4 mastmaker and 1 millharbour report by I94xU31


									                                                        planning report PDU/1275/01
                                                                                5 April 2006

                       4 Mastmaker Place & 1 Millharbour
                                          in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
                                 planning application no. 05/01781 and 05/01782

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999;
Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000

The proposal
1 Millharbour: Erection of two towers of 48 and 39 storeys to provide 763 residential units,
retail (Class A1), food and drink (Class A3, A4), business (B1) and leisure uses with new
vehicular access, parking, open space and landscaping. The current application seeks
alteration to an approved building on the site. Construction work has already started on site.

4 Mastmaker Place: Redevelopment of the site, by erection of buildings up to 21 storeys in
height comprising 190 residential units, retail (A1) or food and drink (A3) and community
uses (Class D1/D2) together with new access arrangements, parking, open space and

The two applications are linked as the applicant seeks to provide most of the affordable
housing for 1 Millharbour at 4 Mastmaker Place.

The applicant
The applicant is Fortress Ltd (part of the Ballymore Group), and the architects are Brady
Mallalieu Architects (4 Mastmaker Place) and Skidmore, Ownings and Merrill (1
Millharbour) .

Strategic issues
Both developments are high-density well designed schemes that provide significant amounts
of housing, affordable housing and a mix of other uses. Unfortunately, the 4 Mastmaker
Place development is not in accordance with the Millennium Quarter Masterplan in that it
does not provide active ground floor uses. The principle of using the 4 Mastmaker Place site
for the off-site affordable for 1 Millharbour is accepted, however the development does not
meet its own requirements for affordable housing provision in terms of London Plan policies.
 Compared to the implemented planning permission at 1 Millharbour, the proposed scheme
  has incorporated better energy efficiency measures and technologies, although it still does
  not utilise renewable energy technologies. The 4 Mastmaker Place development does
  use renewables in line with the London Plan, however further work is required on the
  possibility of incorporating CHP and larger ground source heat pumps. Improvement is
  required to the main pedestrian route through the site and, in line with the original

                                                                                           page 1
   masterplan, a S.106 contribution is sought.

That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the principle of redevelopment of 4 Mastmaker
Place site to provide a proportion of the off-site affordable housing for 1 Millharbour is
generally supported in strategic policy terms subject to the concerns raised in this report.

1      On 16 November 2005 Tower Hamlets Council consulted the Mayor of London on a
proposal to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of the Town &
Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has the same opportunity as
other statutory consultees to comment on the proposal. This report sets out information for
the Mayor’s use in deciding what comments to make.

2       The application has two parts, 4 Mastmaker Place which is referable under Category
1C-1(c) of the Schedule of the Order 2000: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of
a building in respect of which one or more of the following conditions is met – the building is more than
30 metres high and outside the City of London”.

3     The second part of the development is 1 Millharbour which is also referable under
Category 1C-1(c) and:

                 1B-1(b) “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of
    houses, flats, or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings...
    and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 square metres”.

               1A “Development for more than 500 houses or flats”.

                3E “Development which does not accord with one or more provisions of the development
    plan in force in the area and includes the provision of more than 150 houses or flats or houses and

4     If Tower Hamlets Council subsequently decides that it is minded to grant planning
permission, it must first allow the Mayor an opportunity to decide whether to direct the
Council to refuse permission.

5       The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken
into account in the consideration of this case.

6      The Mayor of London’s comments on this case will be made available on the GLA
website www.london.gov.uk.

Site description
1 Millharbour

                                                                                                      page 2
7      This is a 0.5 hectare vacant site sandwiched on its eastern and western borders between
Millharbour and the Millwall Inner Dock; with Marsh Wall to the north and the Great Eastern
Enterprise Centre to the south. The elevated Docklands Light Railway runs through its north-
eastern corner. Large scale office developments exist or are being developed on sites adjoining
1 Millharbour, although further south the scale of development is typically two and three-
storey residential buildings. Construction work has already started on site for the previously
approved 1 Millharbour redevelopment.

