CA2/441/8

Oakley: Lower School/Lincroft [2 files]

1964-1972

From: 1964 To: 1972

File on Lincroft CSM School; Additional Land: Letter from Robert Miles & Partners, Bedford, to County Architect; 'We write to inform you that we have been instructed to dispose of the land at the rear of 90 Station Road, Oakley... We have also been instructed to offer a plot of land adjoining No 90, but as this is of considerable depth we advised our Client to dispose of an area of approx 4,510 sq yds at the rear of the property, and it occurred to us that the Educational Authorities might well be interested in adding to the grounds of the Oakley Secondary Modern School'; Aug 1964 Reply; 'I have asked the Director of Education for his observations. I will get in touch with you immediately I hear from him'; Aug 1964 Drawing E05/ES381 (4 copies, one approved Sep/Oct 1964, one showing remaining land divided into 3 for additional housing); Proposed additional land; scale 1/32" to 1'; with inset location plan 1:2500; Aug 1964 [rear of adjoining garden, 330' x 123' 3", about 5/8 of the entire length, directly south of the school] Memo from Director of Education to County Architect; 'I return herewith one copy of your Drawing showing an area of land to the south of Lincroft School which I understand is available to be acquired by the Authority. I agree that this piece of land would form a desirable addition to the site of this school and I should be glad if you would proceed accordingly'; Aug 1964 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I have indicated in red an area of 4510 sq yds which the owner is willing to sell for educational purposes. The Director of Education has agreed that it is suitable for his requirements. As I intend to report the proposed acquisition of this land to the next meeting of the Education Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee on 18 Sep, I should be grateful to have your comments from a Planning point of view. Will you please let me know the position in regard to Section 17'; Aug 1964 Letter to Robert Miles & Partners from County Architect; 'The Director of Education has agreed that the land which you indicated on your plan - 4510 sq yds - is required for educational purposes. I should like to report this proposed acquisition to the next meeting of the Education Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee which is to be held on 18 Sep. The following information will therefore be necessary so that the District Valuer can negotiate: a) Is the land freehold and when would it be vacated; b) Name and address of owner; c) Name and address of Solicitors; d) If let, name of occupier and nature of tenancy and rental; e) Tithe or any other charge; f) Is land subject to any restrictions, easement or right-of-way; g) Will tenant's compensation be borne by Vendor or Purchaser; In the meanwhile I will obtain the position from a Planning point of view. My Deputy, Mr Walmsley, is dealing with this matter, and he would be available to help you on any queries'; Aug 1964 Reply; 'a) We confirm that the Tenure of the land is freehold and that Vacant Possession can be given on completion of the purchase; b) Our Client's name is Mr J A Compton and his address is 90 Station Road, Oakley; c) Our Client's Solicitors are Messrs J T Parker & Son, Rushden; d) This land is in occupation of the Freeholder, Mr Compton, and is not let; e) This land is not subject to tithe or any other charge; f) We are not aware of this land being subject to any restrictions, easements or rights-of-way; g) Not Applicable; Aug 1964 Memo from Principal Planning Officer to County Architect; 'I personally can see no planning objections to the use of the land indicated for educational purposes. I have today forwarded a copy of the plan onto the Bedford Rural District Council and I will write to you further on receipt of their observations. So far as Section 17 is concerned, in the absence of any proper access to the site I do not consider that any alternativeuse other than that required by the County Council could be recommended'; Aug 1964 Further memo; 'I would advise you that Bedford RDC have no observations to make on the proposal'; Oct 1964 Report to Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee 18 Sep and Education Committee 2 Oct 1964; 'The County Architect in bringing forward a number of suitable school sites pointed out that in some cases the land was being acquired well in advance of requirements, particularly when it was offered to the Council, and that it might well be necessary to acquire additional land for some of these sites at a later date when plans of the schools were prepared; Recommended: That the following sites/properties be acquired for educational purposes on terms to be agreed by the District Valuer and otherwise upon conditions to be settled by the Clerk and that the action of the Chairman of the Education Committee be confirmed in authorising the District Valuer to proceed with negotiations for the purcahse of No 7, Linden Road, Bedford; School/College: Lincroft CS, Oakley; Area of land or Property: 4510 sq yds, adjoining school; Purpose: Addition to school site'. Memo from A T Lawes to Mr Walmsley; 'The Education Committee at their meeting 2 Oct agreed to the acquisition of the following sites on terms to be settled by the District Valuer. No doubt you will submit plans and particulars to the District Valuer as soon as you are ready: Leighton Buzzard (Heath Road), 4.38 acres, Proposed site for CP Infants School (1965/66 Programme); Leighton Buzzard, 5.102 acres, Proposed site for 2 form entry CP Junior School (1966/67 Programme); Leighton Buzzard (Heath Road), 20 acres, Proposed site for Secondary School, as yet unprogrammed; Lincroft CS, Oakley, 4510 sq yds, Addition to school site; Kempston, 8.05 acres, Proposed 2 form entry Junior School (1966/67 Programme)'; Oct 1964 Letter from County Architect to Stotts of Oldham, London SW1; 'Some two years ago you supplied a gas Stainless Steel Sterilising Sink for Clapham/Oakley CSM School. At that time no wire mesh shelves for fitting under the Unit were ordered. Miss D Fox has suggested that you may be able to help in this matter and kindly let me have a price for supplying this shelving. I did write a letter in similar terms to you during May, but received no reply. I assume this may have gone astray since it was addressed to premises in Oxford Street'; Oct 1964 Letter from County Architect to Robert Miles & Partners; 'I am pleased to inform you that the Education Committee have now agreed to the acquisition of your Client's land at Oakley, and the necessary particulars have been sent to the District Valuer to enable him to negotiate with you. You will no doubt hear from him in the fairly near future'; Oct 1964 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'The Education Committee at their meeting 2 Oct agreed to the acquisition of the land at Oakley for educational purposes, and in so doing gave themselves Deemed Planning Consent. No doubt you will inform the District Council accordingly'; Oct 1964 Particulars to Accompany Application for District Valuer's Report; Oct 1964 Letter from County Architect to W G C Krause, 90 Station Road, Oakley; 'With reference to your letter of 19 Feb addressed to the Director of Education, and the call at your home by Mr Walmsley, I now confirm that my Authority was approached by the Agents of the previous owner of 90 Station Road regarding the purchase of land at the rear of the house which he considered was surplus to his requirements. The Education Committee agreed to acquire the land and the Agents were accordingly informed that the District Valuer would get in touch with the owner to agree a suitable purchase price. During the past few months the staff of the District Valuer has been depleted from six to one Valuer owing to a spell of serious illness and the impossible task of getting replacements. When the Valuer recently called at your home, he was naturally surprised to find a new owner who did not wish to sell the land but on the contrary, had purchased the house because he required to establish a fruit plantation on the land in question. I believe that you are confirming with the District Valuer that you have no desire to sell. I should, however, like you to know that my Authority would still be interested in acquiring this land if you should change your mind in the future. