CA2/441/3

Kensworth: C.V.P. School [3 files]

1963-1974

From: 1963 To: 1974

File on Isolated Classroom; General Contractor: Letter from County Architect to Butterley Brick Co, Ripley, Derbyshire; 'I am pleased to inform you that Messrs Willis Dawson Ltd, Leighton Buzzard, are the contractors appointed to carry out works on the basic classroom unit at Kensworth CVP School. I have today instructed them to confirm with you the actual quantity of bricks required together with the date when deliveries can be accepted'; Jan 1969 Letter from County Architect to Willis Dawson Ltd; 'Thank you for your letter of 17 Feb in connection with your request for approval to use ready mixed concrete [basic classroom units at Kensworth, Sundon and Studham]. I have no objection to your ordering your supplies from Mixconcrete Ltd, Dunstable, subject to the concrete being in accordance with the specification'; Feb 1969 Letter from County Architect to W T Lamb & Son Ltd, London EC4; 'I regret to inform you that I cannot avail myself of your offer of the 2nd London Stocks registered for basic classroom unit at Studham VCP School - Planning will not agree. Will you therefore cancel any instructions you may have received regarding these bricks. Apologising for the trouble and inconvenience caused'; Feb 1969 Reply; 'We are sorry that the second London Stocks were not acceptable but would you allow us to put up an alternative please?'; Feb 1969 Letter from County Architect to Proctor & Lavender Ltd, Solihull; '50,000 2 5/8" Mixed Grey Rustic Wire cut facing bricks are required for basic classroom unit at Studham VCP School and I trust you will be in a position to supply. The main Contractors, Willis Dawson, have been requested to place an order for the bricks and to inform you when deliveries can be accepted'; Feb 1969 Letter from County Architect to Willis Dawson Ltd; 'I regret that confusion has arisen because of a discrepancy between Messrs Randall's quotation and the ironmongery schedule. As the quotation was issued with an "Architect's Instruction" subsequently to the schedule, it was assumed that you would work to this. It is in fact an amendment to the schedule. I have discussed the ironmongery in detail with Mr Tew, who is quite clear on all points. He will be including on the next Architect's Instruction for an additional 2 No. 12" cabin hooks to the Double Unit. It has been noticed that in your letter and under the column headed "Quotation" you refer to 2 No. Kicking plates, whereas the quotation includes for 4 No.'; Feb 1969 Further letter; 'I would like to see a sample of facing brickwork in Warcrete cement before giving my consent. This would apply to each site, as I am concerned that not only should the colour and texture of the mortar suit the facing brick, but that the pointing itself should receive consideration. Mr Tew is aware of my wishes in general, and I suggest you discuss this matter with him before building the sample panels'; Feb 1969 Letter from Willis Dawson Ltd to County Architect; 'Reverting to your Architect's Instruction No. 11. We would point out that your reference on this A I to A I No. 6 Venesta and A I No. 8 Sanitary is not correct. We mention this point in case any confusion occurs about this in the future'; Mar 1969 Letter from County Architec to Willis Dawson Ltd; 'Progress on your three sites appears to be slow, and I was surprised when, looking in at Stondon [sic] School a few days ago, I found that work had not commenced on that site. I must stress upon you the importance of your contract being completed in time as pupils MUST be accommodated at the commencement of the Autumn term'; Apr 1969 Reply; 'We thank you for your letter regarding the Classroom Unit to be erected at Sundon School. We are pleased to advise that work has now commenced on this unit and we definitely hope to complete the contract by the date required'; Apr 1969 Letter from Willis Dawson Ltd to County Architect; 'As you will be aware, the further increase in Selective Employment Tax comes into force as from 7 Jul 1969 and under the terms of the Contract we formally notify you that we shall be submitting a claim in due course. Please let us know if you wish us to submit the claim(s) in any particular form, and if you would like to discuss the matter generally, or the presentation of the claim in particular, please let us know'; Jun 1969 Reply; 'Thank you for your letter dated 2 Jun informing me that you intend claiming reimbursement of the increased cost of S.E.T. in accordance with Clause 31 B.C.D. of the Conditions of Contract. Weekly time sheets showing all men on site should be submitted during the week following that for which the claim is made. All time sheets should be signed by the Clerk of Works'; Jun 1969 Further letter from Willis Dawson Ltd; 'We have not had an opportunity to properly consider the problem of this S.E.T. increase due to holidays and pressure of work. We are keeping weekly records of time worked and can submit these in due course. However, now that we have been able to give some time and consideration to this S.E.T. question, we would ask whether it is your intention to reimburse the full 10s..6d per week for each man (i.e. have the Ministry given any recommendation to Local Authorities that only a percentage of the increase should be paid, as was the case in the original S.E.T. imposition?) The keeping and checking of records is an extremely onerous and quite unproductive task for all concerned, and we would ask if you would be willing to consider a very simple formula for the computation of S.E.T. reimbursement on a percentage of contract sum basis. This method was found to be very successful, and was agreed and adopted by a number of Local and County Authorities as a considerable time and trouble saver. If you would be willing to consider this method, instead of us all becoming bogged-down with masses of paper we shall be pleased to provide details and, if necessary, discuss the implications with you'; Aug 1969 Reply; 'Your claim for the increased cost of S.E.T. is being made under Clause 31 B.C.D. of the Conditions of Contract and is therefore reimbursable in full. This is purely a matter of Contract and is not subject to recommendations by any Ministry. I would be quite happy to consider any means of payment for this that obviates the keeping of accurate records. Perhaps you will let me have details'; Sep 1969 Letter from Willis Dawson Ltd to County Architect; 'We enclose herewith Valuation No. 1 for works carried out at Kensworth, Sundon & Studham Schools. It will be noted that we have included for drainage as a separate item and not as designated in the original contract. We trust this meets your approval'; Jun 1969 [pen note: Agreed] Letter from County Architect to Willis Dawson Ltd; 'I am extremely concerned at the slow rate of progress on this contract. This matter has been raised in the Education Committee meeting this morning. I understand from Mr Hartley that you confirmed at the last site meeting you would complete the work in accordance with the contract and the contract completion date, but I should be pleased if you would let me have your assurance that this date will still be met'; Jun 1969 Reply; 'Unfortunately we must agree delays have now taken place with these Classroom Units and we would like to discuss this point with you at Monday's site meeting with a view to agreeing an acceptable date for completing these units which will be satisfactory to all concerned'; Jul 1969 Further letter from County Architect; 'From my Clerk of Works report sheets, it would appear that progress is not being maintained to the programme agreed at the last site meeting. Please advise me by return if you will not be able to maintain completion on any site by the date given'; Jul 1969 Letter from Willis Dawson Ltd to Venesta International Construction, Erith; 'With reference to our many telephone conversations with Mr Barnes regarding the delivery of W C Cubicles to Kensworth, Sundon & Studham Schools. We cannot overstress the urgency with which our complete order is required as it is imperative that these Classroom Units are completed and handed over at the end of Aug. As you know, delivery of the order is now considerably overdue and in view of your previous promises it is extremely disappointing to learn that delivery cannot be made until Tuesday 26 Aug. However, you have offered this date as absolutely definite and we write to advise that we are relying upon your promise to enable us to complete our contract'; Aug 1969 Letter from Willis Dawson Ltd to County Architect; 'We thank you for your letter of 29 Oct regarding the claim made by Tuke & Bell for an extra amount of £14. We would point out that this charge is not for testing the equipment but is for an additional visit to site because Tuke & Bell Ltd did not., apparently, liaise with the electrical contractor over the connection of their equipment to the electricity supply. There is possibly some slight confliction in the wiring to be done by Tuke & Bell as opposed to the main electrical wiring by [J A} Wady. However, if you wish us to tell Tuke & Bell that their claim is not justified, this we will do'; Nov 1969 Reply; 'As there appears to be some doubt in your mind as to the precise reason for this additional charge, I suggest you request Tuke & Bell to advise you of the position as they see it. No doubt you will advise me then if you feel their claim is justified'; Nov 1969 Letter from Tuke & Bell Ltd, Lichfield, to Willis Dawson; 'Your letter had indicated that there seemed to be numerous difficulties on site, and we are endeavouring to learn the full story from our fitter and Service Department before writing to you in detail, which we will do as soon as possible'; Jan 1970 Willis Dawson request Architect's Instructions on 14 items; Dec 1969 Reply from County Architect; 'An A I has been issued for the items requested with the exception of the fourth item on your list. My Clerk of Works is under the impression that sufficient information was given by him on site to have avoided the claim for cutting and also considers that sufficient information was available on the drawings issued. I shall be pleased to have any further information you may have on this in support of your request for an A I'; May 1970 6th and final valuation [Willis Dawson]; contract sum £27,296..4s..6d; value of work executed £25,983..0s..1d; Sub-Contractor charges: J A Wady Ltd £1211..0s..6d; Ballard (Winchester) Ltd £2127..1s..11d; Armstrong Cork Co Ltd £364..2s; J Avery & Co Ltd £243..11s; Eastern Electricity £133..12s..9d; Tuke & Bell Ltd £423.10s; Jun 1971 Letter from Tuke & Bell Ltd, London WC2, to County Architect; 'We would take this opportunity of confirming the telephone conversation we had with Mr Jowett and subsequently with Mr Lickfold, Quantity Surveyor, concerning a sewage disposal plant to be installed at Studham School. We understand that the equipment that is likely to be required would be identical with equipment supplied by us some years ago for use at the school at Studham and that the original equipment supplied including a 4" cast iron dip pipe, a 4" cast iron outlet dip pipe, one 6 gallon per minute Rolls Rotary Sewage Effluent pump, one 10'6" diameter brake pattern revolving sewage distributor and 24' of filter floor tiles and we would take this opportunity of confirming that if this equipment was now to be provided by us, the present day price for the equipment all as previously supplied would now be £415..16s. Mr Jowett will no doubt recall that during our earlier conversation during the course of last week, when it was necessary for a price to be included in the Bill of Quantities, a round figure sum of £500 was suggested as fully covering the supply of our equipment and therefore it would be appreciated that the actual cost of our equipment will in fact be lower than the sum already included. We look forward to the receipt of a firm enquiry in connection with the work to be carried out at this site and we would then naturally forward to you our detailed specification and estimate'; Nov 1968 Reply; 'I would like to place a firm enquiry in connection with the work to be carried out at Studham School. It is proposed to erect a two classroom extension at Studham School which will provide for an additional intake of 80 pupils and 2 staff. This will virtually double the school population, and a new sewage disposal plant of similar capacity to the existing will be required. I enclose drawings [not here] showing the position of the existing plant and the proposed extension and I would welcome your recommendations with reference to the layout and siting of the new plant. It is hoped to site the new plant within the existing plant compound. In such a position will the new plant have to function as a separate unit or is it possible to link the plants together utilising a common setting chamber?'; Nov 1968 Reply; 'We are obliged to you for your letter and copy of drawing showing the position of the existing plant in relation to the original School Building and also your drawing showing the additional building to be constucted for which soil drainage treatment plant capacity is required. We agree with you entrely that basically it would be of considerable advantage to have any new plant sited within the existing plant compound, but we do feel after considering carefully all aspects of the proposed extension that it would be an extremely difficult matter to endeavour to link the existing and proposed new plant or even to attempt to arrange for a common settling tank and apart from the general difficulties it also seems to us that economically any endeavour to link the proposed new plant to the old plant would only be more costly than putting down an entirely independent unit. One of the main difficulties is to equalise the flow to two separate systems or to a common combination of two systems, particularly at the inlet end in addition to which there would be the equalisation of flow to the filters and to the humus chambers and also the potential awkwardness of utilising two pumps to the best advantage. Any endeavour we feel to try to obtain one common installation could only, it seems, result in additional space being required which would naturally cut off part of the garden and bearing all these various points in mind we are of the opinion that it would be a far simpler and generally economical procedure to retain the existing plant in toto in which case the new length of drain which would be necessary in any case and running from manhole where the invert is 98.25 and the cover 99.50 be angled slightly so as to bypass the existing manhole where the cover is 98.68 and the invert 96.22 and the drain to be continued to a point close to the plant compound where a new manhole chamber could be constructed, so that the flow from the double classroom unit could then pass to its own independent treatment plant within the compound, which could be sited nearer to the entrance to the compound and so be sited within the space available. The effluent drain from this proposed new plant could, if necessary, be connected to the existing final effluent drain or run to a new soakaway if desirable. Such an arrangement would of course mean that the only additional work necessary would be the laying of a new drain from the manhole at the centre of the existing building that construction of the new manhole near the compound and of course as pumping has, in any case, to be adopted one is not entirely dependent upon existing levels and this entry could be deeper than the original if required and the outlet discharge level could still be chosen to suit the site conditions, we certainly are of the opinion that this small amount of extra drainage work would be far less costly than any endeavour made to combine the existing and proposed new plant to work as one integrated unit. We would refer to our letter dated 6 Nov and would confirm that we would