Millennium Mills

Heritage Assessment for The Silvertown Partnership

March 2015

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 1 Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 2 Millennium Mills

Heritage Assessment

For The Silvertown Partnership

Ordnance Survey map with the site marked in red. [Reproduced under Licence 100020449]

Dated Site Plan of Millennium Mills

This report and all intellectual property rights in it and arising from it are the property of or are under licence to Donald Insall Associates. Neither the whole nor any part of this report, nor any drawing, plan, other document or any information contained within it may be reproduced in any form without the prior written consent of Donald Insall Associates. All material in which the intellectual property rights have been licensed to DIA and such rights belong to third parties may not be published or reproduced at all in any form, and any request for consent to the use of such material for publication or reproduction should be made directly to the owner of the intellectual property rights therein. Checked by HXP/ JCF

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 3 Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 4 Contents

Historic Building Analysis & Advice

1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 The Buildings and their Current Legislative Status 6 1.3 Assessment of Signifi cance 7 1.4 Summary of Proposals 9

Historical Background

2.1 London’s Enclosed Docks 10 2.2 Royal Victoria Dock 10 2.3 The Corn Laws, Imports and British Flour Milling 12 2.4 Millennium and Rank’s Mills, London 13 2.5 Architects and Engineers 23 2.6 Sources 24

Site Survey Descriptions

3.1 Setting 38 3.2 The Buildings Externally 38 3.3 The Buildings Internally 40

Commentary on the Proposals

4.1 Description of the Proposals and their Impact on the Non- Designated Heritage Assets 48 4.2 Commentary on the Proposals 49

Appendices

Appendix I - Planning Policy and Guidance Appendix II - List of Plates and Endnotes

Contacts

Victoria Perry (Senior Historic Buildings Advisor) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888

Vicky Webster (Historic Buildings Advisor) E: [email protected] T: 020 7245 9888

London Offi ce 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB www.insall-architects.co.uk

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 5 Historic Building 1.1 Introduction Analysis & Advice This heritage assessment forms part of an application for planning permission submitted for the initial of phase the redevelopment of the Millennium Mills complex, Royal Victoria Docks, London.

The complex is located within the boundary of the Silvertown Quays Masterplan which is currently the subject of an outline planning application (Ref: 14/01605/OUT). This application is submitted on behalf of The Silvertown Partnership, selected as the development partner together with the Greater London Authority, to bring forward the redevelopment of the wider site.

Donald Insall Associates was originally commissioned in March 2014 by The Silvertown Partnership to assist them in the preparation of proposals and an illustrated history of the site and building, with sources of reference and bibliography, is in Section 2 while site survey fi ndings are in Section 3. The investigation established the historical and architectural signifi cance of the buildings, which is set out below, while Section 4 provides a commentary on the proposed partial demolition.

1.2 The Buildings and their Current Legislative Status

The complex consists of four linked industrial structures dating from c1905, 1933, 1953 and 1954. The buildings are located on the southern edge of the Royal Victoria Dock, to the west of the Pontoon Dock. The buildings are not statutorily listed or located in a conservation area but have been identifi ed together as a complex as ‘locally-listed’ by Newham Council. This means, in heritage planning terms, that the complex is considered a ‘non-designated heritage asset’. For ease of description the main part of the complex has been labelled as Blocks A, B, C - which together form one contiguous building (see page 3 for the site plan), the fourth structure, known as Rank’s Mills is not part of the scheme currently being developed.

Plate 1. Mills Complex, 2013. DIA

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 6 The southern section of Block A contains remnants of the earliest parts of the building dating from 1905 and 1933 and retains its decorative Dutch gable to the south elevation, while the northern section is a later infi ll from 1954. Block B, which faces onto the waterfront, was constructed in 1953 and has a concrete frame with brick infi ll: its facades were designed in a stripped-classical style. Adjoining this to the east is Block C, which comprises reinforced concrete grain silos.

The conservation of non-designated heritage assets, such as locally-listed buildings, is an objective of the National Planning Policy Framework and a ‘material consideration’ when determining the outcome of a planning application; the effects of alterations on that asset’s signifi cance should, therefore, be ‘taken into account’. Policy also states, however, that a ‘balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the signifi cance of the heritage asset’ 1 (copies of the relevant planning policy documents are included in Appendix I).

1.3 Assessment of Signifi cance

Millennium Mills and the neighbouring Rank’s Mill are the only survivors of a number of large-scale grain mills that were constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the site of the Royal Victoria Dock’s former graving (ship-repair) dock (Plate 1). Established at the turn of the 20th century, these highly-mechanised roller-mills were designed to process Canadian and North American grain and produce the white, refi ned fl our favoured by British consumers at a price that undercut traditional millers. Only parts of these mill buildings, including the Rank’s mill of c1905, still remain, however, as they were severely damaged by an explosion and fi re originating in a nearby munitions factory in 1917 (Plate 2).

The 1905 Rank’s Premier Mill may be tentatively attributed to Gelder and Kitchen of Hull, who were prominent mill architects and engineers of their day. The Millennium Mills part of the complex was partially rebuilt and extended in 1933 and in the 1950s by engineers L.G. Mouchel Ltd, a fi rm that, with the French engineer François Hennebique, built an early Plate 2. Millennium Mills in 1917. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 7 reinforced concrete fl our mill for Weaver & Co in Swansea in 1898. Given the relatively late date of the structures and the decidedly old- fashioned style of the architecture they exhibit, with the interwar buildings resembling those of a previous era, and the 1950s phases in a 1930s Art Deco style, the architectural history of the mill buildings, is not its primary signifi cance. Indeed, while connected with architects and engineers who pioneered new buildings and technologies, there are no signifi cant ‘fi rsts’ associated with Millennium or Rank’s Mills.

Instead, the signifi cance of the surviving mill buildings rests principally in their powerful physical presence on the dockside with the monumental qualities of the mill complex, contributing greatly to ‘local character’ and ‘sense of place’. Moreover, the mill buildings are among the very few surviving buildings that suggest the epic, global scale of the industry once undertaken at the Royal Victoria Dock and the importance of the docklands to London’s infrastructure (Plate 3). Additional signifi cance may be attributed to the Rank Mill’s connection with Joseph Rank, who in the First World War, disillusioned with the offi cial Wheat Control Board, made his own arrangements to feed Londoners and who later worked as a secret wheat buyer for the government to build up stocks prior to the outbreak of the Second World War.

Millennium Mills was one of the largest automated (fl our) mill complexes ever to be built in London and housed a forest of machinery, shoots, ducts and pipes. Unusually for an abandoned industrial complex, some of this equipment - dating largely from the 1950s - still remains (Plates 4 and 5). The, now defunct, machinery was installed by Henry Simon Ltd of Manchester, one of the pioneers of the roller milling process, and adds to the building’s signifi cance as an urban industrial monument. Plate 3. The Royal Victoria Dock Flour Milling Complexes, 1960s. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 8 1.4 Summary of Proposals

These current proposals are submitted for planning permission to allow the initial site phase of a scheme that is currently being developed in detail by AHMM architects. This scheme, which aims to convert the abandoned complex into an ‘incubator’ offi ce-block for small businesses with a restaurant/café on the top fl oor and a sheltered ‘market’ area on the ground fl oor; will be the subject of a forthcoming application; the current proposals are for preparatory works only. A more detailed outline of the proposals together with a commentary is included in section 4 of this report but in summary, they are as follows:

As noted previously, the southern section of Block A contains remnants from 1906 and 1933 and retains its decorative Dutch gable to the south elevation, while the northern section is a later infi ll from 1954 and (at high level only) 1971. The proposals would retain the southern section of Block A and remove the internal concrete silos. Block B, which faces onto the dockfront, would be retained, and the internal silos removed. At the Plate 5. Machinery in Millennium Mills. DIA top fl oor level the current roof-top extensions would be removed and the walled pediment and signage would be reconfi gured.

Adjoining this to the east is Block C, which comprises reinforced concrete grain silos. The southern section of this block was partially demolished in the early 1990’s together with another block of concrete silos to the south. Together these buildings once formed a semi-enclosed yard, further bounded by elevator ramps. In these proposals Block C would be demolished (to be replaced by a new concrete-framed structure of a similar scale, currently under development).

Plate 4: Flour-Loading at Millennium Mills in the 1960s. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 9 Historical Background 2.1 London’s Enclosed Docks

London’s enclosed dock system was established at the end of the 18th- century, prompted by severe congestion and lack of safe trading on the Thames. The fi rst of the new docks to be built was the West India Dock on the Isle of Dogs. Intended solely for the valuable produce of the West Indies colonies, the dock was completed in 1802. Other schemes quickly followed including the London Docks in the former market gardens of Wapping in 1802, the East India Docks in 1806 and St Katharine’s Docks 1827-28. The development of the steamship in the mid-19th-century saw a second wave of dock construction as it became necessary to construct ever larger and deeper docks to accommodate the vast new vessels. Older docks had to be extended or rebuilt, whilst entrepreneurs looked further afi eld to create larger facilities.