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Director of Education for his information'; Feb 1965 Reply; 'I am sorry that your department has been put to some trouble over the parcel of land included in my property. I assure you that this has happened entirely without my knowledge and my solicitors who did some thorough searches for me never were aware of the position either. I am afraid that I must confirm that I have no wish to sell any of the land which, to me, is one of the main attractions of the property. However, if at any time I should change my mind I shall be quite happy to give you an option on the land'; Mar 1965 Letter from District Valuer to Clerk of the County Council; 'I refer to your letter of 29 Oct regarding the proposed purchase of land. Since there has been a change of ownership of this land and I have had no reply from the new owner I can only construe that he has no wish to sell. I understand that Mr Walmsley has been in touch with him in this respect and I think the best course is, therefore, to regard negotiations as closed. In the event of the new owner proving agreeable to sell I will open a new file on the case'; May 1965 Drawing showing area of 9.75 acres on Station Road to the north of Lincroft School site (part of proposed Estate development, also shows existing playing field area on corner of Station Road and Lovell Road); scale 1:2500; no date [?1967] Note regarding the above; 'If the additional land coloured red was purchased, there would be sufficient to meet the requirements for Middle and Lower Schools. The Lower School buildings have been sited in the NW corner of the existing (green) land to give S & E aspect and prospect and to enable the Lower School and surroundings to be self-contained, with a separate entrance, to the West of the present buildings. It is not possible to site the Lower School in the SW corner of the green land immediately adjacent to the proposed access because of the unfavourable aspect/prospect for classrooms etc., With the building in the NW corner, the access shown in red would shorten the length of County Council Road if the alternative could be negotiated with the developers and if it became County Council policy. The best site for the Lower School might be in the NW corner of the red land, but this was rejected because of uncertainty of access from estate roads, and the desire to avoid an entrance from Station Road. The siting of a Lower School at the southern end of the red land would divide the Middle School from its playing field and has therefore been rejected'; Aug 1967 Memo from Director of Education to County Architect regarding Oakley Village Development; 'I am writing to confirm the outdoor physical education facilities which should be provided for Lincroft School and for Oakley Primary School, which are as follows: 1) Winter pitches: 2 hockey pitches are required for girls, one 80 yds x 60 yds with a minimum clearance of 5 yards either end and 3 yards margin at either side, second pitch to be not less than 80 yds x 50 yds with the same margins; 2 pitches for boys are required each with 100 yds x 60 yds and margins of 10 yds at either side and 15 yds at either end; 2) Summer pitches: Cricket table 25 yds x 25 yds preferably between the two girls hockey pitches; An area of 30 yds x 26 yds for 6 practice nets with an additional 10 yds for run-up; Two rounders pitches each to have 40 yds radius in a semi-circle for batting area; 3) Tennis: 5 grass courts would be adequate provided the paved area could be divided into two rectangles 190 x 110 ft and 110 x 150 ft; 4) Athletic facilities: Pole vault facilities are not required. Otherwise normal provision should be made with regard to jumps, sand pits and grass tracks; 5) Swimming: The swimming pool should be included in the educational brief for the building; I would be glad to know if in addition to the requirements set out above, provision could also be made for one additional playing area 80 yds x 60 yds'; Jul 1967 Drawing: Oakley Lincroft School; Proposed Entrance (extension of proposed estate road to west of school site); scale 1:64; Aug 1967 Letter from Piggott & Partners, Bedford, to Architect's Department; 'We have pleasure in enclosing a copy of our drawing showing the layout of roads and footpaths [for new housing development]. We must apologise for the delay, but we have been awaiting approval from the Surveyor's Department on minor amendments to the layout'; Aug 1967 Reply from County Architect; 'I thank you for enclosing drawing showing the roads and footpaths, etc., The information will prove very useful when preparing the completion of the school site. I enclose an extract from the drawing showing in red a proposal to extend the estate road up to the School site. I should be obliged to know if you would consider the sale of this parcel of land so that entry can be made from your Estate on to the School grounds'; Aug 1967 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'The siting of the Primary School has not yet been definitely decided. I enclose a copy of a plan showing the Lincroft Secondary School site and the Playing Fields'; Aug 1967 Letter from County Architect to Mr W G C Krause, 90 Station Road; 'You will no doubt remember that I got in touch with you in Feb 1965 regarding the purchase of land at the rear of your house. At that time, you had no wish to sell any of the land but you said that if you should change your mind you would be prepared to give my Authority an option. At the present moment, I am preparing a scheme for the enlargement of the facilities at Lincroft School and a small area of land at the bottom of your garden would be most beneficial. May I suggest that my Deputy, Mr Walmsley, could come and see you and explain the situation'; Aug 1967 Reply; I can see Mr Walmsley any time on Tuesday afternoon or evening, 15 Aug'. Drawing: Oakley Lincroft School; Proposed Entrance (as above, with additional alternative suggested entrance from extension of proposed estate road to the north west of school site, with suggested site for proposed Lower School in top NW corner of Lincroft site); scale 1:64; Aug 1967 Letter from County Architect to Piggott & Partners; 'With reference to my previous letter enquiring about the extension of the existing road in order to give access to the new school site, I enclose a drawing showing an alternative suggestion for an approach road. The reason for the road is to give access from your proposed development scheme to a new Middle School which is to be built on part of the existing School Site. Mr Walmsley is dealing with this project and he would be available to discuss any points you may wish to raise'; Aug 1967 Drawing No. SK1: Proposed