standard one-and-two storey plans. 36 The LCC AD eventually opted for timber-framedconstruction at the junior and infants’ department of Huntingfield Road, L B Wandsworthof 1920-22 (dem.), and Athelney Road, L B Lewisham of 1920-23 (classrooms largelyrebuilt). The job architect for these <strong>schools</strong> was J.M. Scott (1877-1956).By 1935 the education authority of Hendon, with the local builders Haymills, wereconstructing ‘semi-permanent’ timber <strong>schools</strong> with a twenty-year life expectancy. 37 Likeother authorities, the LCC expressed an interest in the Hendon <strong>schools</strong> and other formsof light construction, but in practice found it difficult to move away from traditionalmodes of construction: the design process had become standardised and constructionreliant on established economies of scale and contract labour. 38 Innovation was stifledby inertia and conservatism, intrinsic to large bureaucracies. The report of the Bainescommittee, appointed in 1925 and including the Architect to the LCC George TophamForrest, concluded that brick remained the cheapest and most suitable building materialfor <strong>schools</strong>. 39 After visiting the Ilmington Road senior school, Selly Oak, Birmingham(H.T. Buckland, 1934), J.E. Richardson of the LCC AD concluded that the cost of timberconstruction was no cheaper than brick, whilst heating costs were higher. 40It was not until the school-building boom of 1936-39 that sustained progress wasmade with light and dry construction. This period saw the first experiments withnew construction techniques such as steel-framed <strong>schools</strong> with light curtain walls. Atthe West Sussex <strong>schools</strong> of Sidlesham (1936), Selsey (1937), North Lancing (1938),Rustington (c.1939) and Littlehampton (c.1939), the county architect Cecil GeorgeStillman (1894-1968) used a light, cold-formed plate steel system developed by alocal caravan manufacturer to produce rows of single-storey classrooms on an 8’3”Fig. 23: Sidlesham, West Sussex (C.G. Stillman, 1936), one of the first <strong>schools</strong> to utilise 'light and dry'construction (© Elain Harwood).© ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 0933
module. 41 Stillman’s <strong>schools</strong> were quick to erect and dismantle, economic and flexible,and prefigured a number of aspects of post-war school building, namely prefabricated,proprietary, ‘standard unit’ construction. At least three <strong>schools</strong> were built in Slough inBuckinghamshire on the unit system (the first of which was the Manor Park school) byBuckinghamshire county architect C.H. Riley. 42After the permanence of the LCC’s elementary <strong>schools</strong> was questioned in the Houseof Commons in 1938, the Architect’s Department again investigated new constructiontechniques. 43 The chief impediment was again the multi-storey school. The LCC ADprocured a quotation from Stillman’s contractors to construct a two-storey schoolon the 8’3” module at White City, but it was judged too expensive and the projectabandoned. 44 The existence of a patent on part of the West Sussex framing systemwas also a deterrent. An experimental two-storey steel-framed school for 700 placesat Whitefoot Lane on the Downham estate also stalled. The design had columns at12’ centres, pre-cast concrete floor slabs and non-load bearing brick cavity walls. TheLCC’s brief demanded a high level of flexibility: the building was to be capable of beingdismantled and re-erected on a different site, and future conversion from a junior mixedand infants to a senior school. The cost was acceptable at 5% more than the normal LCCconstruction, but the war intervened. 45 The LCC AD eventually opted for a two-storeyvariant of the Hills 8’3” system in 1950. 