2.2 Royal Victoria Dock

This second wave of building exploited the advantages of rail transport, meaning docks could be sited further from the City on cheaper land. In 1847 engineer George Bidder completed his railway from Stratford to North Woolwich, through the, then undeveloped, Plaistow Marshes. It was here that proposals by the Victoria Dock Co were put forward for a vast new dock in 1850 (see Plate 6). The new Victoria Dock, which opened in 1855, was superior to the older docks in a number of ways: it was signifi cantly larger and was equipped with a variety of engineering innovations including hydraulic power and the electric telegraph. It also had its own railway system which was connected to the main railway by marshalling sidings on the north side.2 Tracks were laid out along

Plate 6. Illustrated London News 1854

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 10 the length of the quay, allowing goods to be transported directly to rail or on to the warehouses and stores which lined the dock.3 Company offi ces were built facing the centre of the north quay and were fl anked by large tobacco warehouses, wine vaults and coal sidings, while smaller warehouses populated the south quay.4 A tidal basin was located at the western end of the dock and the docks were accessed from the Thames via deep-water locks secured by hydraulically-powered wrought-iron gates. To allow tall ships to enter the dock here, a swing bridge was constructed on the railway line. 5

Plate 7. 1859 Plan of the Graving Dock 2.2.1 The Pontoon Dock

Originally opened in 1858 as the ‘Victoria Graving Dock’, the Pontoon Dock was an innovative ship-repair facility designed to serve its larger, cargo- handling neighbour. It used a system patented in January 1857 by Edwin Clark as the ‘Hydraulic Lift Graving Dock’. A hollow, open-topped iron raft, or pontoon, was fl oated between two lines of vertical presses and then sunk onto a submerged grid of horizontal trusses that stretched between them. The ship to be repaired was moored above the sunken pontoon, and then slowly raised out of the water by the force of the pontoon being hydraulically jacked up beneath its keel (Plates 7 and 8).

As ocean-going ships increased in size, however, it became necessary to increase the dock’s lifting capacity to service them. Although successfully upgraded within its working lifetime, the Clark’s lift became obsolete and the Victoria Graving Dock Company went into liquidation in 1889. After prolonged negotiations, the dock was bought by the London & St Katherine Dock Company in 1897. The company immediately started disposing of the lift machinery and began seeking more profi table tenants Plate 8. Illustrated London News, 1859

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 11 for the site. In 1898 the London Grain Elevator Company began to construct corrugated-iron silos for grain from vessels from Canada and North America and the Pontoon Dock quickly found a new purpose as a centre for fl our milling (Plate 9).

2.3 The Corn Laws, Imports and British Flour Milling

Despite agricultural improvements and the vast amount of land under cultivation (over 9 million acres in 1872), 19th-century Britain struggled to produce enough to feed its rapidly-growing urban population. Initially, imports were limited by the Corn Laws but once restrictions were lifted, in 1846, Britain looked to use low-price foreign wheats; particularly favouring high-protein Canadian and North American grains as they were ideal for bread-making. From the mid-1860s the growth in grain imports was dramatic, with imports of wheat from the United States increasing over 32 fold between 1865 and 1900.

The increasing use of imported grain was accompanied by technological development, predominately a shift in techniques from stone-milling to roller-milling which then allowed the use of continuous production. The rapid growth in the process was due to the rise of three engineering companies: J. Harrison Carter (from 1888 E.R. & F. Turner) of Ipswich, J.S & C.J. Robinson of Rochdale and, above all, Henry Simon of Manchester, a Silesian with experience of industry in Germany, Russia and France, who settled in Manchester in 1860. Henry Simon installed seven major plants in Liverpool between 1881-4 and, in 1899, his company built Millennium Mills at Birkenhead for William Vernon & Sons

The increased import of wheat together with the introduction of continuous Plate 9. 1890 Silo Construction

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 12 milling processes resulted in a profound change to Britain’s centuries old tradition of fl our-milling. While small, inland mills continued to serve their communities, the new, industrialised port-based, mills took the bulk of the market share. In 1880, there were 10,000 mills in Britain, by 1917 this number had reduced to 1,000 of which about one quarter produced 90 per cent of the total fl our output.6

2.4 Millennium and Rank’s Mills, London

2.4.1 The Millers: Vernon, Rank and Spillers

The three companies involved in the development of Millennium Mills complex at the Royal Victoria Docks were William Vernon & Sons, Joseph Rank Ltd and Spillers Ltd. William Vernon & Sons of West Float, Birkenhead were originally established in c.1770. In 1899 W. Vernon & Sons shot to worldwide fame at the International Bakers Exhibition, winning the Miller Challenge Cup with their Millennium Flour. Millennium Flour was aimed at the rising twentieth-century masses, proving particularly popular in the mining districts, where it was known to make “beautiful white bread sandwiches”.

Joel Spiller (1804–1853) was a corn factor and miller from Somerset and a free-trade activist. In 1840 he went into partnership with Samuel Woolcott Browne; following the abolition of the Corn Laws, they expanded the business, building a new steam-driven fl our-mill in Cardiff Docks to process American wheat in 1852. The company underwent a variety of name changes, amalgamations and strategic readjustments in the early 20th century and in 1927, the company became known at Spillers Limited. Plate 10. 1904 Section of Rank’s Premier Mills, Gelder & Kitchen Plate 11. 1904 Lease William A. Vernon Joseph Rank (1854 - 1943) founded Joseph Rank Ltd, in 1875. After travelling to the US in 1902 to observe the competition in the Midwest, Rank built mills in London and Cardiff. His business was converted into a public company, Joseph Rank Ltd, priced at over £7 million, in 1933. Under the leadership of Arthur Rank –, Joseph’s third son, Ranks Ltd acquired the Hovis-McDougall Co and became Ranks Hovis McDougall in 1962.7

2.4.2 Mills at the Royal Victoria Dock

Rank’s Empire Mills, west of Pontoon Dock, were opened in 1904. Rank’s Premier Mills, at the Pontoon Dock itself, designed by Gelder & Kitchen of Hull, were operational by the spring of 1905; with a capacity of 30 to 35 sacks per hour (see Plate 10) In 1904, Joseph Rank proposed to build workers cottages on a 7-acre portion of land immediately west of the ‘Elevator Dock’ – Mill Road.

New mills at the Pontoon Dock were founded in 1901 by William Vernon & Sons. Negotiations with the London and India Docks Company, owners of the Royal Victoria Docks, continued, with a 99-year lease on the land agreed and signed on 3rd February 1904.The rent was to be £250 for the fi rst year and £2,500 a year for the remainder of the term (see Plate 11 for the lease and block plan).8 Negotiations included arranging for an electricity supply for machinery to construct the mill. John Clarke FRIBA

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 13 of Liverpool began to design the complex in this year. Clarke used the structural details of the Mouchel-Hennebique reinforced concrete system in his designs for the mill complex (Plate 12).

The plans were signed off in June 1904 and building work began in 1905. The mills would have been arranged as follows: dressing machines on the upper fl oors, purifi ers, sacking off areas and bins on the fl oors below, break, middling and fl our bins on the fl oors below this, roller mills would probably have been located on the 1st fl oor, the ground fl oor would have contained the driving gear for the roller mills and sacking off areas. The complex formed a U in plan, its frontage of 356ft facing the Royal Victoria Dock. The Granary wing on the east side contained a series of 64 grain silos (vertical storage bins), fed by an elevator and conveyor belts. Above the silos, was a fl oor of three different heights where the grain was received and below the silos was a sacking room. A screen room stood between the Granary and the Mill buildings. A 115ft high tower, at the top of which were the tanks supplying the sprinkler system and the wheat-washing tank. Forming part of the main block, two mills sat back-to-back, divided by a solid concrete wall; these mills were known as ‘No 1 facing north’ and ‘No 2 facing south’, each mill had six stories, carried on reinforced concrete beams and connected at either end by open timber stairways. At the rear and centre of the complex stood the boiler house, chimney shaft and engine room. To the west lay the seven- storey warehouse wing. The building was rendered in Keene’s cement internally and Portland cement and sand externally. The windows were of a typical design, being factory-produced, the glazing was divided into small squares. The buildings were designed with Edwardian fl ourishes in the Queen Anne style; with panelling decorating the bays and fi nials, dentil motifs, cornices and Dutch gables adorning the upper storeys. This ‘confection’ extended to emblems on the parapets reading: ‘WV London’, Plate 12. 1904 Foundations William Vernon and AD 1905: W. Vernon & Sons (Figure 2, within the Addendum). Mills

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 14 In November 1905, W. Vernon & Sons drew up plans for the improvement of the quay walls to the dock, and introduced a roadway parallel to the dock wall. A 325ft long reinforced Ferro Concrete jetty was also constructed adjacent to the mill fronting the main dock to allow larger steamers to unload grain directly. It also included a 120-ton elevator which ran on the two rail lines in front of the mill. Grain elevators and silos lined the quays – these were large receptacles into which grain would be extracted from the ship’s hold. Barges could access the rear of the mill and the additional elevators via the Pontoon Dock. W. Vernon & Sons and the adjacent mill owners Messrs Joseph Rank agreed to arrange for a new road (Mill Road) and sewer to be laid to the south of the mills. The building work was undertaken by Messrs Cubitt.