Lower School, Middle School and Playing Fields; Feasibility Study; scale 1:2500; Aug 1967 [area to the North of site dedicated to playing fields, area of No 90 Station Road's back garden (rearmost third) highlighted] Memo from Deputy County Architect to Mr N White; 'Mr Barker asked me to re-open negotiatons with the owner of 90 Station Road, regarding the possibility of his selling part of his rear garden. If additional land could be obtained it might influence the siting of the Proposed Lower School. The owner is willing to consider the sale of the red hatched land and I should like to know if this would bu of any use regardign relocation of the lower school site'; Aug 1967 [Pencil note: 'Yes please. This land would be very useful and would assist the siting of a lower school in part of the site'] Another two copies of Drawing E05/ES381 showing rear third of garden, 2054 sq yds; scale 1/32" to 1'; with inset location plan 1:2500; revised Aug 1967 Letter from County Architect to W G C Krause; 'With reference to the recent visit to your home by Mr Walmsley, I enclose a copy of Drawing E05/ES381 upon which I have indicated in red an area of approximately 2054 sq yds. I believe that you are willing to negotiate for the sale of this land to my Authority and I am accordingly asking the District Valuer to get in touch with you regarding negotiations. I should be grateful, therefore, to hear that you agree to the sale of this area and at the same time let me know the name and address of your agent and your solicitor'; Sep 1967 Reply from Robert Miles & Partners, Bedford; 'Your letter dated 6 Sep 1967 addressed to our Client, Mr W G C Krause of 90 Station Road, has been passed to us to deal with as Agents on his behalf. We are instructed to say that Mr Krause is willing to consider an offer for the parcel of land having an area of approx 2054 sq yds as indicated in red on the drawing you forwarded to our Client. Perhaps you would be good enough to inform the District Valuer that we are the Agents concerned in this matter so that we may enter into negotiations with him with regard to this land. For your further information the Solicitors who will be acting for Mr Krause will be Messrs Skinnard & Co, of St Loyes Street, Bedford (Mr Davis)'; Sep 1967 Particulars to Accompany Application for District Valuer's Report; Sep 1967 Memo from County Architect to Clerk of the County Council; 'With reference to the Resolution of the Education Committee at their meeting of 2 Oct 1964, also the District Valuer's letter of 6 May 1965, I would advise you that the new owner is prepared to negotiate the sale of a smaller area of land to the Bedfordshire County Council. Enclosed herewith are the necessary Forms of Particulars and Plans to enable the District Valuer to negotiate and I shall be obliged if you will deal accordingly'; Sep 1967 Drawing showing area of 9.75 acres on Station Road to the north of Lincroft School (part of proposed Estate development, for new playing field area, also shows existing playing field area of 11.5 acres approx, corner of Station Road and Lovell Road); scale 1:2500; approved Sep 1967 Report to Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee 15 Sep 1967 and Education Committee 29 Sep 1967; 'The playing field for Lincroft School was on the opposite side of Station Road to the school and children had to cross this busy road to make use of the playing field. The Committee were not happy about this situation when the land was acquired in 1962, but it was the only site available with a willing vendor at that time. The site cost £3,000 and the construction of the playing field £7,200. The owner of the land adjoining the school buildings was now prepared to purchase the playing field from the County Council at the price paid plus the cost of the construction of the playing field and would sell an adequate area of land adjoining the school site for playing field purposes if the District Valuer would agree a satisfactory price'; Recommended: That the District Valuer be asked to negotiate terms for an exchange of the land coloured pink on the plan now submitted for the existing playing field. Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'Way back in Aug 1964 you agreed an area of land (4510 sq yds) adjoining Oakley School for educational purposes. Since that time the property changed hands with the result that the new owner would only sell 2054 sq yds of it. The District Valuer is now negotiating for the purchase of this land. Now a new lower school is needed in Oakley and it is proposed to build it in the position shown on the attached plan [south and west of Lincroft, including part of rear of No 90 Station Road]. I should be grateful for your observations on this so that if favourable, I can put it to the next Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee on 24 Nov'; Oct 1967 Reply; 'Further to Mr H J Pyne's recent discussion with Mr Hubbard in respect of the additional land, I confirm that the position of the new school building, as indicated on the plan enclosed with your memo, is considered to be too close to the new housing under construction on adjoining land. I await your revised plan as agreed'; Nov 1967 Memo from Clerk of the County Council to County Architect and Director of Education; 'As you know, the Education Committee approved the purchase of land at the rear of 90 Station Road as an extension to Lincroft CS School site. The District Valuer has been in negotiation with the owner of the land and he has today written to say that the amount required for the purchase is in excess of one that can be recommended and he has to report that negotiations have proved abortive in this case'; Feb 1968 Report from County Architect to Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee 23 Feb 1968; 'The Committee will recall at its meeting 15 Sep 1967 that a recommendation was made to the Education Committee for an exchange of land to provide Lincroft School with a playing field adjacent to the school. The Governors of the school at their last meeting passed the following resolution: "That the Governors welcome in principle an exchange of land which would give a playing field adjoining the school but emphasise that if an exchange is made the land should be adequate in size in accordance with the proposed development of the school, drained and prepared for use without delay". The Committee will no doubt bear this resolution in mind when they come to consider the District Valuer's Report and the Architect's estimated cost of carrying out the necessary development'. Recommendation of Education Committee 15 Mar 1968; 'That the Governors be assured that the Committee will look at all the factors involved in the suggested exchange of land before making a final decision'. Letter from Mrs V Harper, 88 Lovell Road, to Director of Education; 'I understand the Primary School at Oakley, which adjoins my property, is very overcrowded and that there is an urgent need for extension to the main building. I have a piece of land backing on to the school grounds which would be an ideal situation on which temporary classrooms could be built. I would be pleased to offer this to the Education Authorities for sale, or on lease for a period similar to that now in force for the school, to enable such an extension to be built. May I suggest that this matter be placed before your committee for consideration, after which, providing they are interested, an appointment to view the land in question can be arranged at a time suitable to both parties. