EIR - Phase 2b Springfield Hospital [Nov 2024]

Your request 

I would like to request information relating to Wandsworth planning application 2022/5288, which was called in by the Mayor and with respect to which a decision was recently made, which was confirmed by the Deputy Mayor at the meeting on 8 October 2024. Specifically I would like to request information that formed the basis upon which the following conclusions were made:

• that the entirety of the land that is the subject of this planning application is categorised as "brownfield"; and
• the reversal of the assessment that had been made at Stage 1 that the height of the development would be "excessive" and harmful, despite the height of the development remaining the same.

As part of this, I would like to request a copy of the legal advice in relation to the first bullet point, which was specifically referred to by the Deputy Mayor when he informed the meeting of the decision that had been made.

Our response

• That the entirety of the land that is the subject of this planning application is categorised as brownfield
• As part of this, I would like to request a copy of the legal advice in relation to the first bullet point, which was specifically referred to by the Deputy Mayor when he informed the meeting of the decision that had been made.

The rationale for concluding that the site comprises previously developed land within the meaning of the NPPF is set out in the Stage 3 Report.

No Legal advice was provided in relation to whether or not the application site is “brownfield”.

In the closing statement Jules Pipe said:

“…Furthermore our legal advice has made it clear to me that the issue of whether it is previously developed land is a planning judgement and I am clear having visited the site the proposal would involve the reuse of previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified housing need” (2hr 25m and 20sec of the hearing video).

Springfield Hospital public hearing | London City Hall

The aforementioned ‘Legal advice’ that this is a ‘planning judgement’ (and not a legal one) was provided verbally during the adjournment.

• the reversal of the assessment that had been made at Stage 1 that the height of the development would be "excessive" and harmful, despite the height of the development remaining the same

The height of the development is discussed in the Stage 3 Report. Specifically, paragraph 129 says:

“In the GLA Stage 1 report, GLA officers concluded that a reduction of one storey to Block C would be required to reduce the visual impact of the development. During the assessment of this application, the applicant provided an updated TVBHIA and VuCity model which demonstrates that the current proposed height of Block C will have an acceptable visual impact and is therefore supported.”

A copy of the updated TVBHIA has been provided.