Having been overseen by William A. Vernon, the principal’s son, the mills opened in 1906 and were extensive, featuring two plants equipped by Henry Simon Ltd., which had a capacity of 280lb. sacks of fl our per hour. The publication Milling described the mills as ‘palatial ’; these were among Europe’s largest of the time. (See Plate 13) The buildings, together with their machinery, were valued at £300,000 in 1906. William Vernon & Sons named the mill after their award-winning product, known as “‘Millennium Flour ”’.

Fires and explosions were very common at fl our mills, with dust susceptible to combustion. The fi re retardant properties of reinforced concrete had become well-known by this point, and its relative cost effectiveness made it a popular choice for mills and other industrial buildings.9 The Granary at Millennium Mills was built entirely of reinforced concrete, however the screen room and mill buildings both had reinforced concrete structures, with maple fl oors. The warehouse had concrete slab fl oors with granolithic concrete as fl oor coverings, timber open stairs provided inter-fl oor communication. External iron staircases were provided at the SE corner of the building in case of fi re. The roofs of all of the buildings were reinforced concrete, except the screen room and mil buildings which had roofs of pitch pine, lined with Willesden Paper (a waterproofed card), boarded and slated. Despite the use of reinforced concrete, some materials used such as the timber and Willesden Paper provided a substantial fi re risk.

Plate 13. Millennium Mills pre 1917

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 15 2.4.3 The Silvertown Explosion of 1917

In 1914, the Ministry of Munitions considered using the Brunner Mond chemical factory, on the south side of North Woolwich Road in Silvertown, for the production of trinitrotoluene (TNT) for use in World War I. This was a risky strategy in such a densely-populated area and on 19th January 1917, a blast occurred at the factory killing 73 people and injuring 400 more. The Brunner Mond Works was about 350 yards south west of where Millennium Mills stood, and the adjoining grain silos and fl our warehouses were amongst the buildings severely affected. The fl aming debris from the munitions factory ignited fi res in the screen room and mills. The complex was consumed by the fi re, which was left unimpeded as the fi re services dealt with the many other fi res in the area. The reinforced concrete buildings generally retained their form, however the fi re, using timber as its fuel, eventually thoroughly damaged the structure. The screen room, No 2 Mill and a large portion of No 1 Mill were destroyed. Plate 14 shows the damage caused to the Millennium Mills The mill was in production again by 1920. The original 1904 plans were probably followed in the reconstruction of the building, with adjustments.

2.4.4 Interwar Improvements

In the interwar years, the Royal Docks – comprising the Royal Albert Dock, the Royal Victoria Dock and the King George V Dock – were relatively prosperous, with most of the traffi c from deep sea trade, particularly from the British Commonwealth. Together this group had a water area of 230 acres and formed the largest of the fi ve dock systems in the Port of London, stretching for over three miles east of the River Lea. This success was bolstered by the PLA’s investment in the Royal Docks. In about 1920, the PLA constructed Grain Silo D at the Pontoon Dock to replace one of the corrugated iron silos of the 1890s, which had been damaged in the 1917 explosion (see Plate 15). The new silo was probably designed by the in-house PLA Engineer, with machinery provided by Henry Simon Ltd of Manchester. Its design was unusual, using concrete to form the central head house and two fl anking storage legs. This silo, and the others lining Plate 15. Silo D, 1960s

Plate 14. Millennium Mills 1917

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 16 the Pontoon Dock served the fl our mills at the Royal Victoria Dock, the other silos of the 1890s remained in operation.

In 1919, steps were made to amalgamate William Vernon & Sons with Spillers Limited. The following year, this was made offi cial and William Vernon & Sons merged with Spillers Limited; the biggest merger of its time. The Spiller’s name was chosen to front the company, whilst numerous members of the Vernon family continued to sit of the Board of Directors. Whilst devastating in its immediate impact, the 1917 explosion had created an opportunity for the restructured company to recreate and expand their facilities at the Royal Victoria Docks in the early 1930s (Plate 16) and rebuild in the ornate Queen Anne style used nearly 30 years before.

In 1928, the Royal Victoria Dock’s original entrance lock was repaired and strengthened and new lock gates were added. In 1937, as part of the £1.5 million redevelopment of the north side of the dock, the new North Quay was constructed south of the original one, replacing the fi ve fi nger-jetties of the original Victoria Dock. Though delayed by War, 80 per cent was fi nished by 1941, with all completed by 194410 (Plates 12 and 13 show the dock in 1936 and 1948). The neck of Pontoon Dock was widened at this time by removing the walls from the east of the neck, in order to allow increased traffi c in this area for grain handling. During the same period of reconstruction, the river entrance from the west into the Tidal Basin was closed.

Substantial warehouses which had originally been built to handle grain and general cargo were given over by 1930 to the storage of tobacco. Plate 16. Photograph of Millennium Mills in the 1930s. Grain remained the most important cargo and heavy investment in grain

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 17 handling and storage from the PLA in the 1930s encouraged the mills themselves to develop their complexes. Nearby, Rank’s Empire Mill was rebuilt and enlarged with new concrete buildings in the 1930s. Spiller’s Millennium Mills were rebuilt as a complex of 7 to10-storey concrete buildings in 1933 probably by John Clarke & Son of Liverpool (see Plates 16 and Figures 5 and 6 within the Addendum). Their design followed the earlier 1906 Edwardian Baroque design and proportions, so resolutely out of fashion were these captains of industry.

2.4.5 The Second World War

Despite Rank’s age, in 1938, he contributed to the war effort by working as a secret wheat buyer for the government to build up stocks in the year before the outbreak of WWII, perhaps even storing the wheat at his mills in London. In 1939, relaxations on the restrictive covenants in the leases of Spillers and Rank’s mills were relaxed to allow grain to be stored at the mills. All imported grain at this time was in the ownership of the Government, who paid the mills for this service.11

The Royal Victoria Dock was London’s largest centre of fl our milling and was thus a primary target during the war. The Royal Victoria Dock was bombed heavily on 7th September 1940, with Millennium Mills and adjacent Rank’s Premier Mills taking particularly heavy damage (Figure 10 within the Addendum shows a direct hit was sustained at the Millennium Mill, whilst Plate 17 shows the complex in 1946). Two silos and the animal feed building survived the bombing. The parts of the mills put out of action were used for the discharging and storing of grain. In 1944 the Royal Victoria Dock railway was damaged by a V1 rocket. General air raids during the war destroyed warehousing, mills, chemical works and housing in and around the Royal Docks. Employees were quickly moved Plate 17. Aerial View of the Mills, 1946 out to work from another Spiller’s Mill at Dock Road, Birkenhead. This mill

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 18 had been closed in the late 1930s, fortunately its machinery remained and they were able to resume production. Many other mills at the nation’s ports were also destroyed during the war; at Liverpool, Southampton and Avonmouth. Production of fl our was maintained by operating inland mills during the night and at weekends.

2.4.6 Postwar Redevelopment

Despite the devastating damage caused by the war, the policy of locating fl our mills in the docks was unchanged, and a programme of rebuilding began. In 1945 Spillers Ltd were preparing plans for the reconstruction of the mills, in doing so they negotiated a new lease with the PLA to increase their site by 63 acres. The 99-year lease was to run from December 1945 at a rate of £4,250 per annum.

In June 1946, Spillers Ltd approached engineers L.G. Mouchel Ltd to organise the reconstruction of Millennium Mills. Two years later, highlighting the post war make-do-and-mend attitude, the mill’s C Silo basement was altered and extended to create a canteen, designed by John Clarke & Son of Liverpool. The ‘New Mill and Warehouse’ were planned in 1949, it was completed before 1953. This new mill building was built using a concrete structure, with brick infi ll panels. The building exemplifi ed the ‘stripped classicism’ of the Art Deco style, with a pared down parapet and raised geometric dentil work. The north façade was divided into 13 bays by pilasters topped with banded capitals. The name “‘Millennium Mills ”’ was emblazoned across its parapet in red tiles.

In 1947, plans were drawn up for the reconstruction of Rank’s Premier Mills by T.P Bennett & Son of Bloomsbury. Repairs were made to Rank’s Premier Mill including the rebuilding of the A and D warehouses (Plate Plate 18. 1951 Drawing for ‘A Silo’s Reconstruction 20). Firstly, in 1950 proposals were created for a new Mill Building and

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 19 a Maintenance and Canteen block. The erection of new sprinkler pump house, new deep well and pump house and alterations to the existing warehouse and conveyor gantries followed in 1951. Technical upgrades and minor structural changes were made to A, B, C and D Warehouses, such as spiral shoots and housing for conveyor heads. It is presumed that prior to 1949, B and C warehouses’ gabled roofs were replaced with fl at roofs, having sustained bomb damage. A new dryer house, silo, boilerhouse and chimney were also constructed c1956, again designed T.P Bennett & Son. It is likely that the Provender Warehouse and Mill adjoining the warehouses were constructed during this period of redevelopment.

In 1951, proposals led by L.G. Mouchel Ltd at Millennium Mills included the ‘Re-erection of A Silos for the receiving and drying of fl our, provender, etc., following demolition by enemy action’. Its construction was of reinforced concrete: its appearance more stripped classical Art Deco (Plate 18 and Figures 13 and 14 within the Addendum). The following year, plans were drawn up for an extension to the existing B Silo, as well as the creation of two temporary ‘Unimer’ storage buildings adjacent to the animal food building. Both of the temporary Unimer structures were located adjacent to the Animal Foods building, one covering part of the site now occupied by the western bay of the main Mill and Warehouse building.