supply the equipment required as detailed and generally as originally provided for the total sum of £415..16s and as you already would have been able to assess the excavation and constructional costs involved it is a fairly simple matter to gauge the total cost involved in connection with this project. We should be pleased to receive your further comments and your instructions in connection with the provision of the specialist equipment required'; Nov 1968 Reply; 'I now enclose for your information drawing No. ES21P4/5 [not here] showing details of the sewage treatment plant in accordance with your recommendations. Enclosed is the Form of Tender and I would be pleased to receive your detailed specification and estimate for the supply and fixing of the necessary equipment. I would refer you to your letter of 6 Nov last, which quoted a price of £415..16s for the supply of this equipment. This figure included for 24' of filter floor tiles and as this item had already been incuded in our Bill of Quantities it will not be required. I would, however, be pleased if you would include in your price for 2 No. 12" x 6" cast iron ventilating chambers with deodorant material, an item originally provided but not quoted in your letter. I am now in a position to instruct the main contractor on this matter, an early reply would therefore be appreciated'; Feb 1969 Letter from County Architect to J A Wady (Electrical Contractors) Ltd, Bedford; 'Will you please let me have a quotation for the following electrical installation works in connection with the sewage plant at Studham CP School, Lower School Block. From the existing pump room install a MICC/PVC cable of 0.003 sq. in. section to the new Pump chamber. This cable shall terminate in an MEM 3 way splitter Cat. No. 41KSS. From way No. 1 of this splitter install MICC/PVC cable of 0.002 sq. in. section to the pump float switch connection terminals. From way No. 2 install MIcc/PVC cable of 0.002 sq. in. section via a Crabtree watertight external pattern switch to a Coughtrie SBB15 bulkhead fitting complete with lamp mounted externally. Remove the existing bulkhead fitting on the existing pump room wall and strip out associated cables and conduits. From way No. 3 install MICC/PVC cable of 0.002 sq. in. section via a MK switch Cat. No. 5232 ALM and thermostat, Satchwell type TM with seals suitable for setting at 35 degrees F, to a tubular heater of Ecko manufacture 500 watt rating damp proof pattern. All work to be carried out in accordance with the Standard Specification. All switches to be labelled in accordance with Standard Specification'; Mar 1969 Letter from Tuke & Bell Ltd, London WC2, to County Architect; 'We are pleased to confirm having received the official order from Willis Dawson for the supply of the sewage treatment plant equipment all in accordance with our tender and quotation to you dated 28 Feb and in the total sum of £423..10s. We now have the pleasure in to enclose two copies of our fixing drawing [not here] and would be pleased to have your confirmation that this is in order as we have already taken the opportunity of issuing this drawing to our works in order that the fabrication of the equipment may proceed as quickly as possible'; Apr 1969 Letter from Venesta International Construction Materials Ltd, Erith, to Willis Dawson; 'Thank you for your letter dated 1 Jul 1969 regarding the allocation of the five ranges of compartments covered by your order [Kensworth, Sundon & Studham schools]. We note that the cubicles at Kensworth School are required urgently and whilst we will do everything possible to complete manufacture and have the units delivered with the minimum of delay, it would appear that the earliest possible date for delivery is early Augusr since during the last two weeks of this month our factory is closed for the annual summer holidays. We will keep in touch with you regarding delivery and you may rest assured that that your order will be given the very best attention'; Jul 1969 [For reply see Aug 1969 above] Letter from Willis Dawson to Travis & Arnold Ltd, Northampton; 'With reference to the 2 No. Single Modernfold Partition Doors to our order. As we have to hand our contract over by the end of August without fail, we were appalled to learn from you this afternoon that delivery will be a further 10 days. We were advised that delivery would be within four weeks from the receipt of working details. As our letter of 19 Jun gave all the information to enable you to instruct the Manufacturers, we would assume that delivery would be made about mid-July and for Works to now calmly suggest they have been on holiday for two weeks is just irrelevant, so far as we are concerned. We feel most strongly about this and would now ask that you keep in close contact with the Manufacturers to pin them down to a definite date. As they have stated "a further 10 days", we will expect delivery Mon 18 Aug at the latest'; Aug 1969 Letter from Travis & Arnold to Home Fittings Ltd, Wednesbury; 'We wish to confirm today's telephone conversation, that 2 No. Modernfold Partitions against our order of 30 May, and your acknowlegement of 23 June, will be dispatched week ending 6 Sep for delivery to site, and arrive safely on site the following Wed. We sincerely hope and trust that you will comply to the above delivery promise, as our customers will not tolerate any further set-back concerning the completion of the two contracts. We would like to point out that our customers are most dissatisfied with the service you have offered due to the fact that on your original quotation we were assured that delivery would be no longer than 5 weeks from the receipt of the final working instructions. This, in fact, was completed on 10 Jun. Therefore in normal circumstances we would have expected delivery to be nade round about 10 Jul, and here we are still wating, with a further promise of delivery in a fortnight's time. Will you kindly ensure that this situation does not arise in the future, as no doubt this will result in loss of business and good will, not only between our two Companies but also to our customers'; Aug 1969 Letter from Luton Water Co to County Architect; 'It would appear that no water storage has been allowed for [regarding extensions to Studham and Kensworth Schools]. Both of these schools are supplied through a meter and the Meter Agreement states inter alia that "The consumer shall take water from the Company so far as possible at a steady and even rate of flow, and shall provide storage tanks of such capacity as the Company may from time to time require". The British Standard Code of Practice, 310:1965 gives a 24 hour storage capacity for day schools at 6 gallons per head. Could you please therefore let me know how you propose to deal with this matter; Aug 1969 Reply; 'As you state I have not allowed for any additional cold water storage for the isolated classroom units at Studham and Kensworth. These classroom units are designed to accommodate the "overspill" of children from the existing school. In both cases there are cold water storage cisterns in the existing buildings which in the event of a breakdown in the mains service can be used to provide water for a limited period. It is not, therefore, my intention to install additional storage tanks in these units'; Sep 1969 File on Isolated Classroom Units: Drawing No. 1: Kensworth CVP School; Outline Proposal; Isolated Classroom Block; scale 1/8" to 1' approx.; Sep 1968; Approved Sep 1968 Drawing No. 2: Kensworth CVP School; Outline Proposal; New Lower School retaining existing school; scale 1/8" to 1' approx.; Sep 1968; Approved Sep 1968 Drawing No. 3: Kensworth CVP School; Outline Proposal; New Lower School to replace existing school; scale 1/8" to 1' approx.; Sep 1968; Approved Sep 1968 Drawing P4/3: Studham VP School; Proposed addition of double classroom unit; scale 1/16" to 1'; Sep 1968; Approved Sep 1968; with section 1/2" and Inset Location Plan 1:2500 Drawing P3/2: Sundon CP School: Proposed