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter at your earliest convenience'; Nov 1968 [land bordering to west of link footpath between Oakley AVP School and its playing field] Reply; 'I am asking the County Architect to have a word direct with you as he deals with the negotiation and acquisition of all land for the Education Committee. At the time of writing the Education Committee have proposals for the extension of the Lincroft School site but no proposals for the enlargement of the existing primary school on its present site'; Nov 1968 Letter from County Architect to Mr Claude R Vass, Tickner & Emmerton Ltd, Reigate; 'I understand that your company have taken over the development of land to the North of Oakley School from Messrs Besbuilt Ltd. In negotiations with Messrs Besbuilt, a promise was made by them to provide a footpath access to the school site so that children from the estate could be kept off the unpaved road passing the school and I should be grateful if you would kindly give some thought to this matter when preparing your layout. The ideal place, from the school's point of view, would be where indicated by a cross on the enclosed plan [1:2500], but any other spot nearby convenient to your scheme would do'; May 1969 [site for future lower school now NE corner of Lincroft site, access required along northern edge of site] Reply; 'We have not yet commenced planning the piece of land in question but when we do I will bear in mind the access required and will let you have a copy of our plan when this is completed for your comments'; May 1969 Letter from Oakley Parish Council to County Planning Officer; 'The Parish Council has very strongly represented to the County Council a case for the imposition of a speed limit and the construction of pavements along certain roads. It would be a considerable help to road safety if a footpath could be constructed from Ruffs Furze to the new County Primary School. Such a footpath would avoid the necessity of young children from this part of the new estate having to go to the school via Church Lane and Station Road. A footpath from Ruffs Furze to the County Primary School would have to have an entrance on to school premises but this Council feel that in the interest of road safety the Education Authority of this County would raise no objections. Would you please be kind enough to consider this matter and inform this Council as to what action you are taking, or what action this Council can take'; May 1969 Memo from S D Lynn, County Surveyor, to County Architect; 'I am being pressed by the Parish Council and others regarding the provision of access from Ruffs Furze at the rear of Lincroft School to the school itself. This is a matter finally for the developers there to complete their schemes which will not be for some time yet. Would it be possible for some temporary access, with perhaps an ash path, to be provided at the NW corner of the school site'; Jun 1969 Reply; 'I have written to the developers asking if they would agree to a temporary ash path over their land until such time as they have completed their planning and determined the ultimate position of the path. As soon as I hear from them on this matter, I will advise you of their decision'; Jun 1969 Letter from County Architect to Tickner & Emmerton; 'I am pleased to note that you will bear in mind my request for a footpath when planning the layout of your land. In the meantime, I am under considerable pressure from the local Councils to do something without delay, and I am wondering if you would be prepared to consider granting the construction of a temporary ash path, pending the finalisation of your plans'; Jun 1969 Reply; 'I can see no objection, in principle, to our granting a temporary ash path pending the finalisation of our plans and building construction. However, I would like the opportunity of studying this in detail and perhaps, therefore, you would be kind enough to let me have a drawing indicating where you would like this path to go. I think we might be able, therefore, to finalise this matter without the necessity for a meeting'; Jun 1969 [pen note: Position of path settled 5 Sep 1969] Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'Will you please let me know whether the hedge on the southern boundary of Lincroft CS School belongs to the school or the owner of the adjoining property. The Headmaster informs me that the owners of the bungalow are proposing to remove this hedge'; Jun 1969 Reply; 'I can inform you that according to our records it would appear that the hedge on the southern boundary is in the ownership of the County Council'; Jun 1969 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'I have received a letter from the occupiers of 24 Lovell Road, drawing attention to a hedge which runs between their property and Lincroft School. It appears that this hedge is now overgrown and I should be grateful if you could let me know if it is in the ownership of the County Council'; Aug 1969 Further memo; 'The owner of the property of 86 Station Road, which adjoins Lincroft School, has raised with me the question of trimming the boundary hedge. I should be grateful therefore if you could let me know if this hedge is in the ownership of the County Council. The adjoining owner is Mr Branfield and he has intimated that he would like to grub out the hedge and replace it with a brick wall. Should the hedge be on County Council land, I should be grateful for your observations on this suggestion'; Aug 1969 Memo from County Architect to Chief Education Officer; 'Mr D Barnfield of 86 Station Road, on the west side of the school, complains that the Headmaster will not allow the groundsman to trim both sides of the hedge dividing the two properties. According the the deeds it is the LEAs responsibility to do this work. I have promised Mr Barnfield that I would report the matter to you and that, no doubt, he will hear from you in the near future'; Aug 1969 Reply from County Architect to Chief Education Officer; 'So far as I can see from the conveyance, you have no responsibilities concerning the maintenance of the hedge dividing the school playing field from 24 Lovell Road. Regarding the hedge dividing Lincroft School site from 86 Station Road, I have already written to you on this to the effect that its maintenance is the LEAs responsibility. Referring to the last paragraph of your memo, Mr Branfield may build a brick wall on his land up to 6' high without permission but he must not grub the hedge without the County Council's authority. If Mr Branfield's property is the complete boundary of 180 yds you may be inclined to recommend to the Council that Mr Branfield be allowed to remove the hedge but if his property only extends the 77 yds shown as a plot on the Ordnance sheet, then the hedge should remain'; Aug 1969 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'I shall be pleased to know as soon as possible whether you have any further information in respect of the acquisition of the necessary land to provide a footpath from Ruffs Furze to the new classrooms at Oakley CP School. A petition has been received from parents in the village stressing the need for this pedestrian access'; Sep 1969 Letter from Tickner & Emmerton to County Architect; 'I have given instructions for a footpath to be provided between our estate and Oakley Lower School. The footpath will enter the school site at approximately 15 - 20 ft from the western boundary. At this junction with the school boundary it will be necessary for us, as agreed, to make an appropriate gap in the