8       Both of the sites are within an area south of East India Dock, known as the ‘Millennium
Quarter’, where a Council-led Master plan is in force. The Master plan, which was prepared by
EDAW for Tower Hamlets Council, was adopted in September 2000 as Interim Planning
Policy. Essentially, it makes provision for a higher density of commercial development in the
northern part of the area, which is closer to existing transport services, together with public
open spaces and shops. The southern part of the Quarter would be mainly residential, with a
central buffer of mixed uses to facilitate a smooth transition between the two zones. The
Quarter would complement Canary Wharf and other development north of East India Dock.
Both sites have a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of four, where six is the highest.

4 Mastmaker Place

9      This site has an area of 0.62 hectares and is located in the Isle of Dogs. The site is
approximately 400 metres south of Canary Wharf Station which it is connected to by the South
Quay footbridge, and approximately 100 metres from South Quay Docklands Light Railway
Station to the east. The site currently contains a car dealership and consists of a two-three
storey commercial building with open vehicle storage.

Case history
10    In 2001 Tower Hamlets Council decided it was minded to approve a scheme (Quadratic
scheme) for a 13-storey office building on 4 Mastmaker Place. Planning permission was
however never granted as the section 106 agreement was never agreed.

11     More significantly, there is an existing planning permission for 1 Millharbour.
Planning permission was granted in July 2005 for a 790 flat development within two tall
towers of 48 and 40 storeys. This permission was granted in July 2005. The Mayor
considered this application in both May 2003 (PDU/0017c/01) and March 2005
(PDU/0017c/02) whereby he concluded that although the level of affordable housing was low
compared to the London Plan requirement of 50%, it had been adequately justified and the
scheme was acceptable in strategic policy terms. This planning permission has been
implemented as work has begun on site.

Details of the proposal
1 Millharbour

12     As mentioned, there is a previous planning permission for a 790 flat development.
There was a requirement that this scheme provide 33% affordable housing, some of which was
to be provided on site, with the remainder off-site.

13     The current proposal is much the same as approved in terms of overall design and
height, although the differences include that there is now 764 residential units proposed, an
additional health club, a larger dockside restaurant and alterations to the bedroom mix and
tenure of the flats. The most significant change is the proposal now includes a higher
                                                                                         page 3
proportion of off-site affordable housing, although the overall provision of 33% affordable
housing is still proposed.

14     It is proposed that 86 habitable rooms (27 units) of Millharbour’s affordable housing
requirement will be provided on-site, while the remaining requirement will be provided at 4
Mastmaker Place.

15       The external appearance of these towers remains largely unchanged.

4 Mastmaker Place

16     The proposed development consists of linked buildings ranging in height from 3 to 21
storeys (up to a maximum height of 73.25m). The scheme provides 26,450 sq.m. of external
floorspace including 190 residential units, 68 sq.m for retail or food and drink (A1/A3/A4) and
185 sq.m. for community uses.

17      As the 1 Millharbour and 4 Mastmaker Place sites are linked, through the applicant’s
desire to provide off-site affordable housing, the mix of units cannot be considered on the
individual site basis, therefore the overall unit mix is supplied in appendix 1.

18       Appendix 1 includes a lot of detail, the table below attempts to simplify the proposals:

                  Total units (habitable rooms Total affordable units        Total affordable (%)
                  in brackets)                 (habitable rooms in brackets)

1 Millharbour 763 (1646)                        27 units (86) on-site          5.2%

4 Mastmaker       190 (631)                     136 (516)                      82%

19       The combination of the two proposals produces 33% affordable housing.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
20       The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

    Housing                       London Plan; Housing SPG
    Affordable housing            London Plan; PPG3; Housing SPG
    Density                       London Plan; PPG3; draft Housing Provision SPG
    Urban design                  London Plan; PPS1
    Mix of uses                   London Plan
    Transport                     London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13
    Parking                       London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13
    Access                        London Plan; PPS1; SPG “Accessible London: achieving an
                                   inclusive environment”; ODPM Planning and Access GPG
 Tall buildings/views             London Plan; RPG3A
 Sustainable development          London Plan; PPS1, PPG3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy
 River Thames/flooding            London Plan; PPG25; RPG3B

                                                                                            page 4
21     For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
the development plan in force for the area is the 1998 Tower Hamlets Unitary Development
Plan and the 2004 London Plan.