After the re-opening of Millennium Mills in 1953, the grain storage silos could hold 36,000 tons of wheat, equivalent to approximately seven weeks usage.12 Wilfred Vernon explained at the opening ceremony ‘I think it is important that industrial building which may last a century, and which must be functional, must not be eyesores.’13

As part of the proposals for rebuilding, an extension was proposed to relink the Animal Feeds Building with the main Mill Building. In the intervening period, a series of mid-storey links were created to connect the two buildings. The construction date on the parapet of the animal feed extension states 1954, however in photographs of 1955 this portion of the complex was not yet complete (Figure 14, within the Addendum). This extension was designed to match the 1953 Mill building.

Ocean-going ships could moor and discharge their cargoes of wheat into storage silos. This was done pneumatically by the booms on the cranes. Flour mills of this era were 6-8 fl oors due to the demands of the process. Roller mills were on the higher levels and sifters and other machinery on the lower fl oors. By designing a fl our mill this way, gravity assisted the pneumatic fl uidisation systems.14 In the mid-20th century, Spillers were arguably the most technically innovative of the major fl our millers in the UK, Millennium Mills was designed as a totally mechanised, automatically- controlled, pneumatic mill. Whilst other pneumatic mills were in operation at this time, Millennium Mills was the largest. Three separate mills on the site – A and B Mills were in one building and were fl our mills, and C Mill was housed separately, being the animal feeds production plant (Plate 20 shows the Mills in 1957).

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 20 2.4.7 Thriving Mills

During the 1950s, literature produced by Spillers Ltd proudly boasted that they had fl our mills in most of the leading British seaports, with exports to countries such as Australia, Rhodesia and Zambia. The seaport mills included Plymouth, London, Cardiff, Hull, Birkenhead, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Belfast (Plate 19). They emphasised that the use of home-grown wheat was practised where possible, notably Cambridge and Gainsborough where they had built mills. The automated operation of their mills was also called upon as a strength, with ‘all the processing – from discharging wheat from the ship to the fi nal product – being carried out in enclosed machines to give freedom from handling and ensure the utmost purity’.15 Since 1927, the company had produced animal feeds and publicised themselves as leading experts in feeds and animal health. During the 1950s, approximately 30 per cent of Spiller’s fl our milling product was wheat-feed. Millennium Mills had one of Spillers’ 11 animal-feed factories, where operators would use a complex control Plate 19. Spillers Map panel to select specifi c combinations of ingredients for the feeds.

By the mid-1960s, there were four fl our mills at the Royal Victoria Docks, with a storage capacity of 135,000 tons (Plate 21). To support the various companies, the PLA invested heavily in a fl eet of fl oating grain elevators and fl oating derricks. The four mills remained prosperous after the war and further upgrades ensued throughout the years. Between 1953 and 1980, peak output for the Millennium Mill reached 3,000 tons of fl our weekly. Millennium Mills developed to include a new warehouse and freestanding reinforced concrete ‘D silo’ (a different silo to the one now listed as ‘D’ silo) adjacent to the Pontoon Dock (this replaced an earlier silo which had been damaged during the war), a new Animal Food Warehouse abutting the west elevation of the 1933 building, and a new delivery offi ce and weighbridge,

Plate 20. 1957 Photograph of Millennium all in 1962; these projects were led by engineers L.G. Mouchel Ltd (see Mills

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 21 Plate 27 for the complex as planned in 1962). In 1965, a new timekeeper’s offi ce was planned, located to the south west of the complex and in 1966, an extension containing delivery bins was proposed to A Silo. In 1967, an extension was proposed to the canteen in the basement of C Silo. In 1968, a plant room extension was built, fi nished with corrugated steel, infi lling the section between the 1933 Animal Foods Building and its c1955 extension (Plate 28a-b). The following year, there were proposals to adapt an existing Unimer extension, these plans were drawn up by Trevor Luxton, engineer. In 1976, an extension was required to the animal feed mill, this six storey extension was proposed to stand to the south of the 1933 building (Plate 29), these plans were drawn up by Mouchel & Partners.

2.4.8 Swift Decline

With the development of Tilbury Docks, London’s central enclosed docks saw a steady decline in operation. In 1960, the up-river docks handled 16.5 million tons of cargo, by 1970, the docks that remained open (India /Millwall and the Royals) handled just 5 million. By 1980, only seven enclosed docks conventional berths were still open (all at the Royals), handling only 315,000 tons. In just over 20 years, over 98 per cent of this traffi c had disappeared from London’s up river docks.

In 1969, a vast grain-terminal at Tilbury had been constructed, which spurred Spillers to build a new complex there. Millennium Mills thus lost its prominence. By 1981, Spillers retained its contractual rights to water access, but ceased to import grain by water. In its latter years, it mainly produced fl our for Tunnel Refi neries at nearby Greenwich (Plate 22 shows the mill in its later years of production in 1984). In 1992 Spillers Milling Limited moved operations out of the Royal Victoria Docks to Tilbury,

Plate 21. Aerial View of the Mills, 1960s Millennium Mills closed in 1993.

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 22 2.5 Architects and Engineers

2.5.1 John Clarke (1852-1936)

Educated at Haversham Grammar School and King William’s College, Isle of Man, Clarke served his articles with his grandfather and his father, and became his father’s partner in 1872. In 1909, he was joined by his son, P.J. Clarke, who succeeded the practice. John Clarke designed for Messrs. W&R Jacob’s biscuit factory, St Paul’s Eye Hospital and numerous other hospitals and offi ce buildings, but his chief work was on fl our mills. He was responsible for over 40 and he designed some of the largest fl our mills in this country, including the fi rst mill built for the roller process. He was one of the fi rst users of reinforced concrete and was largely responsible for the evolution of the modern mill building.16 In 1909 Clarke won the architectural competition for the new Carnegie Library at Tralee, Co. Kerry, and in 1911 he designed grain stores for the Dublin Granaries Co. at Castle Forbes, Upper Sherriff Street, Dublin, adding a caretaker’s lodge and stables two years later.

Places of Practice • 19, Castle Street, Liverpool (1872-94) • 34 Castle Street, Liverpool (1894-1929) • 3, Rumford Place, Liverpool (1929-36)

Key Works • W&R Jacob Biscuit Factory • Castner Kelner Chemical Factory • St Paul’s Eye Hospital • Witrel Children’s Hospital Plate 22. Millennium Mills from the South, 1984

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 23 • BUD Council Offi ces • Dublin Granaries Co, Dublin • Millennium Mills

Clarke designed the original Millennium Mills complex for W. Vernon & Sons in 1904, it is presumed that he was chosen for his experience in designing mill buildings and perhaps he was known to the Vernon family, who originated from nearby Birkenhead.

2.5.2 Louis Gustave Mouchel Ltd

Louis Gustave Mouchel (1852-1908) established LG Mouchel Ltd in 1897 as an engineering consultancy, initially specialising in ferro-concrete. In 1892 François Hennebique patented his monolithic reinforced concrete system in Belgium and in France. With his business expanding across Europe, he offered Mouchel an exclusive license to use the ferro-concrete technique in the UK. In 1897 an agreement was signed between the two Frenchmen, with Mouchel forming a new business called ‘Mr L G Mouchel, General Agent, Hennebique’s Patent Construction in Ferro-Concrete’. While his compatriot Hennebique was crucial in popularising the use of reinforced concrete on the continent, Louis Gustave Mouchel was central to its use in construction in the UK. Mouchel is remembered as the man who introduced ‘ferro-concrete’ to Britain. This was one of the most infl uential and far-reaching inventions to shape 20th century civil engineering. The original Millennium Mills complex was built using Mouchel to implement Hennebique’s system. The subsequent buildings on the site were also built using Mouchel’s own company.

2.6 Sources

The following archives have been consulted: British Library Institute of Civil Engineers London Metropolitan Archives National Archives National Maritime Museum Archives Newham Council Archives Newham Council Planning Archives Building Case File Redevelopment Drawings PLA Archives

Published Sources Ackroyd, Peter. Thames: Sacred River. Vintage, London, 2008. Allen, G.C. et al. British commerce and industry: the post-war transition, 1919-1934, with special contributions from representative industrial groups and leading economic authorities. Vol.1. Russell-Square Press in London, 1934. Brown, Douglas. R. The Port of London. Terence Dalton Ltd (1978). Carr, R.J.M. Docklands History Survey: A guide to research. Greater London Council, Historic Buildings Division for the Docklands History Survey Management Committee (1984). Hill, Graham. The Silvertown Explosion: London (2003).