hedge and we shall span the existing ditch with timber sleepers or something similar. I have written a letter to the Headmaster of the school informing him of our agreement and further that this footpath should be provided within the next month or so. You will no doubt wish to inform him separately from your own point of view but I have written separately to him because I understand the residents on our development have been in touch with the Chief Education Officer and I felt it fair to let the Headmaster know our proposals. You will appreciate, of course, that this access to the school must, at this stage, be of a temporary nature for we have not yet planned this phase of our development and it may ultimately be necessary to move the point of access'; Sep 1969 Memo from Chief Education Officer to County Architect; 'I understand from the Headmistress that this footpath has now been provided and she would like to know whether there are any plans for the provision of a gate as at the moment there is nothing to prevent the public from coming on to the school playing field. I see from the letter from Tickner & Emmerton that this access is at present of a temporary nature and presumably therefore you will not be considering providing a gate at this stage. I shall be pleased if you will confirm whether this is correct'; Oct 1969 File on Proposed Lower School (Admin): Memo from Director of Education to County Architect; 'Will you please note that the Job Education Officer for Oakley School Instalment (Minor Works Building Programme 1967/68) will be Mr V Williams'; May 1967 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'I shall be pleased if you will let me have your brief for 1) Oakley School Instalment; 2) Lidlington School Instalment; (Minor Works Building Programme 1967/68) as soon as possible'; May 1967 Reply; 'I attach my preliminary ideas on these two projects'; Aug 1967 'Oakley School: Ultimate Needs: Under the County's proposals for reorganisation, Oakley County Primary School will become a lower school for children aged 5 - 9 years. The statistical evidence now available shows that the peak roll of 226 is expected to be achieved in the mid 1970s, and that numbers will grow over the intervening period as follows: Sep '67 - 65 children aged 5-11 on roll; 1968 - 124 children; 1969 - 142 children; 1970 - 134 children; 1976 - 226 children aged 5-9 on roll; It seems likely that a lower school of this size will be organised in 5/6 classes, so that the ultimate accommodation required will be 5/6 classrooms, of which at least 3 should be infant rooms with integral toilets and cloaks; Hall/dining area; Kitchen - size to be settled by Miss Fox; Admin. Phase I Instalment: The Head Teacher has agreed that the first instalment should house the infants, so that all the classrooms in this instalment should be infant rooms. I would hope to provide 2 or 3 infant classrooms, kitchen, and admin within the cost limits of a minor work for this instalment. I would be grateful if our respective colleagues could meet to discuss the points raised in this memo before a final brief and sketch plans are prepared. My colleague Mr L J Gathercole is to liaise with you on this'. Notes of meeting in County Architect's Department 5 Sep 1967 regarding Oakley Lower School; Present - L Gathercole of County Education Department; N H White, D J Chalk, D B Bennett, A C Bigg, County Architect's Department: 1) Existing AVP School contains two rooms (Hall of 1620 sq ft and room of 552 sq ft) and operates in three classes; 2) Ultimately a new Lower School is required by 1975/6, for 226 children aged 5-9 years. The existing school will not then be required; 3) The ultimate scheme to be achieved in instalments (probably two) and the first instalment to be included in the 1967/8 Minor Works Programme (Tender in by 31.3.68, building available for school year commencing Sep 1969); 4) Education Department to advise Architects extent of accommodation desirable in first instalment. This will be used in conjunction with existing school; 5) Brief for ultimate Lower School as follows: a) Minimum Teaching Area (as Building Code) 5162 sq ft; b) Hall - say 1400-1500 sq ft based on requirements for larger Lower Schools, e.g. no formal stage; use of portable boxes etc.,; space for circular movement and dance; c) Teaching areas: Probably based on six "bases" for 40 children each of 500 sq ft minimum, but planned informally with flexible layout as the reception end of the larger Lower Schools; d) Admin: Head Teacher; Secretary/Deputy/Medical Inspection with lavatory adjacent (as larger Lower Schools); Staff lavatories (for 7-8); Staff Room etc; e) Dining: Hall may be used for dining, but provision should be made for alternative dining areas, served by trolley; f) Kitchen: Servery related to Assembly Hall - Usual service yard etc.; Education Department to advise on number to be catered for; g) Pool: Education Department to advise on requirements and siting. Will facilities be combined with Middle School?; h) Changing: Accommodation for 20 children approximately desirable in conjunction with external lavatories, and both related to play area (and pool?); j) Play area: 12,100 sq ft of hard paved area. Education Department to advise whether this should be sub-divided to provide small "reception" play area. Usual vehicular "link" to play area for use by parents etc; k) External teaching: Teaching garden i.e. allotment; Lawn teaching space; Teaching court(s) might be useful; Landscaping treatment as larger Lower Schools as far as site permits; l) Car parking: 8 "teachers" car spaces if possible; m) Playing fields: One winter pitch 80 yds x 40 yds; No cricket square etc; n) Caretaker's residence: Education Department to advise whether a separate Caretaker will be employed for the Lower School and what accommodation he will require. Memo from Director of Education to County Architect; Sep 1967; 'I now submit the following preliminary brief for the new lower school at Oakley: Ultimate Requirements: 1) Teaching areas - to be based on six units for 40 children, arranged in three pairs. Each double unit to be of about 1100 sq ft actual teaching area; 2) Hall - about 1400-1500 sq ft, based on the requirements already agreed for larger lower schools, i.e. no formal stage etc., Roughly square in shape, to give ample room for circular movement and dance, but two alcoves to be provided if possible, one of which should be suitable for the storage of large P.E. equipment; 3) Kitchen/Diner: 1 for serving approx [ ] in two sittings; 4) Two small rooms suitable for group work, of approximately 150 sq ft each; 5) Administrative area: This should comprise - Head Teacher's room; a room for Secretary, which can be used as a Medical Inspection room when necessary, having separate lavatory adjoining; Staff room for 7/8 staff of both sexes, plus toilets; 6) Learner pool with changing accommodation if this can be provided. Sharing of facilities/services (i.e. heating, filtration) with the middle school pool to be examined; 7) Play area (12,100 sq ft): To be arranged as one unit, sub-divided to provide a small "reception" play area of irregular shape; 8) External teaching areas (e.g. lawns and gardens) and landscaping as for larger lower schools, within site limitations; 9) Car parking: space for at least 8 cars; 10) Playing fields: 1 winter pitch 80 yds x 40 yds; 11) Caretaker's residence: Provision for separate Caretaker for the lower school to be made. It is intended that this should be achieved in two phases, the first to be the 1967/68 minor