addition of single classroom unit; scale 1/8" to 1'; May 1968; Approved Sep 1968; Inset Location Plan 1:2500 Form SB16: Sundon CP School - extension; one new classroom; 840 sq ft; total estimated expenditure £5,760; Oct 1968 Form SB16: Studham CVP School - extension; two new classrooms; 1698 sq ft; total estimated expenditure £11,335; Oct 1968 Form SB16: Kensworth CVP School - extension; two new classrooms; 1698 sq ft; total estimated expenditure £10,140; Oct 1968 Memo to Director of Education; 'The Education Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee at their meeting of 13 Sep approved plans of basic classroom units at the following schools: Great Barford, Oakley, Studham, Kensworth [2 Classrooms]; Marston Moretaine, Stotfold, Carlton, Wilstead, Sundon [1 Classroom]'; Oct 1968 Tenders invited from Build Form Ltd, Willis Dawson Ltd, T & E Neville Ltd, S J Farrow Ltd, J M Hill & Sons (Ampthill) Ltd; Oct 1968 Tenders invited again after delay to Bills of Quantities; Nov 1968 Willis Dawson were successful with their tender for £27,296..4s..8d; Nov 1968 Drawing P4/4: Studham CVP School; double classroom unit; Site Works; scale 1/8" to 1'; Oct 1968; Inset Location Plan 1:2500 Drawing P5/3: Kensworth CVP School; double classroom unit; Site Works; scale 1/16" to 1'; Oct 1968; Inset Location Plan 1:2500 Drawing P3/2: Sundon CP School: As above but with revisions Aug and Sep 1968 Letter from Engineer & Surveyor's Department, Luton Rural District Council, to County Architect; 'I would inform you that I have no observations to make on your proposals at Studham or Kensworth, but at Sundon, as the drainage to that end of the village is to a pumping station, I must ask that surface water be excluded. I should be pleased to receive your confirmation that you are prepared to do this'; Oct 1968 Reply; 'I confirm that surface water from Sundon CP School will be excluded for the reason stated. Perhaps you will confirm that the scheme now meets with your approval'; Nov 1968 Reply; 'I am pleased to confirm that the drainage to Sundon CP School, as amended by your letter, is now satisfactory'; Dec 1968 Letter from Department of Education & Science; 'The Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been recommended to issue formal consent to the borrowing of the sum of £5,760 for a period of 30 years' [Sundon CP School]; Also mentions 'The Authority are asked to satisfy themselves that the minimum two per cent daylight factor is met in the practical area and particularly in the area around the warm air heater unit'; Nov 1968 Similar letter regarding Kensworth School for £10,140; Dec 1968 Similar letter regading Studham Primary School for £11,335; Dec 1968 Memo from County Architect to Clerk of the County Council; 'Tenders have been received for Great Barford CP, Oakley CP, Studham and Kensworth CVP Schools, but Ministry approval is still awaited. I am most anxious that the building operations should start as soon as possible and I shall be grateful, therefore, if you will ascertain from the Department of Education & Science when we may expext approval for these four schools'; Nov 1968 Drawing 1A: Kensworth CVP School, Isolated Classroom Unit; As Drawing No. 1 above with location plan and drainage added; 26 Sep 1968 Drawing No. 4: Standard Foundation Details; Single left hand unit; Single right hand unit; Double classroom unit; Details of type 'A' and type 'B' foundations; scale 1/4" and 1" to 1'; Sep 1968 Drawing E/GEN4/1; Double classroom unit; Basic plan; Roof plan; Elevations; scale 1/4" to 1'; Aug 1968 Further copy of Drawing P4/3 as above: Studham VP School; Proposed addition of double classroom unit; Sep 1968 Memo from County Architect to Mr Tew; 'I have today forwarded an additional copy of my drawings Nos. P4/4A and P5/3A to Wilis Dawson Ltd, with setting out dimensions added. These show the unit 12' away from the existing school at Studham and the rear of the school and the new block in line, whilst at Kensworth the new unit will be 20' away from and parallel to the new rear boundary, with the front corner of the unit on the existing boundary line'; Jan 1969 Memo from County Architect to Chief Education Officer; 'Willis-Dawson are the General Contractors for the classroom unit at Kensworth CVP School and will be commencing work on the site on Monday 3 Feb. I thought you might like to advise the head teacher in this instance'; Jan 1969 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'The Managers of Wilstead CP School at their meeting 24 Mar, expressed concern that the trenches for the new classroom have been left open rather a long time. They felt this was undesirable and were anxious that the Contractors shold be informed accordingly; Apr 1969 Memo from A T L; 'Mr Hartley says that they are up to roof level with the classroom extension at Sundon CP School and the Contractor assures him that it will be completed on time in accordance with the Contract, the completion date for which is 1 Aug. Mr Hartley thinks the completion time will be more likely the end of Aug'; Jun 1969 Memo from County Architect to Clerk of the County Council; 'With reference to your memo enclosing copy of a letter received from Mr J A S Hepburn, Church Road, Studham, dated 6 Aug, the oil storage tank in question at present stands behind the existing vertical slatted fence to the boundary. It is intended that the tank be enclosed in similar slatted fencing to almost the height of the tank, but the builder, as yet, has not carried out this work. I regret that Mr Hepburn is suffering annoyance at the misuse of the tank by the youth of the village, but trust that when the work is completed he and his neighbour Mr Dakers will find little cause for complaint'; Aug 1969 Memo from H Hartley to Mr P Moore; 'Reinstatement of grass surrounds will be necessary to all sites in the Northern and Soiuthern areas, and I should be pleased if you would let me have your advice on the most economical way of making these areas presentable'; Aug 1969 Letter from County Architect to Willis Dawson Ltd; 'With reference to your letter of 16 Oct, I should be pleased to know why Messrs Tuke & Bell are charging for testing [Classroom unit at Studham School]. This was part of their contract'; Oct 1969 Letter from Willis-Dawson Ltd to County Architect; 'Further to our recent conversation regarding the contract for Basic Classroom Units at Sundon, Studham and Kensworth, may we submit our claim for extension of time on this project; 1) The contract commencement date was 3 Feb and we started work on site 5 Feb. Having excavated the footings by 13 Feb we were ready for inspection but due to severe frost and snow we were unable to concrete these footings until 14 Mar, thus causing a complete hold-up of all work on sites for a period of one month; 2) We would also submit that during the contract we were held up on information regarding Venesta Partitioning which caused a serious delay in delivery. This coupled with the fact that on such a simple contract some 46 Variation Orders were issued all helped to cause a delay of another fortnight; For the items detailed above, we would ask for your consideration to our request for a total of 6 weeks extension to the contract period'; May 1971 Letter from Miss E Newcomb, Headmistress, Studham VCP School, to Chief Education Officer; 'I thank you for your letter of 19 May regarding the erection of changing rooms for the swimming pool and a covered way from the new classrooms to the main building. Mr Hartley of the County Architect's Department visited me on Friday to discuss the plans and he has now said that an extra four feet can be added on to the side away from the pool, making the overall measurements 24' x 13'. The new door leading into classroom A will open outwards instead of inwards and the partition is to be erected on the other side of classroom B window. I have seen the members of the P.T.A. committee and they have agreed to pay the sum of £400 towards the cost of this work. We should be grateful