CA2/895/3

Kempston; `The Barns' Childrens Home, High St: adaptations and additions (P.743; SS/K2/P2) Tied Bundle of Papers

1973-1978

From: 1973 To: 1978

includes: Soil Survey, May 1973; includes drawing showing location of boreholes Three holes were bored by hand auger on 4th April 1973 No soluble sulphates were found in the soil, but a concentration of 15.5 parts per 100,000 was found in the groundwater The samples tested proved to be alkaline Generally, sandy, silty, gravelly clay was struck in each borehole below 0.2m - 0.35m of topsoil. The soil became less clayey and more gravelly with depth, boreholes 1 and 2 being stopped due to large flints. Water was struck at 0.6m in borehole 3 No precautions need to be taken for sulphate or acid attack on concrete Report from T W Plummer ABS on general condition/problems; 15 February 1973; 'The structure of the building is in very fair condition. The roof is of Rosemary tiles and in reasonable condition. The main building is rendered and tyroleaned on external brickwork. Most internal partitions, walls and ceilings are of lath and plaster and in sound order. Although floors to the first floor show signs of sagging and out of level through old age, there is no sign of wood beetle. Most of the six panel doors on the main building are badly twisted. There are some signs of rising dampness to the south elevations but not excessive. The cellar to the rear of the house is dry and free from dampness. There does not seem to be any specific problems that would affect an adaption, apart from the rear staircase which is wasted space internally. Possibly an external fire escape could be sited if internal space is required. No problems have arisen with drainage since I took over the building in September 1971 Next years programme of costs (after April 1973); internal decks: Front Lounge £70, Kitchen £45, 2 Bedrooms £80, Hall staircase £90 Department of Architecture Site Inspection and Surveys; 14 February 1973; mentions 'ditch on west boundary sold to Kempston Urban District Council May 1958' Drawing No 20/02; Proposed Extension - Feasibility Study; Cellar, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor (Attic) layouts; existing and proposed extensions; scale 1" to 8'; with inset location map; scale 1:1250; and detailed schedule of accommodation; April 1973 Schedule of items to be discussed between the Architect and Fire Prevention Officer at the sketch plan stage; mentions 'Fire Certificate would not be granted to premises as existing'; 30 April 1973 Memo from County Architect to Deputy Director of Social Services; 'I have been advised that the whole of the existing property should be served by a new heating system and that re-wiring is necessary. In view of the nature of the building, the Engineers feel it is impractical for this work to be carried out whilst the premises are occupied and should you decide to keep the Home open during the contract period, phasing of work or provision of temporary accommodation will be necessary (note: no allowance for temporary accommodation has been made on the provisional costs...'); 15 June 1973 Letter from Clerk of the County Council to Department of Health and Social Security mentions 'As the Barns is a Listed Building, there were a number of difficulties involved in the adaptations...'; 14 August 1973 Memo from County Architect to Director of Social Services; 'I have been advised by my Deputy, Mr White, that a stage has been reached upon the production drawings ...that without full approval from the Department of Health and Social Security, any further work could be abortive. Therefore I propose not to continue with any further work upon this project until such approval is received, unless you advise otherwise ...Should this project be delayed, I remind you that your Department has been advised by the Fire Service that there are aspects of fire prevention and escape which require attention. You may therefore wish to consult the Fire Service to consider what action is likely to be needed for the safety of the existing occupants; 21 January 1974 Letter from County Architect to V B Johnson & Partners; 'This projext has currently been allocated to the 1975/1976 Programme ...I would be grateful if you could re-examine your cost plan in relation to the cost limits laid out in the letter from the Ministry [Department of Health and Social Security] and advise whether there are any reductions which can be made to meet these cost limits'; 27 January 1975 [DHSS figures dated 18 February 1974 give cost limits of £97,740; Form A submission 19 June 1973 gives total of £119,440 plus £5,500 for repairs and maintenance] Letter from County Architect to V B Johnson & Partners; 'The Quantity Surveyor at the Department of Health and Social Security has stated that the follwing maximum Cost Limits which are being met by other Authorities will be applied to this project: New Work £133 per m2 Adaptations 2/3 of New Work £88.66 per m2 Externals 15% New Staff Accommodation may be reduced to £110 per m2 The above Cost Limits particularly for the New Work would appear to be appreciably below those employed in preparing the Cost Estimate amounting to £135,160 as provided in your letter dated 5th February. It is intended that the standards of construction