Mix of uses
22      As the land uses within the proposed redevelopment of 1 Millharbour remains largely
unchanged from the recently approved scheme, it does not raise any strategic planning
concerns. However, the affordable housing element of the proposal will be discussed later in
this report.

23     The 2000 Millennium Quarter Masterplan, divided the area into three land use zones.
The 4 Mastmaker Place proposal is within the zone identified as ‘residential and commercial mix’.
The document goes on to describes the preferred uses as being either housing or offices
providing that active ground floor uses are implemented. The current proposal only has a tiny
proportion of active use, one being a small care/retail unit on the corner of Mastmaker Road
and Byng Street, which is likely to be the part of the site that enjoys the highest pedestrian
flows, whereas the community centre is located internally within the site.

24     This desire to accommodate active uses at the ground level has not been achieved in this
instance. With the exception of the small shop unit, none of the street frontages are active and
the east-west public route abuts blank facade walls and gardens.

25      Given the lack of active uses at the ground floor, the proposal does not accord with the
aspirations of the masterplan. However, it is recognised that the provision of housing at the
lower levels does have other benefits in that it does allow the four bedroom units at the ground
floor to have private gardens and the provision of communal courtyards and communal

26      The lack of active ground floor uses, particularly on the public through route is a
disappointing element of the scheme. The placement of the community centre should be
reconsidered, so that rather than being located internally within the site, it could provide a
active frontage on to the public through route, which suffers most from the lack of frontage.

27     The Mayor’s Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) does state that
affordable housing should normally be provided as an integral element of a residential
development. It goes on to say that off-site provision is only appropriate where there are
demonstrable benefits to be gained by providing new units in a different location.

28      It is unclear at this stage what the tenure split between the social and intermediate units
will be, although drawings would indicate that the social rented housing will be located on the
Mastmaker Place site, with 1 Millharbour providing the intermediate housing. This should be
clarified before the application is referred back to the Mayor for a decision. It is therefore not
possible to calculate if the mix of the affordable and intermediate housing is in line with the
predicted demand for housing table that is included within table 11.3 of the Housing SPG.
However, the overall housing mix does include a high level of studios (11%) and a low level of
four bed units (8.7%) when compared to the SPG.

29     GLA officers are happy to discuss the appropriateness of the mix further, once the
tenure has been clarified. However, the provision of a relatively high proportion of three and
four bedroom units provided at 4 Mastmaker Place that have access to private gardens,
                                                                                           page 5
balconies and roof terraces is considered a better mix of affordable housing than could be
provided on the high density 1 Millharbour site. Therefore, it seems as though the off-site
affordable housing provision can be justified in terms of the SPG as there are demonstrable
gains from providing the off-site affordable housing provision.

30      The number of studios units on the 1 Millharbour site is disappointingly very high and
not in line with the mix sought by the Housing SPG. There are several circumstances that
should be taken into account in assessing whether the studios are appropriate. Firstly, the
existing planning permission already includes a high level of studios. Secondly, given the site
is so close to the offices of Canary Wharf, it is recognised that there will be a higher demand
for studios for office workers. While this normally wouldn’t in itself be a justification for more
studio accommodation, if the applicant can justify that provision of market studios help deliver
a higher proportion of larger family accommodation elsewhere (either within 1 Millharbour or
at 4 Mastmaker Place), this will be accepted.

31     Overall, the off-site affordable housing offer is generally supported as being a solution
to providing an appropriate mix and quality of affordable housing within the Millennium
Quarter. The tenure needs to be discussed in more detail.

32      The 4 Mastmaker Place site, although delivering the balance of affordable housing for 1
Millharbour development, does have its own requirement to provide affordable housing given
there are 54 units (115 habitable rooms) of private housing on this site. To accommodate this
the applicant has proposed 17 units (58 habitable rooms). This provision equates to 33%
affordable housing and accordingly does not meet the London Plan expectation of 50%
affordable housing. This has not been justified by a financial appraisal or any commentary. It
may be that the scheme can only deliver this quantum of affordable housing, in light of possible
housing grant constraints and costs, however, this lower level of affordable housing must be
justified, particularly in light of the alterations that have occurred on the 1 Millharbour site and
the resulting change in the value of the development at 1 Millharbour.