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 24 Hobhouse, Hermione. Survey of London: Volumes 43 and 44 - Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs. English Heritage, 1994. http://www.british- history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=369 Jones, Glyn. The Millers: A Story of Technological Endeavour and Industrial Success, 1870-2001. Lancaster: Carnegie Publishing, 2001. Lockwood, Joseph. Flour Milling. 4th Edition (1960). Lunn, Geoff. Port of London Shipping: An Era of Change. The History Press Ltd (2004). Marsland, Ellis. The Fire at the Millennium Mills at the Victoria Docks, Silvertown, London on January 19th 1917; A Memorandum. The British Fire Prevention Committee (1917). Pevsner, N. Cherry, Bridget. & O’Brien, Charles. Buildings of England: London: East v. 5. Yale University Press, 2005. Pevsner, N & Williamson, Elizabeth. Buildings of England: An Architectural Guide: London Docklands. Penguin (1999). Port of London Authority. A Commercial Guide to the River Thames. Pyramid Press (1963). Rule, Fiona. London’s docklands: A history of the lost quarter. Ian Allan Publishing, Surrey (2012). Scott, James Hay. Flour Milling Processes, 2nd Edition (1951). Stratton, Michael. Twentieth Century Industrial Archaeology (2000). Labour and Business in Modern Britain (1989). Archive (Journal) Edge, Graham. Rebuilt Millennium Flour Mills (2003).

Unpublished Sources Bird, Edmund. Heritage Scoping Study of the Royal Docks Masterplan Area. London Development Agency (2010) Spillers Advisory Bulletin (1955) Old Change: The House Journal of the Spiller Group (1963) Spillers Pamphlets [various] Sargent, E. The Development of the Royal Docks, London within Thames Gateway: Recording Historic Buildings and Landscapes on the Thames Estuary; 108-123. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (1995).

General Reference Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2011

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 25 Addendum

Drawings and Photographs

1. 1904 Plan of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archives

2. 1904 Elevation of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archives

3. 1904 Section of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 26 4. 1920 Drawing of Silo D by Henry Simon Ltd. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 27 5. Animal Foods Factory Under Construction, Spiller’s 6. B Silo Extension, Spiller’s Millennium Mills – c1933. British Millennium Mills – c1933. British Library Library

7. Spiller’s Millennium Mills in the 1930s. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 28 8. 1936 PLA Map. PLA Archives

9. 1948 PLA Map. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 29 10. Bomb Damage Map, Newham Local Studies Archive

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 30 11a and b. 1947 Plan for the Reconstruction of Rank’s Warehouses, by T.P. Bennett, PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 31 12a and c. 1951 Drawings for ‘A Silo’s Reconstruction. Newham Borough Council Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 32 13. c1953 Photograph of Millennium Mills. PLA Archives

14. 1955 Photograph of Millennium Mills. PLA Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 33 15. 1962 Proposals for a Weighbridge. Note the plan shows the entire complex as planned in 1962 Newham Borough Council Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 34 16a and b. 1968 Proposals for a New Plant House on the Animal Foods Block. Newham Borough Council Planning Archives

m ha ew f N h o ug oro B on nd Lo

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 35 17. 1976 Proposals for an Extension to the Animal Foods Block. Newham Borough Council Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 36 Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 37 Site Survey Descriptions 3.1 Setting

Millennium and Rank’s Mills are located at the Pontoon Dock of the Royal Victoria Docks, in the Borough of Newham. The Royal Victoria Docks were laid out in 1850 and the Pontoon Dock to the south opened in 1858 to the designs of the engineers Edwin Clark and George P Bidder. The Pontoon Dock survives, though greatly altered with only one of its eight original pontoon berths unfi lled. The site once held the nation’s largest collection of 20th century mill buildings, today only remnants remain. The site has largely been cleared of its industrial past, these survivors, including the Millennium and Rank’s Mills complexes and the listed Silo D are reminders of this vast dock’s former industry.

3.2 The Buildings Externally

3.2.1 Elevations

Block A (Millennium Mills)

This block dates from 1906 and 1933. The building has two sections, one being 11 storeys, and the other 7. The 11 storey section of the building is topped by a gambrel roof. It presents a Dutch gable to the west, a deep dentil band course defi nes its 9th storey, and small pediments decorate the pilasters; fi nials complete the composition. The construction date is written in the parapet (1933). The ground and fi rst fl oor have been left partly open, partly blocked where an extension once stood (Plate 23). The north façade of the 11-storey block is visible from other parts of the building and has a metal fi re escape which reaches down to a fl at roof on the 7-storey section of the building. There is a windowless steel-framed, corrugated metal infi ll atop the 7-storey section of the 1933 building, this infi ll dates from c1970. The building’s south façade is plainer; its gambrel roof is expressed in the gable. From ground to the 6th fl oor, windows have been blocked; decoration is minimal, with pediments to the pilasters, and “‘Spillers ”’ is written in the parapet (though barely visible) (Plate 24). Plate 23 The east façade has its 9th storey defi ned by dentil work, pedimented pilasters, plain parapet and fi nials; it has a metal framed portico above the ground fl oor (Plate 25).

To the north of this block lies a 1954-5 extension which links the 1933 and 1953 mill buildings. This 11 storey building is concrete framed. Its west façade is divided into six bays, the central two are defi ned by a relief frame and central pilaster. It has a pared down parapet, with raised geometric dentil work, ‘1954’ is displayed on the parapet (Plate 26). Its north façade is divided into three bays, its plainly-detailed parapet contains red tiles spelling out “‘Spillers ”’, The ground fl oor is sheltered by a simply-detail concrete portico.

Block B (Millennium Mills)

Contains the 1953 Mill and Warehouse Building, which exemplifi es the ‘stripped classicism’ of the Art Deco style; its construction consists of a concrete frame with brick infi ll panels. The north façade of the 10 storey Plate 24

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 38 building has a pared down parapet, with raised geometric dentil work, the tenth storey rises above the parapet at the central fi ve bays. Its north façade is divided into 13 bays; subdivided by pilasters topped with banded capitals. The central bay of the parapet bears the Mill’s name in red tiles: “‘Millennium Mills ”’. Its ground fl oor is fi nished with engineering bricks, it openings have been blocked. A simply-detailed concrete portico stretches nine bays wide above the ground fl oor. This façade has been painted white (Plate 27). The south façade of the 1953 Mill and Warehouse Building is of concrete frame, with brick infi ll, this time its concrete frame and brickwork exposed. Again, the façade is divided into 13 bays by concrete pilasters and the central bay of the parapet bears the Mill’s name in red tiles: “‘Millennium Mills ”’ (Plate 28). A portico above the ground fl oor stretches 11 bays. This section of the building is open at ground level for loading, supported on square-section reinforced concrete columns.

Block C (Millennium Mills)

Dates from 1951, and is part of the 10 storey Silo and Dryer House. This building abuts the early-20th-century Rank’s Mill Warehouse buildings. Its north façade is divided into three bays; its plainly-detailed parapet contains red tiles spelling out “‘Spillers ”’. The ground fl oor is sheltered by a simply-detail concrete portico. Its east façade is plain, though is now decorated with a striking piece of graffi ti. Its south façade is no longer extant having been demolished; instead remnants of internal walls can be seen (Plate 29). Windows of the Millennium Mills buildings appear to all be steel-framed casements.

North of the complex, lining the main dock are original stone sets and railway lines. Remnants of concrete platforms which supported the cranes also line the quay. There are fragments of 20th-century equipment, including winches and bollards. The concrete jetties of the mills remain adjacent to the quay walls. Concrete lines the ground to the south of the complex, where buildings once stood.

A Warehouse (Rank’s Mill)

This 7 storey building has a brown brick envelope, with brown brick arch window head details. The north façade is divided into 12 bays, defi ned by pilasters. The arched windows are awning casements. The top storey of this building has been rebuilt, and extended probably c1950, this fl oor is likely to be engineering brick covered with render. This storey has central casement windows. The east façade is exposed yellow engineering brick with earlier stock in sections. There are window openings only to the 7th storey, which date from 1947 and are central casements. A 20th century metal fi re escape abuts this south side of this façade.

B Warehouse (Rank’s Mill)

This 7 storey building has a brown brick envelope, with brown brick arch window head details on the south façade. The arched windows which Plates 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 remain are awning casements. Many openings have been blocked,

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 39 particularly where the former mill abutted the warehouse building. The east elevation has been rebuilt using engineering brick, 1947. The irregular window openings to this elevation are central casements.

C Warehouse (Rank’s Mill)

A 5-storey building; probably originally cast iron structure, with reinforced concrete plank fl oors, which were later replaced by timber fl oors and steel I-beam riveted columns and beams (Cargo Fleet steel). Externally, the building has a brown brick envelope, with red brick arch window head details to its east and south façades. The west and south façades are open at ground level, the lintel and columns being steel I-beams.

D Warehouse (Rank’s Mill)

A 7-storey building. Its construction is of steel section, riveted columns and beams – probably a later, mid-century underpinning of the early 20th century warehouse . Externally, the building has a brown brick envelope, with red brick arch window head details. The arched windows are awning casements. The upper storeys have a 1947 extension, which has made the gabled roof fl at; this fl oor is likely to be engineering brick covered with render; this level has central casement windows. Inside, bull-nosed bricks are used for window surrounds. Rails set into concrete, run up to and through the building at ground fl oor level.

3.2.2 Roofs

Block A

Asphalt over the 1933 mansarded and fl at 1971 section, where the roofi ng material has disintegrated. Felt roof over the 1954 section of the building.