and finishes for the new building should be those normally employed and currently required in house construction. The only additional requirement being the concrete first floor which must be constructed to satisfy current acoustic requirements'; 28 February 1975 Further letter; 'In order that the Total Cost Limit amounting to £97,740 may be contained, it will be necessary, subject to the basic costs per square metre being attained, to ensure that the total floor areas of the existing and new buildings do not exceed 328.81 m2 and 403.88 m2 respectively. It may be possible to obtain the necessary savings by omitting certain external works and reduction or omission of certain works and finishes'; 5 March 1975 Breakdown of cost limit from Department of Health and Social Security: 'The cost limit given in the Department's letter dated 18 February 1974 still applies..' New Extension to Building (403.88 m2) £53,716 Conversion Work to Existing Building (328.21 m2) £29,101 External Works £12,433 Abnormals (fire precautions, call system) £2,500 total £97,740 [sic] 14 April 1975 Letter from County Architect to V B Johnson & Partners; '...I would confirm that it is proposed to invite tenders for the Barns despite the considerable difference between the cost limit stated by the Department of Health and Social Security ...and the current estimated cost prepared by yourselves ...The M.E.E. and S.E. Services will be carried out within the Department ...You have previously indicated that preparation of the Bills of Quantities would take 6 to 8 weeks which would enable tenders to be invited by the beginning of September of this year'; 23 April 1975 Letter from County Architect to Chief Fire Officer giving list of 'Currently agreed fire precaution requirements'; concludes with 'I shall be pleased if you will return one copy of the endorsed drawing clearly showing your updated fire precaution requirements'; April 1975 Letter from County Architect to The Engineer, Bedford District Council; 'My Area Surveyor is of the opinion that the surface water disposal from the existing building is via soakaways, and the existence of only foul water manholes on site would indicate that this is in fact correct. The premises enjoy a right of way over land to the east of the property which includes foul water drainage. I understand that the garages to the south of this area of land, some of which abut the site, are owned by the District Council. I shall be pleased if you will provide details of surface water drains and/or sewers passing through this land, and on the High Street, into which a discharge of surface water from this property would be permitted'; 23 May 1975 Letter from County Architect to County Valuer and Estates Officers; 'It is proposed to carry out alterations and extensions to the Barns Girls Home, for the Social Services Department. This work involves alterations to existing and additional surface and foul water drainage systems. From the results of trial holes dug on site in May 1973, the water table would appear to be 0.60m to 1.70m below ground level. The resident Matron has confirmed that flooding occurs in the basement after periods of heavy rain. In view of the increase concentration of surface water discharge which will result from the proposed works, the employment of further soakaways should be avoided if possible. ...It would appear that vehicular access over the right of way to the east of the property exists at the present time as the existing garage on site has entrance doors at the east face of the boundary abutting the right of way. It is therefore assumed that the vehicular access to the site now proposed does not contravene any agreement'; with note at bottom; 'Bedford District Council has confirmed that no surface water drain or sewer is available for surface water discharge from site. A ditch exists on the West site boundary which could possibly be used for surface water discharge. Please advise on ownership of this ditch and legal implications should discharge into this ditch be considered necessary'; 5 June 1975 Further comments from Chief Fire Officer regarding fire precautions; 5 June 1975 Memo from County Architect to County Planning Officer; 'I enclose four sets of plans showing my proposals for the Barns working girls hostel to carry out alterations and extensions to provide eight bedsitting rooms, new staff accommodation and improved kitchen facilities, and shall be grateful if you will carry out Formal Planning consultations with Bedford District Council ...Perhaps you will note that this is a revised scheme which supercedes that prior to re-organisation'; 9 July 1975 Letter from County Architect to Director of Social Services; 'I am replying to your memorandum of the 29th July informing me that the Barns is to be closed with effect from 5th August. I understand from conversations with your deputy, Mr Farmer, that these girls have been moved into Waverley House and that furthermore other girls and staff are being moved into Waverley House from Luton. You will remember that at the meeting ...on the 15th July we presented a joint report to the General Purposes Sub-Committee saying that Waverley House was sub-standard from a fire protection point of view and should no longer be used as a Home for