if the work could be started as soon as possible, so that the covered way may be ready for use this winter'; Jun 1971 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'I should be pleased if you would let me know whether you can carry out the minor alterations suggested by the Head and let me have a revised drawing in due course'; Jun 1971 [pen note: 'Authority's share of cost to be from money not expended under EK5P5 - therefore final account on this should not be reported at present'] Drawing P6/2: Kensworth VCP School; Development to 240 place Lower School; Site Plan & Elevations; scale 1/16" to 1'; inset location plan; Sep 1971; revised Oct 1971 Report to Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee regarding final cost of various building projects including: Isolated classroom units at Great Barford CP, Marston Moretaine CP, Oakley CP, Stotfold CP, Wilstead CP, Sundon CP, Carlton VP, Kensworth VP, Studham VP Schools; Approved Capital Estimate £81,000; Final Cost £73,447.26; Mar 1974 File on Additional land for Kensworth CVP School: OS Extract showing potential additional land for school site sent to Luton RDC May 1963; scale 1:2500 Memo from County Architect to Clerk to Luton RDC; 'The Director of Education needs additional ground adjoining the school at Kensworth. I understand that you have recently acquired a site in the area for housing development and I should like to know if your Council would sell a piece of land about 65 yards x 100 yards as shown on the attached plan'; May 1963 Reply from James A Murch, Engineer & Surveyor, Luton RDC; 'I am in receipt of your letter regarding Kensworth CVP School and have checked the area of land shown on your plan with that recently acquired by my Council. This is practically one third of the total area and I feel sure that my Committee would not agree to your proposals. I will, however place your letter before the Housing Committee at their next meeting which will be held towards the end of June'; Jun 1963 Further letter; 'I would inform you that this matter has now been considered by my Council's Housing Committee. As I mentioned previously, the land required by you is quite considerable in relation to the area which we have just recently acquired and my Committee could not agree to sell this unless a further area could be obtained in exchange. I understand that the Kensworth Parish Council, who are the owners of the remaining back-land, would favourably consider selling more land to my Council but this will be to no avail if planning consent is not obtainable. If, therefore, it is essential for your Council to have the additional land for extension to the Village School, then my Committee feel that you should explain your difficulties to the County Planning Department and prevail upon them, under all the circumstances, to be prepared to authorise my Council to develop a further comparable area of land from the rear. If this can be arranged, my Housing Committee are quite prepared to discuss the question of the sale of the land as shown on your plan. Will you contact the Planning Department and, if necessary, I shall be pleased to attend any joint meeting to further discuss the matter'; Jul 1963 Memo from County Planning Officer to County Architect; 'Kensworth is within the proposed Green Belt for South Bedfordshire, and in my opinion, any further encroachment of residential development into the open countryside is to be resisted. I feel that the Rural District Council already holds ample land in the village for housing purposes, and I would not be prepared to recommend approval of a compensating area of land if the suggested school site were acquired by the County Council'; Jul 1963 Memo from County Architect to The Surveyor, Luton RDC; 'Perhaps you would reconsider my request for the school site in the light of the Planning Officer's remarks and let me know if your Council could now agree to sell'; Jul 1963 Reply; 'This matter was again considered by my Council's Housing Committee on 26 Aug. I have to inform you that my Council are still not prepared to consider the sale of land for this purpose unless further land is allocated for housing purposes to make up for the area of land that the Education Authority would require'; Aug 1963 Letter from Engineer & Surveyor, Luton RDC to Director of Education; 'I feel that we shall not make much progress until we have had a joint meeting between representatives of your Department, The Planning Department, Architect's Department and myself, and I shall be glad to come along to Bedford if you can let me have a convenient date'; Sep 1963 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'Mr Ray will recall that at the meeting with Mr Murch and Mr Pyne at the Rural District Council's offices on 26 Sep, it was thought that your department could best suggest a solution to the development around the school. I am interested to secure some land for the school playing field and a Police House site near the Women's Institute, and Mr Murch is concerned about the conversion of the Women's Institute to a Village Hall, provision of a few Old People's bungalows and some Council Houses. Perhaps when you have managed to complete your thoughts a further meeting could be arranged between the three departments'; Oct 1963 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer regarding Kensworth - Proposed Housing Site, Common Road; a) Land required for educational purposes; b) Land required for Police; 'I thank you for your memo of 17 Feb enclosing sketch layout submitted by the Surveyor of Luton RDC. I have the following observations to make: School Site - Land edged green for future extensions - No comment; Police Beat House Site - I enclose a copy of Drawing SJK61P1/2 [not here] upon which I have indicated the following information: 1) The site as previously approved is indicated in orange. 50 ft frontage, 150 ft deep and splayed to 82 ft at the rear. This site has been recommended for purchase by the Standing Joint Committee and negotiations are held up pending the definite agreement of the service road and in consequence the site boundaries; 2) The site as now proposed is also indicated in conjunction with the layout of the service road indicated on Drawing H380a and prepared by Luton RDC. You will notice that the proposed land available for the police house is much reduced; The District Valuer has held up his negotiations, and in a letter of 24 Feb he requires to have revised details of the exact site. I should therefore be pleased to know if the service road and grass verge are to be constructed by Luton RDC. The revised site for the Police House would then be as coloured in orange on the site as proposed. The contract for the erection of this Beat House is being held up, And I should be grateful if you would treat this matter as very urgent'; Feb 1964 Further memo; 'I should be grateful if you would let me have a reply in order that the District Valuer can deal with the acquisition of the site required for the police house. This matter is now very urgent as the Contract for the erection of the police house is being held up'; Apr 1964 Further memo; 'Mr Pyne has made a number of attempts to contact Mr Reay but without success. I am now getting anxious about the acquisition of the land for a playing field by the County Council from Luton RDC. You will no doubt remember that I am waiting for you to settle the question of an alternative and equivalent site for RDC Housing. Perhaps you will be good enough to let me know if any progress has been made and if not what should be our next step'; Mar 1965 Reply; 'I understand that the Surveyor to Luton RDC is now preparing a layout for the land adjoining the proposed playing field which will enable him to define the precise boundaries of the land which is to be sold to the County Council. I understand that the layout will be sent to me shortly, and I will contacf you as soon as a copy has been received'; Mar 1965 Memo from County Architect to J A Murch, Engineer & Surveyor, Luton RDC; 'The enclosed plan [OS Extract, 1:2500] shows land (coloured pink) which I understand you think your Council would sell to the Local Education Authority as a playing field for Kensworth School. If I have interpreted your suggestion correctly, I would be grateful to know if I may put the matter before the Education Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee'; May 1965 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'The attached plan shows an area of land, coloured pink, proposed for acquisition as an extension to the school playing field. I would be grateful for your comments before putting it to the Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee'; May 1965 [Same memo to County Planning Officer] Reply from J A Murch; 'This is to be slightly amended by the exclusion of the small area hatched in black which will now be used as part of the Council's housing development [remaining land South West of existing school, approx. 