In Tooting SW17, Springfield Hospital is scheduled to be redeveloped in 2023 to fashion the new “Springfield Village”. It will consist of 389 new homes, a new school, office space, parking and a new psychiatric hospital. Evidently many benefits arise from this new development and there is a general sense of positivity surrounding it. However local residents near the targeted area detest the new plans and have campaigned vigorously against them.

 

The most significant factors influencing these objections are: loss of green open land, loss of the surrounding golf course and the impact on traffic and congestion. Anne-Marie O’ Connell, a local resident states “I don’t agree with the development of springfield hospital. I think London is overdeveloped as it is and we need to preserve our parks and green land as much as possible.” She expresses a prominent fear shared between most campaigners.  The development will claim a significant part of Wandsworth Common to develop the road network to Springfield Village. The loss of this land will add to the ever decreasing loss of parkland and green open space in favour of housing projects and office developments.

 

However the secretary of state gave the decision to go ahead despite these protests stating  “the adverse effects” should be weighed against the manifold benefits. Some of these include modern medical facilities allowing for better medical care, more houses for a growing population and a new school for residents. These benefits address some premulant issues the UK is facing such as the housing crisis and the need for improved mental health services.

 

It is clear that this effort of urbanisation offers both benefits and consequences. It can be argued that this is the case with mostly all urbanisations that occur in the UK. Should we continue to modernise areas despite these ever present negatives or only regenerate when positives clearly outweigh the negatives?

 

Max McFarlane