the Elderly. It was also agreed by the Sub-Committee that the necessary alterations and adaptations to bring the building up to a reasonable standard should not be carried out. They did agree that it could be considered for temporarily housing girls from the Barns if this helped the construction programme for the extensions and adaptations to the Barns which are included in the current years building programme. I was in the process of examining this possibility to see how the construction programme of the Barns could be helped by transferring the girls to Waverley House and also to see what hazards the occupation of Waverley House entailed compared with the situation in their existing Home at the Barns ...I do not expect the contract at the Barns to commence before the beginning of next year. I was therefore surprised to receive your memorandum ...and feel that the action which you have taken was in advance of proper consultation between our Departments and the Chief Fire Officer. I also think that your action is not in line with what had been agreed with the Sub-Committee. I appreciate that there are a number of problems now that you have taken the aged people out of Waverley House - the question of vandalism which might take place if the building was left empty for some time. I also understand from Mr Farmer that if we are not to make use of Waverley House you will have acute accommodation difficulties in the county. I think that thses facts should have been put to the appropriate Sub-Committee so that they could be aware of the risks entailed. On balance, it is my view, and I believe also the view of the Chief Fire Officer, that the hazards at the Barns, which is a two-storey building, are somewhat less from a fire point of view than the hazards at Waverley House. If Waverley House is to be used for the numbers and period that you at present envisage, in my opinion it is essential that the absolute minimum fire protection work should be carried out as a matter of urgency; that is to say the provision of internal enclosures to the staircase, upgrading of doors on circulation routes with adequate door closures, the installation of emergency lighting and a smoke detection system and a fire alarm system and I estimate that this work will cost in the order of £10,000 and it is my opinion that the Sub-Committee should be informed'; 6 August 1975 Notice from Bedford District Council; 'Notice is hereby given ...that the said plans have been rejected by the Council for the following reasons: The proposal does not conform with: Regulation A10 - Giving of notices and deposit of plans N4 - Soil pipes, waste pipes and ventilating pipes N10 - Materials and construction of drains and private sewers N15 - Drains or private sewers passing through or under walls or under buildings' 19 August 1975 Form inviting tenders for building contract: 4 September 1975 J & M Hill (Ampthill) Ltd, Church Street, Ampthill Richardson & Bottoms Ltd, 105-107 Biscot Road, Luton John Willmott Construction Ltd, 43 Queen Street, Hitchin T & E Nevllle Ltd, Marsh Road, Leagrave, Luton William J Bushby Ltd, 54 High Street, Kempston M & F O Foster & Company Ltd, York House, Stevenage Road, Hitchin Walker & Hawkes Ltd, 34 Arlesey Road, Ickleford, Hitchin Wrights (Langford) Ltd, High Street, Langford, Biggleswade T & B (St Albans) Ltd, 38 Upper Marlborough Road, St Albans L A H Ames Ltd, 106a Bedford Road, Wootton Letter from County Architect to London Brick Company; 'I would refer you to my Order ...dated 31 May 1973, for 120,000 common fletton bricks ...Tenders for this project are to be invited in the near future and I wish to place a reservation for 110,000 common fletton bricks which will be taken up by the General Contractor on appointment. The General Contractor will be responsible for payment for bricks delivered to the site. It is anticipated that deliveries will be required to commence January - March 1976. Alternative tenders are to be invited for this project and the contract periods stipulated in the tender documents are 91 and 65 weeks'; 5 September 1975 Letter from V B Johnson & Partners to County Architect; 'We confirm that the maximum number of tenderers is eight. We suggest that you point out to the tenderers that two tenders are required and you could in this connection refer them to the preliminaries to the Bills of Quantities which sets out the tender requirements'; received 8 September 1975 Letter from Rentokil Limited to County Architect; 'Further to our estimate we are writing to enquire if you have yet been able to reach a decision on this matter. We are sure that you are aware of the importance of having rising damp problems dealt with as quickly as possible so as to prevent its further spread, in order to minimise the future chances of structural and fungal decay, and for the health of the occupants. With the present weaather conditions we feel that now would be an ideal time to carry out these works'; 8 September 1975 Notice from Bedford District Council; 'Notice is hereby given ...that the said plans have been passed by the Council' with legal points and conditions; 8 September 1975 Comment from Chief Environmental Health Officer regarding kitchen and food preparation rooms; 'I would like to bring to your attention that