Block B

Flat, asphalt over concrete

Block C

Flat, asphalt over concrete

Warehouses A, B, C and D (Rank’s Mill)

Flat, asphalt

3.3 The Buildings Internally

Block A

This building comprises sections from 1933, 1954-5 and a 1971 infi ll at 7th-11th fl oors. For the most part, these buildings are read internally as ‘one’; their fl oors aligning to create large open plan spaces. The structure

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 40 is a reinforced concrete frame, with a mixture of slab concrete and timber fl oors supported by system of square reinforced concrete columns, primary and secondary beams. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Some internal walls are engineering brick, such as the staircase and lift shafts. Metal casement windows with central openings. Staircases are concrete with textured steel treads; simple wooden handrail with metal hoop fi xings. The 1971 infi ll is steel-framed and clad with corrugated metal sheeting.

11th Floor 1954-5 section of the building is accessed from the roof. Tile fl oors. Purifi cation machinery is still in place. The fl at roof is felted and has metal fl ues.

10th Floor 1971 Plant extension was accessed from this level. It is of steel-frame

Plate 30 construction, clad in corrugated metal. The infi ll has three levels accessed by open tread metal stairs. Retains most of its original machinery and equipment (Plate 30). In the 1954-5 building is narrow timber plank fl ooring, presumably over two other layers of timber (as seen elsewhere). Large square metal casement windows with two openings. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Columns submerged in (brick) walls. Sprinkler-system still in place. Larger space – on a square grid of (narrower) reinforced concrete columns and beams, again the fl oors are narrow timber planks, presumably over two other layers of timber (as seen elsewhere). Circular holes cut into the fl oors. The beams Plate 31 all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Sprinkler-system, lighting and wiring still in place. Large metal casement windows with single central openings in the north wall, large square metal casement windows with two openings in the west wall.

9th Floor In the 1954-5 building is narrow timber plank fl ooring, presumably over two other layers of timber (as seen elsewhere). One large opening in the fl oor and other smaller holes cut into fl oors. Large square metal Plate 32 casement windows with three openings. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Columns submerged in walls. Sprinkler- system, lighting and wiring still in place (Plates 31 and 32).

8th Floor In the 1954-5 building is narrow timber plank fl ooring, presumably over two other layers of timber (as seen elsewhere). One large opening in the fl oor and other smaller holes cut into fl oors. Large square metal casement windows with three openings. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Columns submerged in walls. Sprinkler- system, lighting and wiring still in place.

7th Floor Entrance onto ‘terraced’ area from staircase; on terrace a single-storey block set back extension. 1971 infi ll building can be viewed here. In the 1954-5 building is narrow timber plank fl ooring, presumably over two

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 41 other layers of timber (as seen elsewhere). One large opening in the fl oor and other smaller holes cut into fl oors. Large square metal casement windows with three openings. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. Columns submerged in walls. Sprinkler-system, lighting and wiring still in place.

6th Floor Concrete slab fl oor; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams, beams submerged in outer walls; brick offi ce partition with glazing. Steel casing to column bases. Lifts, with brick-built shafts and sliding folding shutters. circular holes in fl oors above; danger signs read: Danger Top Floor Step Off. This area has vertical supports. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler-system still in place. Glazing varied metal-framed casements; 12-pane, 18-pane and 20-pane. Double opening with timber doors in the east wall of the 1933 building. Windowless south wall.

5th Floor Concrete slab fl oor; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams, beams submerged in outer walls; brick offi ce partition with glazing. Steel casing to column bases. Lifts, with brick-built shafts and sliding folding shutters. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler-system still in place. Glazing varied metal-framed casements; 12-pane, 18- pane and 20-pane. Double opening in the east wall of the 1933 building. Windowless south wall.

4th Floor Concrete slab fl oor; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams, beams submerged in outer walls; brick offi ce partition with glazing. Steel casing to column bases. Lifts, with brick-built shafts and sliding folding shutters. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler-system still in place. Glazing varied metal-framed casements; 12-pane, 18-pane and 20-pane. Double opening in the east and west walls of the 1933 building, another single opening in the west wall, presumably providing access to a four-storey extension which has since been demolished. Windowless south wall.

3rd Floor Concrete slab fl oor; brick offi ce partition with glazing; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams. Steel casing to column bases. Lift(s), with sliding folding shutters. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler-system still in place. Five large openings in the west wall of the 1933 building, show where a four-storey extension would have been. Windowless south wall.

2nd Floor Concrete slab fl oor; brick offi ce partition with glazing; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams. Steel casing to column bases. Lift(s), with sliding folding shutters. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler- system still in place. Holes where machinery has been cut out – reveal reinforcement bars (Plate 33). Windowless south wall.

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 42 1st Floor Concrete slab fl oor; brick offi ce partition with glazing; chamfer-stop detail to reinforced concrete columns and beams. Steel casing to column bases. Lift(s), with sliding folding shutters. Flour shoots remain in situ. Sprinkler- system still in place. Windowless south wall.

Ground Floor Machinery. Concrete slab fl oor. Reinforced concrete columns and beams. All windows blocked.

Block B

This building was built in 1953. The structure is a reinforced concrete frame, with brick infi ll panels. The mixture of timber and slab concrete fl oors are supported by system of square columns and beams. Columns are more widely spaced and are completely submerged in internal walls, freeing up space for the machinery. Internal walls are engineering brick, with concrete framing. The beams all feature chamfer stop detailing to their edges. This building contains multi-level silos, which are presumed to be located at the centre of the plan.

10th Floor Central pop-up section on roof. Slender square reinforced concrete columns, and beams with chamfer stop detailing. Columns submerged in walls. Concrete fl oors, large holes have been boarded up. Some machinery including cyclones and ducts remain. Sprinkler-system still in place. Access to roof from opening in west wall.

9th Floor Concrete fl oors. Slender square reinforced concrete columns and slender square-section steel columns. Machinery, ducts, lighting and sprinkler system remain in various states (Plate 34).

8th Floor South side - A mixture of concrete and timber fl oors with (asbestos) tiling over. Beams with chamfer stop detailing (no free-standing columns - submerged in walls). Two rows of silo bins, and ducts run almost the length of the space, lighting and sprinkler system remain, in fairly good state (Plate35). Large square metal-framed windows with two casement openings. Machinery in circulation space (Plate 36). North side - Circular openings in timber fl oors. Beams to the ceiling with chamfer stop detail. Concrete plinths remain where machines have been removed. Ducts and equipment remain in the north east corner. Large rectangular metal- framed windows with two casement openings. Large opening in north wall. Some light fi ttings remain.

7th Floor South side - A mixture of concrete and timber fl oors with (asbestos) tiling over. Beams with chamfer stop detailing (no free-standing columns - submerged in walls). Two rows of silo bins, and ducts run almost the length of the space, lighting and sprinkler system remain, in fairly good Plates 33, 34, 35 and 36

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 43 state. Timber partitioned offi ces at north east corner. Large rectangular metal-framed windows with two casement openings. North side – concrete and timber fl oors. Beams to the ceiling with chamfer stop detail. Large rectangular metal-framed windows with two casement openings. Large opening in north wall. An operation screen and light fi ttings remain.

6th Floor (Labelled 7 in building) South side – timber fl oors, beams to the ceiling with chamfer stop detail. Boards presumably cover openings in fl oors. Large rectangular metal- framed windows with two casement openings. Some lighting remains. North side - A mixture of concrete and timber fl oors, with (asbestos) tiling over. Concrete beams, with chamfer stop detailing (no free-standing columns - submerged in walls). Some machinery, ducts, lighting and sprinkler system remain.

5th Floor (Labelled 6) South side - (Asbestos) fl oor tiles. Timber-framed portioned offi ce/ operating room. Some light fi ttings, ducts and sprinkler system remain. Large rectangular metal-framed windows with two casement openings. North side - Large opening in north wall. (Asbestos) fl oor tiles over concrete. Remnants of machinery, control panels, ducts and drive belts and cams remain. Large silo bins/drums.

4th Floor (Labelled 5) Concrete fl oors with circular openings for fl our shoots. Floors is boarded, likely to be covering openings in fl oors. Large and slender square reinforced concrete columns and beams with chamfer stop detail. Offi ces (?) to centre of plan with metal framed borrowed light windows. Some machinery, ducts and light fi ttings remain. Large rectangular metal- framed windows with two casement openings.

3rd Floor Concrete fl oors; thick square concrete columns; partial remnants of fl our shoots; machinery; ducts; sprinkler system; Central steel podium with steps up.

2nd Floor (Labelled 3) Thick square concrete columns and slender steel square-section columns on concrete bases; beams with an inverted stepped profi le; mixture of concrete and timber sandwich construction fl oors; brick walls in line with columns subdivide the spaces slightly; lifts with brick shaft and sliding metal doors; fl our shoots; remnants of ducts; large silo bins; sprinkler system; rectangular metal-framed windows (Plate 37).

1st Floor (Labelled 2 in building) Reinforced concrete fl oor; thick square reinforced concrete columns; brick lift shaft; deep I-section steel beams; large silo bins; fl our shoots; sprinkler system; wiring.

Ground Floor Concrete slab fl oor; thick square reinforced concrete columns. Plate 37 Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 44 Block C

This Silo Extension, known as ‘Silo A’ was built in 1951. This building abuts Block B, the connection between the two can be clearly seen in Plate 38. This building contains multi-level concrete silo structures. This building was partially demolished in the 1990s.

The concrete structure is exposed, with a chamfer detail to the beams, reinforced columns are used to support larger rooms; whilst steel columns support some fl oors; painted brickwork; reinforced concrete plank fl oors; some machinery still in place, as well as sack shoots.