200' wide and 445' 6" long]. This whole agreement is, of course, subject to my Council being able to acquire the alternative land from the Parish Council and also to the grant of planning consent for its future development'; May 1965 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I have now reached agreement as to the piece of land to be made available for the school playing field. It is pretty much what we have all agreed should be used but Mr Murch still says that its sale to the County Council is dependent upon his Council being able to acquire the alternative land from the Parish Council and to your consent for its future development. You will remember that your consent was the original stumbling block and I would be grateful to know if you are now able to resolve this difficulty with Mr Murch so that I may proceed with the purchase of the ground'; Jul 1965 Reply; 'On 1 Jan I informed Mr Murch that the County Planning Committee had indicated their readiness to give planning consent for a further 1.4 acres of land to compensate for the land already given planning permission for residential purposes and owned by the RDC and which you were now to purchase from them. I should have thought that this assurance would satisfy them even though formal consent has not yet been given. I suggest that you draw Mr Murch's attention to the contents of my letter of 1 Jan' [below]; Jul 1965 Letter from County Planning Officer to J A Murch; 'I am replying to your letter of 30 Oct regarding the proposed layout of your housing estate at Common Road, and the land which your Council is considering selling to the County Council for various purposes. The matter was considered by the County Planning Committee on 17 Nov and consent was granted subject to conditions, for the layout of the Old Persons' bungalows along the Common Road frontage. Formal notification of this decision has now been sent to the Clerk of your Council [Luton RDC]. The possible development of the backland shown edged pink on your plan was considered, and it was resolved that your Council should be informed that the Committee would be prepared to give favourable consideration to the development for residential purposes of an additional 1.4 acres of land to compensate for the area of land with outstanding planning permission for residential development which is now required for educational purposes: but the Committee do not favour frontage development along Clayhall Lane and that accordingly your Council be asked to reconsider the proposed site boundaries to see whether a more satisfactory layout could be achieved which would link with the existing village pattern. If you would care to discuss the shape and extent of the proposed site with a member of my staff, I shall be happy to arrange this as soon as possible'; Jan 1965 Memo from County Planning Officer to County Architect; 'I am replying to your memo of 10 May regarding the proposed extension to the School playing field. I have no objections to this proposal and I have now received the comments from the Surveyor to Luton RDC. The RDC has agreed to sell the large rectangle of land for the purposes of a School playing field, but the small square of land projecting at the North Western corner is now withdrawn from the offer and they would presumably therefore object to its use for such purposes. I assume that there will be no access to Clayhall Lane and I have not therefore consulted the County Surveyor. I should be glad also if you would consider laying out the playing fields in such a way that a pedestrian link can later be made between the School site and any residential development that the RDC carries out to the West'; Jul 1965 Letter from County Architect to J A Murch; 'I sent a copy of your last letter to the County Planning Officer asking him to clarify the position of compensating land for your Council. He has now sent in a memo suggesting that I should draw your attention to his letter of 1 Jan in which he, presumably, says that the County Planning Committee are willing to agree to the development of a further 1.4 acres and I expect he hoped that this assurance would satisfy you, pending formal consent. I would be most grateful if you and the Planning Officer could come to some final agreement as I am anxious to secure a playing field for Kensworth School with as little further delay as possible'; Jul 1965 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'I am sending you a copy of a memo, 20 Jul, which I have received from the County Planning Officer, and would be grateful for your comment on this item in his last paragraph referring to a pedestrian link between this school site and any possible residential development to the west. I do not know what this means so perhaps you would like to take the matter up with Planning and then let me know if, so far as you are concerned, I may proceed with the acquisition of the land. I hope to take this to the September Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee'; Jul 1965 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I want to avoid acting as mediator between you and Mr Murch and to this end I would be most grateful, as I have suggested in my letter to him, if you and he could come to some final agreement which would enable me to acquire this land for the School'; Jul 1965 Letter from J A Murch to County Architect; 'I would say that whilst the County Planning Committee have agreed to the development of a further 1.4 acres at Kensworth, it has not so far been possible to obtain an approval for the actual area required. Negotiations on a possible layout are still proceeding'; Jul 1965 Memo from Director of Education to County Architect; 'The land to the west of this school is owned by the Luton RDC, who has received permission to develop an area for residential use, and I would have no objection to a pedestrian link between the school and the proposed housing estate. The exact location of this could be agreed at a later stage. I confirm that an access from the playing field into Clayhall Lane will not be required. No doubt, you will now submit this to the next meeting of the Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee'; Aug 1965 Letter from Peter Green, Deputy Clerk to Luton RDC, to Clerk of the County Council; 'With reference to the proposed sale of land at Common Road, Kensworth Parish Council have now agreed terms with the District Valuer for the sale of the additional land required by this Council to replace that proposed to be acquired by your Authority in connection with extensions to the school. Planning permission has already been obtained in respect of the additional land but before pursuing further in this matter, I shall be glad if you will let me know whether your Authority desires to purchase the land shown coloured pink on the enclosed plan'; Feb 1966 [area 1.47 acres, South of Common Road, Clayhall Lane abutting to the East] Memo from County Architect to Clerk of the County Council; 'The area of the land shown on the