works project. Phase I: 1) One double classroom unit, to be based on the plan agreed for the reception/infants area at the new Kempston lower school; 2) A roughly square hall of 1400-1500 sq ft, having two alcoves as detailed above, allowing circular movements as discussed; 3) Kitchen/Diner: for serving approximately [ ] in two sittings, to be arranged in proximity with the hall so that the hall can be used for dining if necessary; Phase II: Completion of School. Letter from County Architect to Sussex & Dorking United Brick Co Ltd, Horsham; 'I shall appreciate it if you will register the undermentioned brick requirements: 65,000 2 5/8" Dorking Handmade Sandfaced Multi-coloured facing bricks. It is anticipated that work will commence during Mar 1968. I will therefore inform you in due course of the name(s) of the Contractor(s) appointed together with the date when deliveries can be accepted'; Sep 1967 Letter from County Architect to C J C Ibbett, Besbuilt Ltd, Bedford; 'Further to your meeting with Mr Pyne this morning, I have pleasure to enclose a plan showing the area of land which was approved by the Education Committee last Friday'; Oct 1967 [Drawing showing area of 9.75 acres on Station Road to the north of Lincroft School site (part of proposed Estate development); scale 1:2500] (As in first file above) Further letter; 'I am writing to confirm that the request for an access from your estate road for the proposed Oakley Lower School project should be considered as a separate issue to the acquisition of the additional 9.75 acres acres of land for playing fields. The Lower School will be independent from the existing school and will be for children of 5 to 9 years of age, a number of whom will be from the new housing development. There are two pedestrian access routes to the site from other directions. Vehicular traffic to the school will be staff cars and occasional delivery vans. I shall be pleased if you will let me know as soon as possible if you are prepared to agree to the sale of the necessary land'; Oct 1967 Reply; 'I am not very happy about allowing an access from our estate to your proposed school as I am of the opinion that this will generate a considerable amount of vehicular traffic in this cul-de-sac, which will, of course, have an adverse effect on our estate. The proposed playing field which you require has, as I am sure you will readily appreciate, caused us to re-plan the remainder of our estate, and it might be more convenient in both our interests if we were to allow you access at some other point. In the meantime, I am consulting the owners of the adjoining plots to the proposed access, as I am sure they will have some views on the subject, and will wish to have certain of their rights maintained'; Oct 1967 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'As a result of recent developments with Developers adjacent to the site it would appear that we may not be allowed right of access to bring the road and siting of the School where shown on proposals submitted to you up until now. I am therefore enclosing possible alternative siting and access to the site and should be glad to receive your observations'; Oct 1967 Reply; 'Your letter went by mischance on a very long trip before reaching this office. I have looked at the various suggestions that you have made and I think there is little doubt but that my preference must be for a siting of the new school as close as possible to the existing buildings. I therefore prefer site A [SW Corner] to site B, C or D. I do not think that any firm conclusion could, however, be made without knowing whether any access points from the housing estate on the west might be made available direct to the School and I think it would be prudent to know beforehand the cost of access routes for vehicles'; 10 Nov 1967 Drawing approx 1:2500 showing new school to SW on Lincroft site with access from Station Road, NW on Lincroft site with access from new housing estate or Station Road, and NW on playing field site, North of Lincroft with access from Station Road; Oct 1967 Letter from County Architect to Besbuilt Ltd; 'I notice from your second paragraph that you suggest that you may be prepared to consider access to the School from another part of your estate, and I therefore enclose a drawing showing an alternative position marked in red, and will be glad to receive your views upon this position'; Oct 1967 [slightly further north than previous, west of and abutting NW corner of Lincroft site] Letter from County Architect to Niels Larsen & Son Ltd, Garforth; 'I understand that your "Richmond" frame is being considered for the proposed new Oakley Lower School, and I would be pleased to receive illustrated literature together with details of overall sizes and fixing requirements'; Oct 1967 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'Please find enclosed the latest proposals for Oakley Lower School as discussed between Mr Gathercole and Mr Bigg [not here]. The proposed first stage of building is shown in red; similarly proposed external roads and paths are also coloured in red. A very approximate cost of the first stage building is £30,800, and an equally approximate cost of road, paths, play area and fencing is £5,200. I shall be glad to receive your final requirements for the first stage and other observations - the above plans are subject to incorporating any requirements of Miss Fox or Mrs Abel. The whole of the above depends on satisfactory access to the site being negotiated with the adjacent developer'; Oct 1967 Details of breakdown of approximate estimate reported to Director of Education 18.10.67: Cost of building (Phase I) Approx 5864 sq ft at 105/- per sq ft, say £30,800; Roads (including drains) approx £2,550; Curbs approx £120; Paths approx £630; New gates in fence £150; New fence to East boundary £100; Grass, planting etc., £800; Oil Tank enclosure £200; Extra fill under building £500; Connection to foul sewer £150; Encasing surface water pipe under building etc., £250; Water, Electricity and Gas connections £750; total £37,000 (£36,000 reported). Drawing showing Oakley Lower School (Scheme 'C'); Layout plan 1/8" to 1'; Site plan 1/32" to 1'; Location plan 1:2500 [Phase I consists of about half the area of the complete school, located in SW Corner of Lincroft site with access from the west] Forms SB22; Phase I total gross cost £37,090; Phase II total gross cost £68,805; intended start date (Phase I) Apr 1968 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'You will note that the estimate for the first instalment is £37,000, which is substantially more than the limit of £25,000 which is normally placed on Minor Building Projects. The Building Code, however, says that the Department may be prepared to agree all the projects in excess of £25,000, but their approval must be sought specifically before the Authority proceeds with the scheme. I have spoken to Mr Ginger in the Buildings Branch, and he has stated that they may be prepared to agree to this, although normally they do not like to exceed £30,000. I would be glad if you would clear this with the Department as a matter of urgency, because although I hope to have taken up the whole of the current year's Minor Building allocation without this project, it is the only one sufficiently far forward to fill the gap should any unforeseen circumstances prevent any other project from being proceeded with in the current financial year'; Nov 1967 Letter from Director of Education to M Black, Schools Branch, Department of Education and Science; 'You