1 Millharbour

33      The previous planning permission for 1 Millharbour accepted a high density on the site
of over 3,000 habitable rooms per hectare. This density exceeds the density range set out by
the London Plan density matrix of 650 – 1,100 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha). The
Millennium Quarter Masterplan established this area as one suitable for high-density housing
and, along with the design quality of the proposed building, its location, and the type of
accommodation provided, the high density is considered acceptable in this instance.

34     The current proposal for 1 Millharbour decreases the number the number of units by
27, and there is an associated drop of 210 habitable rooms.

4 Mastmaker Place

35     The density of the 4 Mastmaker Place scheme is 1017 habitable rooms per hectare,
which is comfortably within the range outlined in the London Plan density matrix is 650 –
1,100 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha).

Urban design

                                                                                            page 6
36     As the proposed redevelopment of 1 Millharbour remains largely unchanged from the
recently approved scheme, it does not raise any strategic planning concerns that have not
already been considered by the Mayor.

37      The 4 Mastmaker Place site is a prominent corner site that makes an important
contribution to the urban fabric of docklands. This development proposal will broadly follow
Sustainable Residential Quality principles and, if built in accordance with the architect's vision,
will stand among the first quarter of like developments in the Capital.

38     It will provide spacious flats with a very high standard of design with a pleasing
arrangement of mass and bulk in a block that will define the street. The upper floors, which
will have protruding balconies and canopies, give the building an eye-catching quality
emphasising its residential nature. It will also relate well to the surrounding built form in
terms of height.

39     As such, the very highest design outcome is predicted and the proposal therefore raises
no design issues that cannot adequately be addressed by the Local Planning Authority.

40      However, as raised previously in this report, there is a concern about the effectiveness of
the proposed east-west link. The link is considered too narrow and remote from any windows
or active ground uses to be a safe or well-trafficked pedestrian route. The route should be
widened to increase its use and accessibility. Additionally, alterations to the design should be
considered such as repositioning the community centre to abut the link thus introducing at
least an element of active uses and/or altering the southern facade so there are windows
overlooking the path.

41       The proposal to provide money towards improving the existing playground at the west
of the site is supported, however, the applicant is asked to explore adding an under 5-playspace
within one of the internal community gardens. The provision of the kick-about space on the
fifth floor roof is welcomed, but will obviously have to be carefully considered at the detailed
design stage and for its management. The provision of so much garden space, community
gardens, roof terraces and balconies is strongly supported and the application is commended in
this respect.

Sustainable design
4 Mastmaker Place

42      The applicant has submitted an energy statement and proposes design measures to
slightly exceed forthcoming building regulations. It will contain a communal heating
infrastructure with a combination of solar water heating panels and ground source heating and
cooling to meet 10.6% of the predicted energy demand. The applicant states it will consider
Combined Heat and Power at a later date, and that it is uneconomic to provide a link to the
Barkentine Community CHP plant.

43      Whilst the scheme contains some welcome energy measures and provides 10% from
renewables, the scheme is not yet consistent with the London Plan energy policies, particularly
in light of the linked proposal at 1 Millharbour.

44      The applicant needs to investigate the feasibility of CHP before the Mayor considers the
scheme again and incorporate it unless it is demonstrably not feasible to do so. In addition,
further details of the cost of connecting to the Barkentine CHP should be provided as

                                                                                           page 7
45      The applicant has demonstrated that larger ground source heat pump systems are
technically feasible, and the scope remains to incorporate such a system. Given the lack of any
renewables in 1 Millharbour (see below), the scope remains to provide additional provision on
this site given the exceptional circumstances of the case.

