<strong>schools</strong> and in the curriculum itself. The Council also introduced ‘open-air classrooms’ toits mainstream elementary <strong>schools</strong>, including multi-storey <strong>schools</strong> where this presenteda constructional challenge. The single-storey <strong>schools</strong> serving the LCC estates wereinfluenced by the planning reforms introduced to <strong>English</strong> <strong>schools</strong> by Hutchings andWiddows, including single-banked classroom wings and the butterfly plan. All this theSchools Division endeavoured to build within tight budgets and with little deviation froman austere neo-Georgian idiom.© ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 0947
Endnotes1 On the abolition of the LCC in 1965, its successor the Greater London Council delegatedresponsibility to the Inner London Education Authority (I L E A), a ‘special committee’ comprising G LCmembers from the inner London Area. When I L E A was itself abolished in 1990, the inner Londonboroughs became education authorities, which remains the present situation.2 The General Purposes Committee had earlier recommended this course of action to the Councilin 1907, and the motion was put to vote but lost. Report of General Purposes Committee in LCCMinutes of 2 November 1909, pp.820-22.3 This point owes much to discussion with Andrew Saint.4 Foreword by Education Officer E.R. Rich to the 1935 LCC Annual Report.5 Maclure 1990, 127.6 Ringshall et al 1983, 39. This figure presumably includes extensions and alterations to existing<strong>schools</strong>.7 LCC minutes 5.3.1912, pp.502-06.8 Single- and double-banked classrooms are defined in Stillman and Cleary 1949, 67-68; although theterminology was in use in the inter-war period (see, for example, letter of 27.3.1935 from J. Wilkieof the Board of Education to E.P. Bennett of the Education Department of the LCC , in L M A : A R /CB/1/67).9 Seaborne and Lowe 1977, 117.10 Board of Education 1931, 12.11 Seaborne and Lowe 1977, 84. This is possibly a reference to the Frimley Sanatorium of theBrompton Hospital for Consumption, Surrey by E.T. Hall of 1901-5, also of a double-butterfly form.12 LCC 1920, 61.13 Separate-block planning had previously been employed at the Uffculme Open-Air School,Birmingham of 1909-11 by Barry F. Peacock of Cossins, Peacock and Bewlay (Châtelet 2008 , 114).This important school survives unlisted, although no longer in educational use.14 Saint 1987, 46.15 Morrison 1999, 98, 103-04.16 Myles Wright and Gardner-Medwin 1938, 15.17 Report of the LCC Education Officer entitled Conference—School Buildings, dated 22.4.1925. L M A :A R /CB/1/66.18 The ‘Derbyshire type’ is illustrated in Stillman and Curtis 1949, 13.19 De la Mare Norris 1929, 8.20 Board of Education 1931, 13.21 Board of Education 1925 and 1939b.22 LCC minutes of 3.7.1934, p.12.23 Board of Education 1931, 14.24 Sargent and Seymour 1932, 8.25 LCC A D plans held at the school.26 Saint 1987, 39.© ENGLISH H ER I TAG E 43 - 20 0948
- 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 and 40: Fig. 22: Infants' Department of Ath
- Page 41 and 42: module. 41 Stillman’s schools wer
- 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: contemporaries, with their widely s
- 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
Change language