there should be a hand-wash basin provided for food handlers to secure personal cleanliness and that it should be placed in a position conveniently accessible to such persons'; 18 September [1975] Letter from Chief Planner, Bedford District Council, regarding minor changes following comments from the Architect's Advisory Group; 'Firstly, it is suggested that the lean-to roof should be carried over the new entrance and the cycle shed lean-to reduced in size and set back from the wall of the original house. Secondly, it is felt that there should be duality of the gables in the east elevation, with the new roof hipped, and a difference in tone of the cement paint between the original building and the extensions'; 15 September 1975 Letter to Contractors inviting tenders (as above but reduced to 8 Contractors, William J Bushby and Walker & Hawkes omitted); 10 October 1975 Estimate of cost to be presented to Social Services Committee; Build costs £146,000; Incidentals (15%) £21,900; total £167,900; November 1975 Furniture & Equipment estimated at a further £10,000; estimated annual costs £22,100 (includes debt charge of £19,800); 11 November 1975 John Willmott Holdings Limited, Hitchin Road, Meppershall submitted the lowest tender; £131,185 build costs plus £20,000 for incidentals; total £151,185; 25 November 1975 Other tenders received: M & F O Foster & Company Ltd £136,555 L A H Ames Ltd £147,452 T & B (St Albans) Ltd £149,327 J M Hill & Sons (Ampthill) Ltd £150,970 Wrights ( Langford) Ltd £153,871 T & E Neville Ltd £156,612 Richardson & Bottoms Ltd No Tender Letter from S Sykes [DHSS]; 'The tender figure of £131.185 is considerably higher than the cost limit given on 18 February 1974. The Department would like the council to consider making reductions of approximately 34% on the cost of the new extension. We suggest the following areas where it may be possible to reduce: Services - the prime-cost sums in the sub-contract tenders appear to be high some reductions could be made on the superstructure contingencies; and interanl finishings We would like to point out to the council that the £9,474.65 for repairs and maintenance ought to come from the Local Authority annual funds. Furthermore, furniture and fittings should be transferred to non-key sector funds'; 4 February 1976 Revised Form "B" showing cost reductions: total build cost reduced from £131,185 to £112,760; 12 February 1976 Letter from Department of Health and Social Security; 'I am writing to inform you that final approval by the Secretary of State has been given to this project in the sum of £112,760'; 23 February 1976 Letter from V B Johnson & Partners to John Willmott (Bedford) Ltd, asking them to agree to a reduction Bill of Quantities; £8,950.35 reduction to their original tender of £131,185 i.e. £122,234.65; 19 February 1976; with reply agreeing to the above; 20 February 1976 Social Services to pay for telephone installation; Three telephones and one pay phone [coin box]; March - May 1976 Letter from Rentokil Limited; 'Thank you for accepting our estimate in the sum of £458 for damp proofing works ...We have made arrangementes for our damp proofing works to commence on Monday 6th September 1976'; 6 August 1976 John Wright & Son (Redditch) Ltd were sub-contracted to do timber work for roof construction; August 1976 Structural Report; ?October 1976 History: Prior to 1900 the Barns was part of Hoo Farm at Kempston 1900 Kempston Agricultural and Smallholdings Society purchased the Barns and attendant buildings for use as smallholdings 1928 Bedfordshire County Council's Children's Committee rented the Barns as a Children's Home 1938 The Barns was purchased by Bedfordshire County Council from the Agricultural Smallholdings Society with a small area of land. Other areas of land surrounding the Barns was sold around this time for the development of housing, so separating the Barns from Hoo Farm Structure: The building at present is a timber framed structure with brick infill, lath and plaster, timber boarded floors and slated timber roof. A number of structural alterations have taken place including extensions, cutting through for doorways, adding bay windows, additional strengthening to wall framing, edge beams to floors, additional columns and repairs and strengthening to roof members. Although movement has taken place in the structure over the years and a number of areas still need attention, the building appears to be in a reasonably structural sound condition Foundations: Vertical settlement is not apparent either inside or outside the building. It was felt, therefore, that a full investigation of the foundations was not warranted. The building is of a flexible nature and would accommodate a fair amount of movement without showing any undue distress. However, in the ground floor corridor area, the concrete slab supporting the internal framing needs concrete underpinning due to soil erosion Ground Floor: In the corridor off the main entrance, the vertical post adjacent to the new door opening has rotted at its base. This portion needs to be cut out and brickwork built beneath after cutting and trimming the timber sole plate. A new post of the same size should then be constructed alongside which will also act as the door frame. Replacement of brick infill