1 Millharbour

46      The applicant has undertaken an assessment of energy efficient and renewable energy
technologies following a pre-application discussion with GLA officers. Despite the existing
implemented permission containing no specific energy efficiency or renewable energy measures
the applicant has revisited the scheme. It will be built to existing building regulations standard,
with a district heating system and a CHP plant to provide heat to the apartments and the
leisure facility and electricity to the landlord areas. The use of absorption chillers for Tri-
generation has also been investigated but the applicant has set out details to show that carbon
emissions would be greater in this instance due to the inefficiency of the absorption chillers.

47      The applicant has tested the feasibility of renewable energy technologies but due to
design and site constraints it is not technically feasible to incorporate them without significant
redesign. In planning terms, there is scope to increase the renewable energy provision on the
site at 4 Mastmaker Place and the applicant should further investigate this possibility.

Inclusive design
4 Mastmaker Place

48      Both parts of the application have been submitted with access statements in line with
London Plan policies, both of which were considered by the London Access Forum at its
meeting on the 14 March 2006. The forum was of the opinion that the statements would
benefit from being more specific with marked up drawings. The drawings should demonstrate
how units would comply with ‘lifetime home’ standards and illustrate which of the units will be
wheelchair accessible/adaptable. This further information should be provided before the
Mayor considers the application again, and conditions should be included on the planning
permission, if granted, to require these details to be designed in.

49     The basement car parking plan should be amended to illustrate the location of the
disabled car parking spaces. These spaces should be located as close as possible to the lifts,
although not all of the lifts appear to go to the basement. It is unclear why this happens, and it
could result in long distances from the disabled bays to the front doors, regardless of the
positioning of wheelchair units.

50     A management plan that could provide for some flexibility of the allocation of the car
parking spaces would be supported. This could allow disabled spaces to be allocated where
they are most necessary.

1 Millharbour

51     This proposal does not include any disabled bays within the basement car park. This is
on the basis that the scheme includes the provision of a valet parking service. This is not
opposed in principle; however, there may be some circumstances where a specifically adapted
car would be very difficult, or perhaps even impossible for someone else to drive. Therefore,
the basement arrangements should include the provision of disabled spaces and the car lift
should be able to be operated from the car. Additionally, the car lift should be of ample size to

                                                                                           page 8
accommodate a range of vehicles, including modified cars. The details of the basement parking,
the car lift and its operation should be required by way of a condition.

52    All of these units should also be built to lifetime home standards and 10% should be
wheelchair adaptable.

Water resources
53        A flood risk assessment has been submitted within the Environmental Statement. This
concludes that “due to the nature of the current flood defences (the Thames Barrier and the Dock walls),
the risk of flooding at the proposed developments and the increased risk of flooding caused by he
developments are very small and are thus acceptable”.

Transport for London’s comments
4 Mastmaker Place

54     The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for this site is 4, where 6 is the
highest and 1 is the lowest. TfL note that developments in this part of the Millennium Quarter
are changing to residential from predominantly office use as envisaged in the Masterplan. The
transport improvements needed in the Millennium Quarter as a result of development in the
area are warranted even with the change of use class. Therefore, the total section 106
contribution proportionate to this development should be maintained as per the Masterplan.
This will be put towards improving transport infrastructure in the Millennium Quarter
including improvements to bus services and funding for the replacement of South Quay station
which is necessary for the Capacity Enhancement (3-car) Project. The masterplan also sets out
improvements to pedestrian accessibility for the area.

55      Although the development is unlikely to have an increased negative impact on transport
above that outlined in the Masterplan it is worth noting that TfL do not support all the
information or assumptions outlined in the Transport Assessment. Minimal transport impacts
cannot be assumed without proper analysis. Aspects of the Transport Assessment are
inaccurate and misleading, for example it provides background information about the DLR that
is inaccurate. It also refers to future DLR services between London City Airport and Lewisham
which is not the intention DLR Ltd. Additionally, it has not made an assessment of the
existing and predicted line loading on the Jubilee line, therefore it is not possible to claim with
any certainty that the generated traffic on the London Underground will have a minimal
impact on the Jubilee line. Further to this no assessment has been made of Canary Wharf
station’s capacity. Additionally, the Transport Assessment makes a case against the production
of a travel plan. TfL does not accept this case, and seeks the requirement of a travel plan
within the future section 106 agreement.