will probably remember that for some time we have been concerned about the number of new houses at Oakley for which planning permission has been given and, although building has not proceeded at the rate which was at first anticipated, the time has come when some additional primary accommodation must be provided. The intention has been to build an instalment of a new Lower School out of the Minor Works allocation and the County Architect has now prepared a sketch plan and forms SB22 in respect of both a first instalment to provide 80 places and the complete school for 240 places (age range 5-9). Unfortunately, although the complete school is designed to be built within the cost limits applicable, the nett cost of the first instalment is estimated at £30,890 and, allowing £6,200 for the additional costs, the total estimated cost of the first instalment is estimated at £37,090. Whilst this estimate is considerably in excess of the normal Minor Works limit, I feel that this is a case which could be considered under paragraph 48.1 of the Building Code. Before the County Architect proceeds any further with this scheme, I should be glad if you would put this request through the appropriate channels with a view to approval being given to the first instalment being built out of the Authority's Minor allocation'; Nov 1967 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'I should be grateful if you could advise me what additional cost above the normal net cost allowance should be allowed for built-in furniture and fittings for the contracts for Oakley and Lidlington Lower Schools. This information is required to enable me to complete the Final Estimates for the Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee on 24 Nov. Would you please confirm if you require my Assistants to liaise with your Supplies Department regarding loose furniture and furnishings. Would you also please state whether fixed P.E. equipment should be handled under the Building Contract or under supplies'; Nov 1967 Note: Record of telephone conversation between A C Bigg and Mr Hubbard of County Planning; ACB stated reasons for proposed siting in SW corner were: a) proximity to existing CP School (required for at least 5-6 years); b) quality of environment e.g. spinney (South). Mr Hubbard appreciated above but did not consider these points strong enough to alter his objections, which are: a) proximity (100 ft) to high quality housing with noise nuisance; b) access off cul-de-sac with parking problems when parents collect children. He favoured siting further North, preferably with access off THROUGH estate road, perhaps with lay-by for parking; Nov 1967 Notes from meeting at County Planning Office 13 Nov 1967; Present J Hubbard - Planning; T Wall, A Bigg - Architects; 'Architects explained that Education Department preferred school siting in SW corner of site to be as close as possible to exisiting CP School. Mr Hubbard repeated his objections to above based on close proximity of housing (very close to boundary), also vehicular traffic in cul-de-sac. A fairly recent Estate plan was produced showing a proposed road leading to the NW corner of site, and Mr Hubbard agreed that access from this road would be acceptable to them provided sufficient space could be allowed for parking and turning vehicles delivering children to school. Mr Hubbard was against forming an additional access off Station Road but would be prepared to consider an extension of the present in/out system serving Lincroft School. He felt that school buildings and play areas should be sited as far away from housing as practicable, bearing in mind the limitations of the site'. Memo from County Architect to Director Of Education; 'I would be pleased to receive your Physical Education requirements as soon as possible, so that these may be incorporated in the working drawings'; Nov 1967 Letter from County Architect to Niels Larson & Son Ltd [see Oct 1967]; 'I refer to my letter of 16 Oct and would be pleased to receive the information as soon as possible, so that your requirements may be incorporated in the working drawings'; Nov 1967 Reply from County Architect to Director of Education; 'Further to your memo of 10 Nov, I have given further consideration to the siting of Oakley Lower School and I have also ascertained the views of the County Planning Officer. Unfortunately it is not possible to negotiate a suitable access from the Estate at the SW corner of the site as originally envisaged. An alternative access from Station Road to a School in this corner is not acceptable to Planning and necessitates re-orientating the school which in my opinion is undesirable. I therefore propose that the Lower School be sited in the NW corner of the site... I understand that the County Planning Officer would favour this siting and that Messrs Besbuilt would be willing to negotiate an access at this point, but would be pleased to receive your approval before discussing details with them'; Dec 1967 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I am at present awaiting approval to the proposed siting of the school in the NW corner of the existing school site from the Director of Education, and when this is received I suggest a meeting be held between our respective Departments and Messrs Besbuilt to discuss details. It will be necessary to commence construction of the first instalment of this school during Summer 1968, and the access must therefore be available to suit this programme. I would also point out that it will probably be necessary for a drainage connection to be made available to the foul sewer under the Estate Road'; Dec 1967 Memo from A C Bigg to A T Lawes; 'Although Oakley Lower School is now considered as low priority by the Director of Education, it would be helpful to know whether the DES have approved the project on Form SB22. Copies of this form were passed to the Director of Education for forwarding to the Ministry on 2 Nov 1967. I would be grateful if you could check the present position and chase as required'; Feb 1968 Memo from County Architect to Director of Education; 'I refer to your copy letter to the DES dated 3 Nov 1967, and shall be glad to know if the Deparment are yet in a position to issue approval to this proposal'; Feb 1968 Letter from M P Black, DES, to Director of Education; 'I am writing in reply to your letter of 3 Nov 1967 regarding the proposal to build an instalment of a new Lower School (age range 5-9) at Oakley as a Minor Work at an estimated cost of £30,890 plus £6,200 additional costs. We are prepared to agree to this job being done as a Minor Work; the additional costs do, however, appear to be rather high. Perhaps the Authority would consider some way in which they might be reduced'; Dec 1967 Memo from Director of Education to County Architect regarding instalments of new Lower Schools at Great Barford, Marston Moretaine, Oakley and Wilstead, under Minor Building Programme 1968/69; 'A six class school for 200 children, with provision on site for the addition of three further classrooms at a later date, i.e. 2 Form Entry. Appropriate provision of hall, kitchen/dining, heating, group rooms, admin, etc; Phase I: The reception suite of three infant rooms is required, together with the kitchen/dining accommodation and heating facilities'; Apr 1968 Letter from County Architect to Besbuilt Ltd; 'I refer to my letter of 25 Oct 1967 with which I enclosed a plan showing a possible position of an alternative access for this proposed Lower School, and further to my recent conversation with Mr Clifton