should be carried out in lime mortar only. Main floor beam support in corridor above existing door opening requires brick infill making good tight to underside of beam. No evidence of movement was observed in this area. In the scullery area, the framing to the return wall has rotted at the base and infill brickwoark spalled. It will be necessary to carefully clean out this area without disturbing the sound infill and then making good with very stiff sand/cement mortar. Generally, in all areas where brickwork infill needs repair then this should be done with lime mortar only. It is recommended that the exposed timber framing should be treated (this is subject to a survey to be made by Rentokil Ltd, on the 4th November 1976). First Floor: The outer wall to the corridor has, at some time or other, bowed outwards so reducing the bearing area of the first floor beams on the edge - this has been rectififed by an additional edge beam having been inserted adjacent to the existing beam. Without stripping the whole of the floor and ceiling, it is difficult to assess the various stages of modification and remedial work that has been carried out over the years. However, there was little evidence to show that there had been any movement in the building in recent years. Some of the timbers show signs of weathering indicating that the frame was exposed externally at one time and other timbers show signs of previous woodworm attacks. It is recommended that these be suitably treated after being cleaned down. Again, the frames in general show no signs of undue stress or movement and where brick infill needs renewing, this should be carried out as previously stated in a lime mortar. It is understood that Rentokil Ltd nave carried out a certain amount of treatment to the floor beams i.e. removing alternate floorboards and spraying the surfaces of the beams with an anti-fungicidal liquid. Roof: The floor of the attic above the staff bedroom has deflected badly and would appear to have been in this condition for a good many years. The original floorboards have, in fact, been overlaid with newer floorboards presumably some time in the late 19th or early 20th century. Due to the fire risk, this area should not be used except for light storage. It would appear that where original roof members have been defective or removed, additional timber members have been inserted and the roof generally appears to be in a reasonably sound structural condition. However, it is recommended that additional timber tie members be inserted and also that the main roof beams be suitably strapped to the external perimeter wall plates. The roof members have very recently been treated by Rentokil Ltd Basement: The roof beams in the basement support the ground floor to the dining room and although certain beams have been strengthened by splicing members to the underside, the beams are suspect due to dry rot. It was disturbing to find that these beams had already been treated. An additional floor has been constructed over the existing floor supported on timber fittings. It is recommended that these timber beams be replaced and the timber wall plate supporting the beams taken out and replaced with brickwork' Letter from Rentokil Ltd, 18 November 1976; 'I understand that you have a query regarding two joists that are decayed by Wet Rot beneath the floor of the front room left on the ground floor. It would appear from the Survey Instruction ...that your Mr Lane only requested a survey for wood boring insects ...However, as a gesture of goodwill I am quite prepared for our Technicians to reinforce up to 2 No. joists of this floor without further charge. The areas detailed for treatment in our report dated 9th November 1976: Front Room Left First Front Middle Room Left Centre Passage (corridor)' Memo from County Architect to Director of Social Services; 'I must advise you that during the course of the works on site, timber decay and dry rot have been found in the area of the basement. After removal of the basement steps the basement was found to have no wall on the west side. It has therefore been necessary to remove the basement floor and backfill the basement thus removing the basement completely and the cupboard off Quiet Room/Study'; 5 January 1977 Letter from John Willmott (Bedford) Ltd; 'We must respectfully inform you at this time that we are of the opinion that we have incurred both loss and expense owing to the disruption of the regular progress of the works as in accordance with clauses 24 (1) (a) (b) and (e) of the Standard Form of Contract. In addition, we are of the opinion that we have also incurred loss and expense under Clause 11 (6) of the said contract and would respectfully request your consideration of these claims'; 17 March 1977 Further letter; 'We would confirm that in our opinion our claims are quite legitimate and list below a few of the major items which have brought about this situation: Work entailed in forming the valleys where roofs were of a different pitch. Facts previously recorded on Daywork Sheets Revision of roofing details over toilet area which subsequently caused interruption and delay. In addition to which materials had already been delivered to site to meet with the original design Extensive alterations to the existing