Luton RDC's plan is different from what was agreed between Mr Murch and Mr Pyne and so I am returning the plan with the agreed dimensions and area edged in brown. This area is about two acres and we originally asked for about 1 1/3 acres so the RDC's offer would meet the school needs, so far as School Regulations are concerened. Perhaps you would like to ask the Directors views before answering the Luton RDC'; Feb 1966 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'Further to our previous correspondence and in particular your memo dated 20 July 1965, the Luton RDC have slightly reduced the area they are preparing to sell to the County Council and I enclose two copies of a plan [not here] showing this. Although you have given planning clearance to this additional land, I have not requested your observations on a Section 17 Certificate. I shall be glad, therefore, if you will kindly let me know as soon as possible what alternative development would be permitted on this land and, if residential, the density'; Feb 1966 Reply; 'You will doubtless be aware that the RDC possessed a planning consent in respect of this and other land for residential development. I would consider the appropriate to be about 10 dwellings to the acre'; Mar 1966 Letter from Clerk of the County Council to Deputy Clerk to Luton RDC [forwarded to County Architect]; 'In reply to your letter of 4 Mar, the County Architect informed the Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee of the Education Committee at their meeting held recently, of the offer of your RDC to sell to the County Council about 1.47 acres of land at Common Road, Kensworth, to provide a site for a playing field for Kensworth CVP School. The Sub-Committee then decided to recommend the Education Committee to approve the purchase of this land on terms to be agreed by the District Valuer. This recommendation will come before the Education Committee on 18 Mar 1966'; Mar 1966 Memo from Clerk of the County Council; 'Following the approval of the Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee to the acquisition of approximately 1.47 acres of land required for the playing field at Kensworth VCP School, I now enclose Forms of Particulars and plans for submission to the District Valuer'; Mar 1966 Letter from District Valuer & Valuation Officer to Clerk of the County Council; 'With reference to your letter of 16 Mar, it is noted at Item 14 on the Form of Particulars that the RDC possess a planning consent in respect of this land for residential development. Would you please let me know whether development could be carried out with direct frontage access to the side road leading in a southerly direction from the crossroads at the school junction?'; Apr 1966 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I think you have always said that there should be no access from the road in question but I should like your confirmation of this before answering the Clerk's memo'; Apr 1966 Further Memo; 'The Education Committee at their meeting 18 Mar 1966 approved the acquisition of 1.47 acres of land at Kensworth for playing field purposes and in so doing gave themselves Deemed Planning Consent. No doubt you will inform Luton RDC accordingly; Apr 1966 Memo from County Planning Officer to County Architect; 'The outline planning permission given in Nov 1953 for the development of five acres of land at Common Road, Kensworth, which included the site that you are interested in, stipulated that access should be from Clayhall Road, i.e. the road referred to by the District Valuer. In the way that the village has developed since this date it is clearly better that access to the residential development should be from Common Road as the RDC now propose, but if the land that you are acquiring were to be developed for residential purposes I do not think that individual access to Clayhall Road could be resisited'; May 1966 Letter from District Valuer to Clerk of the County Council; 'I am of opinion that the fair transfer price in respect of 1.47 acres of land required for the proposed playing field is £12,000 for the freehold interest with vacant possession. Would you please let me know if this figure is acceptable to your Council and I will then issue my report'; Jul 1966 [County Architect has no observations to make on the valuation] Aug 1966 Letter from County Architect to County Councillor A P Olney, 147 Common Road; 'The meeting to discuss the position of the dressing room at Kensworth School has been called for 10.30 am 6 Oct at the site. Mr Pyne tells me that you would like to be present'; Sep 1966 Letter from Reverend Ivan R Young on behalf of Trustees and Chairman, to County Architect; 'The Correspondent to the school has handed your letter of 20 Sep to me. The letter and that which you have to say calls for comment. In the first place the Headmaster did mention to me something regarding a proposed meeting and about which he appeared to be by no means clear. On reading your letter I am somewhat surprised. On 27 Jun the matter of the proposed dressing room in connection with the Swimming Pool was discussed. This was at the School Managers meeting held on that date. At this meeting I specifically pointed out that if the County Authority agreed and the Town Planning Authority approved, the matter might go forward. The matter of siting the building proposed was, of course, dependent upon securing the approval of these two Authorities; subject to this the Trustees of the School would also approve. Mr Olney, a County Council representative, in order to facilitate matters said he would get in touch with your Authority and someone would come down, he mentioned your name, and determine the site for the building. At somewhat short notice on 30 Jun [pen note: date plans sent to Planning], as the result of Mr Olney's representations, Mr Pyne met some of the Managers and the matter was discussed and a site suggested by Mr Pyne who intimated that part of his work was connected with siting. I again said that if the County Authority agreed to the site, the approval of the Town Planning Authority must be obtained and subject to this the Trustees would give their consent. Mr Pyne gave us assurance that this would be looked into and the consent of the Town Planning Authority obtained. I have now been in touch with the Local Planning Authority since I had no idea that an objection had been raised by them and assumed that the matter had gone forward with their approval. I now gather this cannot have been the case. My own surmise is that your Authority somehow delayed obtaining approval until after the building had been placed on the site indicated by Mr Pyne. Further I presume that the Headmaster having made arrangements for the building to be obtained allowed it to be sited. I think everyone here assumed that your Authority was dealing with the Town Planning Authority and that no objection therefore had been raised. I note that you say in your second paragraph that you sent the plans to the Local Planning Authority on behalf of the School Managers. I might point out that the Trustees should really have the last word. What disturbs me is that we had precisely the same trouble over the Swimming Pool over the siting ?and of which the Trustees were ignored and the Planning Authority not communicated with. This despite my calling attention to fact and impressing it on the Headmaster who appears to have acted in the first instance on his own initiative. For confirmation of this I would refer you to Mr Lucking who subsequently wrote to me about the matter. I wish then to make it clear that at no stage in this apparent muddle about the erection of the building in question was it understood that the building would be erected without Planning Authority being obtained. I regret having to inflict this long letter upon you but think it well that you should be in possession of the facts. I may also add that the Trustees are more than disturbed that this situation should have arisen at all