56      The level of vehicle trip generation for the proposed development is not likely to have a
significant impact on the Transport for London Road Network.

57      TfL supports the car parking provision for the proposed development. However, the
proposed cycle parking provision is not in line with London Cycle Network Design Manual
parking standards. TfL require a minimum of 1 cycle space per unit for the residential element
of the development. In addition cycle parking provision for all other uses should also be in line
with London Cycle Design Manual standards.

                                                                                               page 9
58     The development must be fully integrated with all local pedestrian and cycle routes. At
present a cycle route from the proposed development North to Canary Wharf seems to be

1 Millharbour

59    The proposed alterations to 1 Millharbour do not raise any strategic transport
concerns. It is noted that the S.106 contribution for transport on the existing planning
permission has already been paid.

London Development Agency comments
60     The London Development Agency supports the changes to the approved scheme and is
pleased to note that the amount of commercial floorspace across both schemes is retained and
provides a mix of employment uses in line with the requirements of the London Plan. Tower
Hamlets Council should ensure that planning obligations are appropriate to the scale and kind
of development set within the context of the Millennium Quarter Master Plan, although it is
recognised that existing agreements are unlikely to change significantly given the previous
existing approvals.

61     To maximise the regenerative impact of the scheme and mitigate, in part, for the loss of
potential employment arising from an office development, local labour provisions that have
been agreed should be included in the section 106 agreement. These should include training,
addressing other barriers to employment and opportunities for local businesses to provide
goods and services and to occupy the accommodation that is to be provided for non-residential

Local planning authority’s position
62     Tower Hamlets have given no formal indication of its likely decision on these proposals.

Legal considerations
63      Under the arrangements set out in article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor
of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has an opportunity to make representations to Council at
this stage. If the Council subsequently resolves to grant planning permission, it must allow the
Mayor an opportunity to decide whether to direct it to refuse planning permission. There is no
obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible
direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s comments unless
specifically stated.

Financial considerations
64     There are no financial considerations at this stage.

65      The proposal to provide the majority of the affordable housing provision for the 1
Millharbour redevelopment at 4 Mastmaker Place is generally welcomed as a mechanism of
achieving a better mix of family accommodation within a lower density development with
better access to gardens, other private amenity space and communal outdoor space. However,
before this proposal will be fully supported, financial justification on the on-site affordable

                                                                                           page 10
housing level at 4 Mastmaker Place should be provided as it does not meet with the London
Plan requirement for 50% affordable housing. Additionally, although it is recognised that this
proposal does provide the 33% requirement for affordable housing at 1 Millharbour, as
previously approved, this should be readdressed given that alterations have been made to the
mix and tenure at the Millharbour site which may have impacted on its ability to support
affordable housing.

66      The changes to the mix of uses and design at 1 Millharbour remain largely unchanged
from the approved application, and accordingly do not raise any strategic planning concerns.
The mix of uses at 4 Mastmaker Place suffers from a lack of active uses at ground floor level, as
sought by the Millennium Quarter Masterplan. However, it is recognised that providing
housing at the ground level does allow for the provision of family housing at ground floor level
with access to gardens. Therefore, an appropriate compromise could be altering the layout so
the community use is located on the east-west link, which would introduce an active ground
floor to the pedestrian link.

67      Furthermore, the east-west link a 4 Mastmaker Place is too narrow and does not
provide an adequately overlooked route for pedestrians. This link was highlighted as key link
in the Millennium Quarter Masterplan and as it stands is not acceptable. The proposal to
provide money towards improving the existing playground at the west of the site is supported,
however, the applicant is asked to explore adding an under 5-playspace within one of the
internal community gardens. The provision of the kick-about space on the fifth floor roof is
welcomed, but will obviously have to be carefully considered at the detailed design stage and
for its management. The provision of so much garden space, community gardens, roof terraces
and balconies is strongly supported and the application is commended in this respect.