Ibbett. This project has found a place in the current Building Programme, and I am being pressed to proceed with the scheme so that the construction keeps pace with the housing development. I should therefore be grateful if you can let me know if you are prepared to agree to the access proposed'; Apr 1968 Memo from Mr Doman to Mr Bebbington; 'Will you please prepare alternative estimates for accesses to the new school as set out below: 1) Access from Besbuilt's Oakley Estate, as drawing, but add for £1,500 site purchase [pen note £2,000]; 2) Access from existing Lincroft School entrance, footpath to be taken straight to Station Road [pen note £2,500] [pencil note: This is a 14' road plus footpath]; Apr 1968 Drawing E07.P1/1; Proposed new Lower School; Site Survey as existing Sep 1967; scale 1/32" to 1'; Inset Location Plan 1:2500; details of drainage; with note 'verbal information received during survey suggested the south and east portion of site is "built-up" land; Oct 1967 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I wish to refer to the recent meeting in your department between Mr Hubbard and my assistant Mr Doman, in which the closing of the spur access road by a transformer station from Oakley Besbuilt Estate to the school site was discussed. I have had further discussions with Besbuilt Ltd, who have provisionally agreed that an alternative access to the SW corner of the school site could be allowed from the spur road and I am given to understand that the owner of the piece of land, which terminates this spur road, is prepared to sell to allow access to the site. In view of this I shall be pleased if consideration can be given by you to allow the siting of the school in the SW corner of the school site as previously envisaged'; May 1968 Letter from County Architect to Mr C J C Ibbett, Besbuilt Ltd; 'Further to previous correspondence regarding an access road and the discussion we had the other day, I understand that you would be able to arrange an access on to the school site in the SW corner from the new development which your Company are constructing. I also understand for the benefit of this access you would want £1,500. In our conversation this morning you also said that without further financial consideration you would be prepared to make available a pedestrian access to the school site adjoining the NW corner of the site, subject to the cost of construction of any footpath being met by the County Council. I propose to put this to the appropriate Sub-Committee on 24 May 1968, subject to there being no Planning objections from the District Council, and I will communicate with you thereafter if the Committee are agreeable to the proposal'; May 1968 Further letter; 'My Committee have now considered the access and siting of the proposed Lower School, and have decided to site the school in the NE corner of the Lincroft School site with access off Station Road. It will not therefore be necessary to provide the main access from your estate to the SW corner of the site. We would, however, like to take advantage of your offer to make available a pedestrian access to the NW corner of the School site'; May 1968 Reply; 'I am sorry after all the trouble you and I have gone to, your Committee have taken too much notice of an ill informed Residents' meeting. Under the circumstances, I wish to withdraw my offer of a pedestrian access in the NW corner, as this also may conflict with the residents' views on the matter'; May 1968 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I enclose for your information a copy of a letter I have received from Besbuilt Ltd, who are denying pedestrian access from their estate to the NW corner of the school site. This of course would tend to spoil the scheme and as you suggest I agree that a meeting be arranged as soon as possible with all interested parties so the matter can be amicably settled'; Jun 1968 Reply; 'It has been made quite clear in all negotiations with Messrs Besbuilt that pedestrian access should be provided for the new school. No doubt you will arrange the meeting and advise myself and Mr Hubbard of the date and time suggested'; Jun 1968 Reply; 'As it would apppear now that the only basis of obtaining this footpath access is via your planning negotiations with Messrs Besbuilt, would it not be better for you to organise any necessary meeting to discuss the matter?'; Jun 1968 Drawing E07.P1/1b; similar to E07.P1/1 above, but showing propsed Lower School in SW corner of site; Oct 1967 Report of County Architect to Sites & Buildings Sub-Committee; 'An instalment of this school is included in the current Minor Works Building Programme, and it is to be sited on the Lincroft School site. For some time to come the instalment of the new Lower School will have to be used in conjunction with the existing CP School, and it is therefore desirable that the new building be positioned in the SW corner of Lincroft School site where it abuts the existing CP School. The question of separate vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed Lower School from the adjoining housing estate has been discussed with the Estate Developers, and they are prepared to make available an access, in consideration for which the Committee are asked to pay £1,500. In addition, they are prepared to provide a pedestrian access to the NW corner of the school site without further financial consideration, subject to the cost of the footpath being met by the Council. The estimated cost of constructing the main access from the adjoining estate is £500 compared with £2,500 if the access has to be from the existing access to Lincroft School'; 24 May 1968 Education Committee; 'The Sub-Committee considered the siting of the proposed new Lower School at Oakley and access thereto; Recommended: That the School be sited at the NE corner of the Lincroft School site'; 21 Jun 1968 Drawing E07/P1/4c; Proposed new Lower School on Lincroft School site; siting of double classroom unit; scale 1/16" to 1'; inset location plan 1:2500; Jul 1968 [Lower School now sited NE corner of site]; approved Sep 1968 Report to Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee; 'At the last meeting the Committee approved a sketch scheme of a basic classroom unit in permanent construction which could be built at a number of sites and which would ultimately form part of the completed new schools. It is proposed to provide classrooms under the current Minor Building Programme at the undermentioned schools, and plans showing the siting of the permanent classroom units at each school will be submitted for the Committee's consideration: On new site: Great Barford - 2 classrooms; Marston Moretaine - 1 classroom; Oakley - 2 classrooms; Stotfold - 1 classroom; Carlton - 1 classroom; Extension of existing: Wilstead - 1 classroom; Studham - 1 classroom; Kensworth - 1 classroom; Sundon - 1 classroom'; 13 Sep 1968 Education Committee recommended: 'That classroom units be provided under the current Minor Building Programme'; 27 Sep 1968 [same as above but Studham and Kensworth now 2 classrooms each] Estimated cost of providing single classroom units at Stotfold, Carlton, Marston Moretaine, Wilstead; and double classroom units at Great Barford and Oakley; total expenditure £46,511..17s..11d; single classroom unit @ £3,723..4s..11d each and double classroom unit @ £6,640..7s..3d each; substructure, drainage and external works vary for each site; Oakley total £9,129..18s..10d

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

item

Oakley Lower School, Lincroft Middle School, OAKLEY