and they feel strongly about it. Both in the case of the Pool and of dressing room (a Mobile Hutment), their clear representations made by me appeared to have been without result'; Sep 1966 Letter from A J Todd, Clayworth Cottage, Clayhall Road, to The Chairman, Bedfordshire County Council; 'It has been brought to my attention that the Bedfordshire County Council have in mind to pay £12,000 for a piece of land from the Luton RDC (viz 1.47 acres) this to be used as a playing field. As a landowner and ratepayer I am prepared to offer you up to 4 acres @ £2,500 per acre (this land is at the end of a footpath a short distance from the school). If only 1.5 acres are required then you can save money on behalf of the ratepayers, and if 4 acres are purchased you have a nice sized playing field and still save money'; Oct 1966 Reply from County Architect; 'I am enclosing herewith part of an Ordnance Survey Sheet of the area and am wondering if you could mark on this the land which you are offering to the County Council, and return it to me so that I can consider the matter'; Nov 1966 Reply; 'I have drawn a line along the pathway from Common Road to the field which adjoins Bleak Hall, i.e. OS No. 113a, which is some 18 acres, any part or all of which I offer @ £2,500 per acre. If a playing field is to be purchased, then I suggest it be large enough to accommodate a football and cricket pitch, otherwise the School Playground should suffice'; Nov 1966 Letter from County Architect to Mr Martell, Chairman of the County Council; 'I enclose a plan of Kensworth showing the school site which we own, the playing field site which we are about to purchase from Luton RDC at a cost of £12,000, coloured red, and the area which Mr Todd owns coloured green. You will see that the site which we are about to purchase from Luton RDC immediately adjoins the school, and the alternative use put on it by the Planning Committee was for housing, and this has fixed the District Valuer's value of the land. The area which Mr Todd offers is about half a mile from the school site, and I have spoken to the Deputy Director of Education and he would not like to recommend this to Committee as a suitable site for a school playing field. I have consulted the County Planning Officer and it is unlikely that the Planning Committee would agree that housing should be alternative use value for the land which Mr Todd offers, and therefore I would have thought the District Valuer would not recommend a figure of £2,500 per acre for this land. It would presumably be only agricultural value, and at this value perhaps Mr Todd would not be so keen to sell. I have not replied further to Mr Todd, do you wish me to do so?'; Nov 1966 Reply; 'I think if you wrote to Mr Todd, it would be a good idea, and you can say that I have asked you to do so'; Nov 1966 Letter from County Architect to Mr Todd; 'The land which you offer is some distance away from the school - about half a mile along the road and down a footpath, whereas that which it is proposed to buy from the RDC is immediately adjoining the existing school buildings. I have consulted the County Planning Officer, and he advises that if an application were made for alternative use of the land which you offer, it is unlikely that the County Planning Committee would be able to agree any change of use, and I think that this would mean that it would be most unlikely that the District Valuer would agree to the County Council paying more than agricultural value for the land which you own. I assume that you would not be interested in selling the land at its present agricultural value'; Nov 1966 Reply; 'I have your letter and will deal with the objection raised by your Chairman. It is quite true the distance is some little way from the school, but cannot see that any harm will come to any child for a short walk, after all they travel further distance to attend school. Your penultimate paragraph appears to deal with problems that are unrealistic. After all, the land you propose to purchase is far more expensive and it certainly is not big enough for a playing field, not if the children wish to play cricket or football. I intend to put this up to the Ministry as I think that your Council should become realistic'; Dec 1966 Letter from Clerk to Kensworth Parish Council to Clerk of the County Council; 'I am directed by the Kensworth Parish Council to ask if information can be given as to the probable date when the fencing off of the allotment land recently sold to you from the remainder of the allotments will commence'; Jun 1967 Memo from Clerk of the County Council to County Architect; 'Kindly let me know when you will be in a position to erect the 4 feet chain link fence along the western and southern boundaries of the land as required under the terms of the District Valuer's report'; Jun 1967 Reply; 'I am now calling for quotations for the fencing of the playing field at Kensworth and if a satisfactory price is received will put the work in hand forthwith'; Jul 1967 Memo from Director of Education to County Architect; 'I refer to the telephone conversation with Mr H J Pyne with regard to the 1.47 acres of land recently acquired for the school. As I think you know, this land is to be prepared as a playing field by my Playing Field Maintenance Unit and in view of this I should be grateful if you would let me know when the land has been fenced'; Dec 1967 Letter from County Architect to Engineer & Surveyor, Luton RDC; 'Further to Mr Walsh's discussion with your Mr Chance, I enclose herewith a plan showing the area of land purchased from your Authority, and the measurements to which stakes have been placed to contain this area in accordance with the conveyance plan. I would like to point out that point "B" coincides with your red marker and my assistants have placed a yellow peg at point "A" demarking the line out of the fence in accordance with your Estate Plan shown to Mr Walsh. A yellow peg has been placed 20 ft in from the hedge to demark a frontage of 300 ft, it being impossible to to place a marker on the hedge line due to lorries entering the site at this point. I should be glad to receive your confirmation of these measurements as soon as possible because I am being urged to fence this site immediately. Perhaps you would kindly arrange for the surplus spoil on the site to be moved and the entrance at point "D" shifted so that we may commence ploughing and fencing as soon as possible'; Jan 1968 Reply; 'I agree the measurements shown on the plan... and the position at which stakes have been placed to mark out the boundaries of the 1.47 acres. I am arranging with the contractors to remove the surplus soil from the site and close the entrance to Clayhall Road'; Jan 1968 Memo from Clerk of the County Council to County Architect; 'The purchase of the 1.47 acres has now been completed. The County Council covenants to erect a chain link fence of a height of 4 feet on concrete posts on the western and southern boundaries of the land'; Feb 1967 Letter from County Architect to J A Murch, Engineer and Surveyor, Luton RDC; 'The area of 1.47 acres of land which the County Council purchased ffrom your Council some time ago has still got surplus soil in heaps at various places. It is intended that work should commence, in the near future, of erecting a classroom on the site and the heaps are interfering with survey work at the moment. Would you please arrange for the contractor concerned to remove the soil as soon as possible in order that site works are not held up'; Oct 1968 Reply; 'I have arranged for the contractor concerned to remove the soil etc., from this site immediately. I regret you should have had to write to me a second time on this matter, as the contractor has had these instructions for some considerable time'; Oct 1968

Stored off site - 2 working days notice required to retreive from storage. Please contact us for advice.

item

Kensworth Voluntary Controlled County Primary School, KENSWORTH, STUDHAM, SUNDON