68     The overall design concept for 4 Mastmaker Place is welcomed and the very highest
design outcome is predicted.

69      Although, planning permission has already been granted for 1 Millharbour and this has
already been implemented, the current proposal has added a district heating system and a CHP
plant. The applicant has put forward design and technical constraints, which means that it
would not be possible to incorporate renewable energy technologies without significant
redesign of the building. In this instance, it appears sensible to focus on the 4 Mastmaker Place
scheme for the incorporation of renewables and to provide exemplary energy efficiency
measures. Further work is required on the energy credentials of Mastmaker in particular the
feasibility of using CHP and ground source heat pumps.

70     The amount of cycle parking at 4 Mastmaker Place should be increased and a cycle
route to Canary Wharf should be explored. The section 106 contribution for transport should
be maintained as per the original masterplan.

71     The LDA request local employment and training initiatives through the section 106.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions
020 7983 4271 email giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk
Colin Wilson, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4783 email colin.wilson@london.gov.uk
Loren Brown, Senior Strategic Planner
020 7983 4275 email loren.brown@london.gov.uk

                                                                                        page 11
page 12
               Appendix 1: Housing schedule for 1 Mastmaker Place and 1 Millharbour
      Location                Studio                     1 bed                        2 bed                     3 bed                       4 bed +                        Total

Approved mechanism for taking the affordable housing off site within the S106 agreement: 33% of the total housing provision on the 1
Millharbour site (calculated by habitable rooms)

Millharbour scheme (habitable rooms are set out below with unit numbers in brackets)
On site private             253 (253)                 484 (242)                    692 (220)                   98 (18)                       33 (3)                      1560 (736)
On-Site Affordable             0 (0)                    22 (11)                      64 (16)                     0 (0)                        0 (0)                       86 (27)
Off-site affordable            0 (0)                    30 (15)                     138 (46)                  140 (28)                     150 (30)                      458 (119)
Total affordable               0 (0)                    56 (26)                     208 (62)                  145 (28)                     155 (30)                      544 (146)
housing provision
(both on and off site)
% mix affordable                0%                        10%                          37%                       26%                          27%                            -
(hab room basis)
% mix affordable                0%                        20%                          42%                       18%                          20%                            -
(unit basis)
% Affordable Housing                                                                                                                                                       33% *
(by habitable rooms)
   * calculated by (on site affordable housing + off site affordable housing) / total housing provision (total number of habitable units on the No1 Millharbour site))

Total on site housing       253 (253)                 208 (253)                    756 (236)                   98 (18)                       33 (3)                      1646 (763)
provision (both open
market and affordable)

                                                                                                                               page 13
Location                     Studio                    1 bed                       2 bed                    3 bed                      4 bed +    Total
Mastmaker Road scheme (habitable rooms are set out below with unit numbers in brackets)
On site
On-site private               8 (8)                   62 (31)                     45 (15)                    0 (0)                       0 (0)   115 (54)
Associated affordable           (0)                    10 (5)                      18 (6)                   15 (3)                      15 (3)    58 (17)

% mix affordable               0%                       17%                         31%                      26%                         26%         -
(hab room basis)
% mix affordable               0%                       30%                         35%                     17.5%                       17.5%        -
(unit basis)
% Affordable Housing                                                                                                                              33% *
(by habitable rooms)
   * calculated by: associated affordable housing habitable rooms / total number of private and associated affordable housing habitable units

Total on-site AH              0 (0)                   40 (20)                    156 (52)                  155 (31)                   165 (33)   516 (136)
On-site private               8 (8)                   62 (31)                     45 (15)                    0 (0)                       0 (0)   115 (54)
Total provision               8 (8)                  102 (51)                    201 (67)                  155 (31)                   165 (33)   631 (190)

                                                                                                                                                             page 14
Millharbour          0 (0)              22 (11)           64 (16)             0 (0)                0 (0)      86 (27)
Mastmaker            0 (0)              40 (20)          156 (52)            155 (31)             165 (33)   516 (136)
                     0 (0)              62 (34)          220 (68)            155 (31)             165 (33)   602 (163)
% mix affordable      0%                 10%                37%                26%                  27%          -
(hab room basis)
% mix affordable      0%                 20%                41%                19%                  20%          -
(unit basis)
% Affordable                                                                                                   33%
Housing (by
habitable rooms)

                                                                                        page 15

To top