the GLAP to release information that would prejudice these very activities before they have had a chance to conclude. This is particularly important where we are required to achieve value-for-money on land transactions. The public interest would not be met if the GLAP released information that could prejudice the negotiations taking place in relation to the sale of land at Calvert Road at this time.
Date of email	Email title
31/01/2024	RE: Calvert Road	"Hi * Could you ask that DLA liaise with * & * at Burges Salmon (cc’d) who are authorised to complete the s106 DoV on GLAP’s behalf? (This is me providing my consent). Many thanks *"

Date of email

Email title

Content

08/03/2024

RE: Calvert Road Update [Burges-WORK.FID11043561] [DLAP-UKMATTERS.FID6847138] (From Attachment)

Extract from legal cost document attachment.

s106 DoV (legal) £2,000.00
s106 DoV (legal) £1,250.00

29/11/2023

RE: Calvert Road

"3) We agreed to put DLA in funds of £1250 for the review of S106 regarding the public realm "

4) The other £1250 for the S106 review will be part of GLA disposal costs

29/11/2023

RE: Calvert Road (Attachment)

From email attachment:
"S106 - Deed of Variation
S106 DoV required to remove Calvert Road from S106 agreement" "29/11/23 - Draft DoV in circulation. Mace to put DLA in funds for BS review of S106 - £1,250. RBG reviewing S106 will come back this week with comments
19/10/23 - DoV – ongoing – *** and *** to meet with RBG 25th October to discuss DoV wording – draft has been circulated @**** to provide mace before this Friday.
10/10/23 - RBG have agreed to a S106 amendment to carve out Calvert Road from the original S106 for the development. DLA have provided a £4k undertaking to Freeth's (councils solicitors). S106 will be the removal of the current plan and replacing with new plan without Calvert Road. " RBG / DLA Ongoing

16/08/2023

RE: Calvert Road Disposal

"4. DLA to review any S106 implications, possible indemnities required and potential land title issues. "

08/02/2024

Calvert Road Waterfall, Invoicing and VAT treatment

", I have now included the S106 DoV costs from Freeth’s (RBG legal rep). Their costs relating to the S106 DoV also covered additional non-Calvert Road points, "

19/02/2024

RE: Calvert Road Waterfall, Invoicing and VAT treatment

"I have now included the S106 DoV costs from Freeth’s (RBG legal rep). Their costs relating to the S106 DoV also covered additional non-Calvert Road points, "