46Elsewhere, with rather more success, the young architect Denis Clarke Hall (1910-2006)was investigating standardised steel frames with light cladding, designed for a 40-yearlifespan. He produced a substantial report as part of his 1937 winning entry for anarchitectural competition held by the News Chronicle. The report and his extended articlein the Architects’ Journal were to be as influential as the built version of the entry, whichfollowed in 1938 as the Richmond Girls’ High School in North Yorkshire. Stillman andClarke Hall went on to influence post-war school design; they were the two architectmembers of the Wood committee, which shaped the 1944 Education Act.SiteThe layout of urban <strong>schools</strong> was frequently dictated by restricted and irregularly shapedplots and planning regulations constraining height, density and building lines. But architectsalso responded to the grain and character of the wider urban setting, if only through theeconomic mechanisms of density and plot ratios. The West Kensington Central School,L B Hammersmith and Fulham, was partially rebuilt by the LCC in 1936, respecting thecurve of the adjoining street, Cumberland Crescent. A suburban environment, such asthat of the LCC cottage estates, permitted single-storey buildings and the exploration oflooser, more informal plans.The greatest innovations in integrating the school into its landscape setting were made atthe open-air <strong>schools</strong>, where outdoor rest, nature <strong>study</strong>, exercises, and creative play werekey tenets. At the LCC’s Aspen House Open-Air School, L B Lambeth, trees from theorchard formerly on the site were retained, and shrubs and bulbs were added to provideinterest for the children. Formal intervention was kept to a minimum, limited to smallpaths, sheltering hedges and the activities of the children themselves. At Stowey House,© ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 0934
- Page 2 and 3: Research Department Report Series 4
- Page 11 and 12: The final part of the report proper
- Page 13 and 14: would best be considered within the
- Page 15 and 16: © ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 09
- Page 17 and 18: IntroductionThe provision of school
- Page 19 and 20: The augmentation of state nursery p
- Page 21 and 22: central schools, either newly built
- Page 23 and 24: Fig 8: Model of Impington, possibly
- Page 25 and 26: single-storey brick buildings, redu
- Page 27 and 28: 33 Board of Education 1931a, 58.34
- Page 29 and 30: IntroductionFrom 1870 until 1990, t
- Page 31 and 32: Fig. 12: SBL datestone from the Wes
- Page 33 and 34: Fig. 14: The classroom pavilions at
- Page 35 and 36: Fig. 18: Granton Road School, L B L
- Page 37 and 38: considered no less important. Londo
- Page 39: Fig. 22: Infants' Department of Ath
- Page 43 and 44: a spacious playground with retained
- Page 45 and 46: collegiate air of a preparatory sch
- Page 47 and 48: Fig 32: Junior school classrooms at
- Page 49 and 50: emain a “book-learnt” conceptio
- Page 51 and 52: Fig 36: Herbert Francis Thomas Coop
- Page 53 and 54: contemporaries, with their widely s
- Page 55 and 56: Endnotes1 On the abolition of the L
- Page 57 and 58: 60 Board of Education 1938.61 Saler
- Page 59 and 60: The nursery schoolCase studies:•
- Page 61 and 62: designs, the second of 1937 with Ma
- Page 63 and 64: Fig. 52: Webb Street School elevati
- Page 65 and 66: Fig. 55: North Hammersmith Central
- Page 67 and 68: The secondary schoolCase studies:
- Page 69 and 70: Fig 59: Maze Hill elevation to the
- Page 71 and 72: admired ‘more than any other arch
- Page 73 and 74: grants in the form of building subs
- Page 75 and 76: accommodated 440 junior children in
- Page 77 and 78: The open-air schoolCase studies:•
- Page 79 and 80: three open-air schools opened by th
- Page 81 and 82: Fig 71: The buildings of the Geere
- Page 83 and 84: As Frederick Rose predicted in 1908
- Page 85 and 86: L B Wandsworth, by providing ‘roo
- Page 87 and 88: LAN ANCE SURVEY PLANwithout mainten
- Page 89 and 90: Endnotes1 LCC minutes 17.7.1928, p.
- Page 91 and 92:
44 Catholic Hall, Appleton Road, El
- Page 93 and 94:
© ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 098
- Page 95 and 96:
Board of Education 1923 The differe
- Page 97 and 98:
English Heritage 1993 General princ
- Page 99 and 100:
Morrison, K. 1999 The workhouse: a
- Page 101 and 102:
Whitbread N. 1972 The evolution of
- Page 103 and 104:
Appendix 1: Gazetteer of extant pur
- Page 105 and 106:
Original name Present Name & Addres
- Page 107 and 108:
Original name Present Name & Addres
- Page 109 and 110:
Original name Present Name & Addres
- Page 111 and 112:
The S towag e pl anPeckham Park, 18
- Page 113 and 114:
The en d hall pl anUpper North Stre
- Page 115 and 116:
The b u t ter fly pl anAthelney Str
- Page 117 and 118:
• Separate-block planning refers
- Page 119 and 120:
Appendix 5: Glossary of school type
- Page 121 and 122:
increasing popular after the 1926 a