8th Floor Slender square reinforced concrete columns; control panels; operating room; lift with metal sliding door; some machinery and equipment such Plate 38 as troughs still extant (Plate 39); let by oblong metal-framed clerestory windows. Open at south where part of the building has been demolished.

7th Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete and timber fl oors; timber partition offi ces; lift with metal sliding doors; ducts and silo bins.

6th Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete and timber fl oors; timber Plate 39 partition offi ces; lift with metal sliding doors; ducts and silo bins.

5th Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete and timber fl oors; timber partition operating room; lift with metal sliding doors; ducts and silo bins (Plate 46).

4th Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete and timber fl oors; openings in fl oors; timber partition operating room; lift with metal sliding doors; ducts and silo bins.

3rd Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete and timber fl oors; openings in fl oors; timber partition offi ces and operating room; lift with metal sliding Plate 40 doors; ducts and silo bins (Plate 40).

2nd Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete fl oors; machinery; concrete plinths.

1st Floor Square reinforced concrete columns; concrete fl oors; machinery; concrete plinths;

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 45 Ground Floor Concrete slab fl oor; thick square reinforced concrete columns.

Warehouses A- D (Rank’s Mill)

The ground fl oor has large openings to the east, south and west for transport and where former buildings once abutted these warehouses. This fl oor contains little to exhibit its original function; however the industrial nature of the space is evident in the rail tracks which line the fl oor and the exposed cast and steel columns which support the upper fl oors.

A Warehouse, the ground fl oor is double height with a concrete fl oor, and has cast iron columns, with mushroom capitals holding I beams. The fl oors from the fi rst to seventh storey are timber. B Warehouse has timber fl oors, and steel I-beam riveted columns and beams. C Warehouse is of Plate 41 a steel I-beam structure, a reinforced concrete plank fl oor supports the fi rst fl oor; the fl oors above are timber. A small, single storey engineering brick structure sits within the warehouse, possibly a WC. D Warehouse has reinforced concrete fl oors supporting the fi rst fl oor; whilst the levels above are timber (Plate 41).

The upper storeys were not inspected for safety reasons. However, hatches cut through fi rst to seventh fl oor for winching grain to the upper storeys allow the upper storeys to be viewed. Shoots and other remnants of equipment remain, probably dating from the early 1950s (Plate 42).

Plate 42

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 46 Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 47 Commentary on the 4.1 Description of the Proposals and their Impact on Proposals the Non-Designated Heritage Assets

These current proposals are submitted for planning permission to allow the initial site phase of a scheme that is currently being developed in detail by AHMM architects. This scheme, which aim to convert the abandoned complex into an ‘incubator’ offi ce-block for small businesses with a restaurant/café on the top fl oor and a sheltered ‘market’ area on the ground fl oor; will be the subject of a forthcoming application; the current proposals are for preparatory works only.

As noted previously, the southern section of Block A contains remnants of the earliest part of the building, dating from 1906 and 1933 and retains its decorative Dutch gable to the south elevation, while the northern section is a later infi ll from 1954 and (at high level only) 1971. The proposals would retain the southern section of Block A and remove the internal concrete silos.

Block B, which faces onto the dockfront, was constructed in 1953 with a concrete frame and brick infi ll, its facades designed in a stripped neo- classical style with brick spandrel panels in the concrete frame. It, too, would be retained, and the internal silos removed.

Adjoining this to the east is Block C, which comprises reinforced concrete grain silos. The southern section of this block was partially demolished in the early 1990’s together with another block of concrete silos to the south. Together these buildings once formed a semi- enclosed yard, further bounded by elevator ramps . Block C would be demolished (to be replaced by a new concrete-framed structure of a similar scale). At the top floor level the current roof-top extensions would be removed and the walled pediment and signage would be reconfi- gured.

The necessary structural alterations to the complex to allow reuse are described in more technical detail in the accompanying Design and Access Statement but, in brief, the specifi c alterations would comprise: Block A • Remaining milling machinery removed, stripped of asbestos- containing paint and set-aside for considered re-use as sculptural artefacts located both in the interior and to the exterior of the complex. • Remaining areas of asbestos-contaminated maple fl oor would be removed. • All internal asbestos-contaminated paint fi nish to walls, ceilings and columns would be removed by specialist contractors. • Concrete silos to north section removed at upper levels together with a section of the north façade. • The internal silos to the south-west would also be removed. •The decorative brick gable to the south elevation would be repaired and restored. • The existing, corroded metal-framed windows would be removed. • The lightweight 1970’s high-level infi ll extension would be removed.

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 48 Block B • Remaining machinery would be removed, stripped of asbestos- containing paint and set-aside for considered re-use as sculptural artefacts. • Remaining areas of contaminated maple fl oor would be removed. • All internal asbestos-contaminated paintwork to columns, fl oor slabs and walls would be removed. • The internal silos to the east and west would also be removed.

Block C • This block of concrete silos would be demolished.

4.2 Commentary on the Proposals

The Millennium Mills complex has lain abandoned and derelict for several decades, a forlorn reminder of the global scale of the industry that once centred on the docksides. Any realistic proposals to provide a viable new use, therefore, provide a great number of public benefi ts for the decaying heritage asset. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is the legislative basis for decision making on applications that relate to the historic environment. Sections 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty upon local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals upon listed buildings and their setting and conservation areas, but not, however, buildings considered of local architectural and historical interest.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) has subsequently crystallised previous policy approaches to the historic environment and also emphasises the need to take account of the pros and cons of a proposal to alter and adapt buildings of local architectural and historical interest. It also notes planning authorities should ‘look for opportunities …within the setting of heritage assets that enhance or better reveal their signifi cance’ (NPPF, 137) With particular regard to ‘non-designated’ heritage assets such as Millennium Mills, policy states that ‘a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the signifi cance of the heritage asset’ (NPPF, 135).

It is unusual, of course, that an application for planning permission for partial demolition works should be made to a non-designated heritage asset without fi nal proposals in place. However, the proposed demolition of the concrete silos (eventually to allow to new circulation structures such as lift and stair cores and areas of fl oor plates) are essential to allow future re-use of the mill buildings. The silos have some historic interest as part of the mill fabric but are not visible externally or accessible internally. The silos in blocks A and B do not contribute to the ’primary signifi cance of the mill complex which, is noted lies in its powerful physical presence on the dockside and its contribution to local character and sense of place. Where the removal of the concrete silos in these blocks would entail some demolition of the north façade, this comparatively small area would then be rebuilt to match the existing, ensuring that the external character of the building is preserved. The removal of the silos in Block C, would necessitate the complete demolition of the structure, however future proposals would echo, the scale, mass, form and industrial aesthetic. Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 49 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

The Act is legislative basis for decision making on applications that relate to the historic environment.

Sections 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty upon local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals upon listed buildings and conservation areas.

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that:

in considering whether to grant permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or as the case may be the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Similarly, section 72(I) of the above Act states that:

… with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

National Planning Policy Framework

Any proposals for consent relating to heritage assets are subject to the policies of the NPPF (2012). This sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With regard to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, the framework requires proposals relating to heritage assets to be justifi ed and an explanation of their effect on the heritage asset’s signifi cance provided.

The NPPF has the following relevant policies for proposals such as this:

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

The NPPF sets out twelve core planning principles that should underpin decision making (paragraph 17). Amongst those are that planning should:

• not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in fi nding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives; • proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 50 account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating suffi cient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities; • always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; • support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of fl ood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); • conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their signifi cance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;

With regard to the signifi cance of a heritage asset, the framework contains the following policies:

129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular signifi cance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise confl ict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

In determining applications local planning authorities are required to take account of signifi cance, viability, sustainability and local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF identifi es the following criteria in relation to this:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the signifi cance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

With regard to potential ‘harm’ to the signifi cance designated heritage asset, in paragraph 132 the framework states the following:

…great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Signifi cance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justifi cation.

With regard to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the signifi cance of a designated heritage asset, of the NPPF states the following;

134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 51 Appendix I

Planning Policy and Guidance

harm to the signifi cance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefi ts of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

In relation to the consideration of applications for development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 137 of the document states the following:

Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the signifi cance of the asset should be treated favourably.

In terms of non-designated heritage assets, the NPPF states:

135. The effect of an application on the signifi cance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balance judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the signifi cance of the heritage asset.

With regards to the loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to a Conservation Area, paragraph 138 states this should be treated:

…As substantial harm under paragraph 133 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 134, as appropriate, taking into account the relative signifi cance of the element affected and its contribution to the signifi cance of the Conservation Area…as a whole.

National Planning Policy Guidance

The planning practice guidance was published on the 6th March 2014 to support the National Planning Policy Framework and the planning system. It includes particular guidance on matters relating to protecting the historic environment in the section: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. The relevant guidance is as follows:

Paragraph 3: What is meant by the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment? The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their signifi cance is a core planning principle. Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and effective conservation delivers wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefi ts.

Conservation is an active process of maintenance and managing change. It requires a fl exible and thoughtful approach to get the best out of assets as diverse as listed buildings in every day use to as yet undiscovered, undesignated buried remains of archaeological interest. In the case of buildings, generally the risks of neglect and decay of heritage assets are best addressed through ensuring that they remain in active use that is consistent with their conservation. Ensuring such heritage assets remain used and valued is likely to require sympathetic changes to be made from time to time. In the case of archaeological sites, many have no active use, and so for those kinds of sites, periodic changes may not be necessary.

Where changes are proposed, the National Planning Policy Framework sets out a clear framework for both plan- making and decision-taking to ensure that heritage assets are conserved, and where appropriate enhanced, in

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 52 a manner that is consistent with their signifi cance and thereby achieving sustainable development.

Part of the public value of heritage assets is the contribution that they can make to understanding and interpreting our past. So where the complete or partial loss of a heritage asset is justifi ed, the aim then is to capture and record the evidence of the asset’s signifi cance which is to be lost, interpret its contribution to the understanding of our past, and make that publicly available.

Paragraph 8: What is “signifi cance”? “Signifi cance” in terms of heritage policy is defi ned in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In legislation and designation criteria, the terms ‘special architectural or historic interest’ of a listed building and the ‘national importance’ of a scheduled monument are used to describe all or part of the identifi ed heritage asset’s signifi cance. Some of the more recent designation records are more helpful as they contain a fuller, although not exhaustive, explanation of the signifi cance of the asset.

Paragraph 9: Why is ‘signifi cance’ important in decision-taking? Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting. Being able to properly assess the nature, extent and importance of the signifi cance of a heritage asset, and the contribution of its setting, is very important to understanding the potential impact and acceptability of development proposals

Paragraph 13: What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into account? The “setting of a heritage asset” is defi ned in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework.

A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the signifi cance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that signifi cance and the ability to appreciate it.

Setting is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced, and may therefore be more extensive than its curtilage. All heritage assets have a setting, irrespective of the form in which they survive and whether they are designated or not.

The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also infl uenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places. For example, buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection that amplifi es the experience of the signifi cance of each.

The contribution that setting makes to the signifi cance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance.

When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s signifi cance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its ongoing conservation.

Paragraph 20: What is meant by the term public benefi ts? Public benefi ts may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefi ts should fl ow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefi t to the public at large and should not just be a private benefi t. However, benefi ts do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefi ts.

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 53 Public benefi ts may include heritage benefi ts, such as:

• sustaining or enhancing the signifi cance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting • reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset • securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset

Paragraph 7 states:

There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that suffi cient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that refl ect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well- being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

Newham Borough Council Policies

The Newham Core Strategy (2012) relevant policies are: SP5 Heritage and other Successful Place-making Assets.

Objective 6.48 Recognise the value of heritage and other assets (natural, cultural, architectural, and infrastructural) through their protection, conservation, and enhancement.

Policy The value of heritage and other assets (natural, cultural, architectural, and infrastructural) which contribute to local character and successful places will be recognised by protection, conservation, and enhancement of the assets and their settings.

To this end, proposals which address the following in their concept, design and implementation will be supported:

1. An approach to urban design that recognises the strengths and weaknesses of local character and seeks to contribute positively to the composition of the townscape, achieving better integration and enhancement of new and old, natural and built environments, infrastructure and living environments;

2. The need to conserve and enhance designated and non-designated heritage assets, with any change to them based on an understanding of the nature of their signifi cance and the contribution of their settings to that signifi cance, seeking to increase their presence and encourage wider appreciation, ownership of, and access to them; and

3. The need for innovation to realise the value of assets and secure viable, sustainable and appropriate futures for them, particularly where they are under-performing, reconciling this with the sensitivity to change presented by many (see also Policies SC4, INF6 and INF7).

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 54 The London Plan

On the 11th October 2013, the Mayor published Revised Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan (REMA) which now from part of the development plan for Greater London. The adopted London Plan (2011) contains the following policies relating to the historic built environment. Specifi cally, the Plan includes the following relevant policies:

Policy 7.8: Heritage Assets and Archaeology

Strategic

A London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural and historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefi elds, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials should be identifi ed, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their signifi cance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account.

B Development should incorporate measures that identify, record, interpret, protect and, where appropriate, present the site’s archaeology.

Planning decisions

C Development should identify, value, conserve, restore, re-use and incorporate heritage assets, where appropriate. D Development affecting heritage assets and their settings should conserve their signifi cance by being sympathetic to their form, scale, materials and architectural detail.

Policy 7.9: Heritage-led regeneration

Strategic

A Regeneration schemes should identify and make use of heritage assets and reinforce the qualities that make them signifi cant so they can help stimulate environmental, economic and community regeneration. This includes buildings, landscape features, views, Blue Ribbon Network and public realm.

Planning decisions

B The signifi cance of heritage assets should be assessed when development is proposed and schemes designed so that the heritage signifi cance is recognised both in their own right and as catalysts for regeneration. Wherever possible heritage assets (including buildings at risk) should be repaired, restored and put to a suitable and viable use that is consistent with their conservation and the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality.

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 55 Appendix II Plates

1. Mills Complex in 2013. DIA List of Plates and 2. Millennium Mills in 1917. PLA Archive Endnotes 3. The Royal Victoria Dock Flour Milling Complexes, 1960s. PLA Archive 4. Flour-Loading at Millennium Mills in the 1960s. PLA Archive 5. Machinery in Millennium Mills. DIA 6. Illustrated London News, 1854. 7. 1859 Plan of the Graving Dock. PLA Archives 8. Illustrated London News, 1859. 9. Photograph of the Silos under construction at the Pontoon Dock c1890. PLA Archive 10. 1904 Sections of Rank’s Mills by Gelder & Kitchen. PLA Archive 11. 1904 Lease Plan of Vernon’s Mills. PLA Archive 12. 1904 Plan of Vernon’s Mills, by John Clarke FRIBA. PLA Archive 13. Millennium Mills pre 1917. PLA Archive 14. Millennium Mills 1917. National Archives 15. Photograph of Silo D in the 1960s. PLA Archive 16. Spiller’s Millennium Mills in the 1930s. PLA Archive 17. The Mills in the 1946. PLA Archives 18. 1951 Drawing for ‘A Silo’s Reconstruction. PLA Archive 19. Spillers Map 20. 1957 Photograph of Millennium Mills. PLA Archive 21. Aerial View of the Mills, 1960s. PLA Archive 22. Millennium Mills from the South, 1984. PLA Archive Plates 23-42 Current Photographs of Millennium and Rank’s Mills

Addendum Figures

1. 1904 Plan of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archive 2. Elevation of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archive 3. Section of Vernon’s Mills by John Clarke’s FRIBA. PLA Archive 4. Section of Silo D, 1920 by Henry Simon Ltd. PLA Archive 5. Animal Foods Factory Under Construction, Spiller’s Millennium Mills – c1933. British Library 6. B Silo Extension, Spiller’s Millennium Mills – c1933. British Library 7. Spiller’s Millennium Mills in the 1930s. PLA Archive 8. 1936 Map of the Royal Victoria Docks. PLA Archive 9. 1948 Map of the Royal Victoria Docks. PLA Archive 10. Bomb Damage Map, Newham Local Studies Archive 11. a and b. 1947 Drawings for the Reconstruction of Rank’s Warehouses, by T.P. Bennett, PLA Archive 12. a and c. 1951 Drawings for ‘A Silo’s Reconstruction. Newham Borough Council Planning Archive 13. c1953 Photograph of Millennium Mills. PLA Archive 14. 1955 Photograph of Millennium Mills. PLA Archive 15. a-b. 1962 Proposals for a Weighbridge. Newham Borough Council Planning Archive 16. 1968 Proposals for a New Plant House on the Animal Foods Block. Newham Borough Council Planning Archive 17. 1976 Proposals for an Extension to the Animal Foods Block. Newham Borough Council Planning Archives

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 56 Endnotes

1 National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 Clause 135 2 Pevsner, N. Cherry, Bridget. & O’Brien, Charles. Pevsner Architectural Guides: Buildings of England: London: East v. 5.(Yale University Press, 2005) p290 3 Pevsner, N & Williamson, E. London Docklands: The Buildings of England: An Architectural Guide, p181 4 Rule, Fiona. London’s docklands: A history of the lost quarter. (Ian Allan Publishing, Surrey, 2012) p185 5 Rule, Fiona. London’s docklands: A history of the lost quarter, p185 6 Harvey, Charles. Labour and Business in Modern Britain p86 7 Corley, T. A. B. ‘Rank, Joseph (1854–1943)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2008. 8 Minutes of the London and India Dock Company January 1901-February 1904. PLA Archives. 9 http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=1128. Accessed 18.11.13 10 Excerpts from the PLA Archives. 11 Minutes of the PLA February 1945. PLA Archives 12 Edge, Graham. Rebuilt Millennium Flour Mills. (2003) p59 13 Jones, Glyn. The Millers: A Story of Technological Endeavour and Industrial Success, 1870-2001. (Carnegie Publishing, 2001) p320 14 Edge, Graham. Rebuilt Millennium Flour Mills, p58 15 Spillers Ltd Brochure c1955 16 RIBA Journal v43, 1936, p1100

Donald Insall Associates Millennium Mills 57 London Offi ce 12 Devonshire Street London, W1G 7AB Tel: 020 7245 9888 www.insall-architects.co.uk