building in accordance with Architects Instruction No. 24 and the numerous further variations connected with this area of the works so causing both interruption and delay. In addition we would point out the necessity for "opening up" of the works in these areas Numerous variations and details issued during the final period of the contract Magnitude of works as in accordance with the Daywork and Variation Accounts Further, we would point out that we are of the opinion that due to the reasons stated above and numerous others, we must respectfully request that an eight week extension of time be granted on the above contract as in accordance with Clauses 23(f) and (i)'; 2 June 1977 Reply from County Architect; 'Without wishing to upset the good relations that have existed on site with your Contracts Manager and Site Agent, my simple reply to your letter is that frankly, in my opinion, the Works could have been completed by the Contract Completion Date as indicated by the progress records that have been made at site meetings. The prime reason why work has not been completed as yet, is attributable at this stage to plaster and painting trades, however it would seem that there is no reason why the Works should not be completed shortly ...I cannot accept that paint runs and lack of preparation before painting was completed has been the requirement of perfection. The Contract calls for preparation before painting is started and expects the standard of finish attributable to a craftsman trade; I am sure that you as a firm intend to provide such standards. The writer of your letter may not be aware of Architect's Instructions No. 25 dated the 24th November 1976 which was issued before painting commenced. Following this instruction the Clerk of Works has brought to your attention on several occasions that standards were not in accordance with the Contract. I am aware that demands made upon Site Agents when so much work is sub-let can be onerous and would ask that you use your best endeavours and support the Site Agent in the requirements which he is expecting your sub-contractors to provide'; 9 June 1977 Reply from John Willmott (Bedford) Ltd; '...there are certain contractual points which could be in contention but in the interests of maintaining good relations and completing the works it was mutually agreed to disagree at this juncture. We accept your comments regarding defective painting and comment that it is not our practice to present sub-standard workmanship and this matter will be rectified to your satisfaction with a view to handing over the building on Monday 27th June 1977. With regard to withholding monies for the incorrect doors we confirm that replacement ones have been ordered and will be fixed immediately after delivery. On this understanding and as agreed it would be appreciated if you would instruct the Quantity Surveyor to release thet amount held at the next valuation'; 10 June 1977 Fire Prevention - Survey Report; results of inspection after building work completed; mentions 'The building is a residential home for adolescent working girls normally providing long term occupation with a maximum of 18 girls, a total of 15 staff, certain of which live in. These premises have recently undergone a major reconstruction scheme and the fire precautions upgraded to a high standard'; November 1977/January 1978 Memo from Chief Fire Officer; 'My Officer has carried out a survey and the only comment I have to make is a number of fire-resisting self-closing doors require maintenance to ensure a good smoke seal'; 24 January 1978 Internal Memo; 'Several points of building maintenance were noted on the inspection by Mr Marsden, these not being the Contractor's responsibility: Roller catches on fire and dmoke stop doors; parts are missing - catches need to be in good working order in case of fire, a regular check is needed on fire doors to see they are in good order by the ABS with close liaison with the Warden Gate pier; again damaged Roof; tiles damaged by occupant who climbed on roof External paintwork; has been much improved by Contractor Ground lloor corridor; has no signs of dampness but should be kept under observation Oak floor beams; to first floor - that at ceiling level of 0/6 shows signs of joint having opened up, possibly due to central heating Shrinkage in existing joinery; central heating has been added during this Contract which has caused shrinkage to timbers, these need to be kept under observation Plinth - external, north elevation; existing rendering needs attention, has cracked along plinth since occupation Rendering - east elevation; needs keeping under observation, cracks have appeared in existing rendering'; 12 July 1978 Covering letter mentions other points not on defects list; Kitchen extract grille - this is filthy and greasing up. Please give advice to CBS on frequency of maintenance and how it needs to be done Damaged light shade in the Warden's flat corridor outside linen - the fitting is vulnerable, it hardly clears linen doors; 12 July 1978

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

item

V B Johnson & Partners,
John Willmott Construction Limited,
Rentokil Ltd,
John Wright & Son (Redditch) Limited

KEMPSTON, Kempston The Barns Children's Home, Kempston High Street, children's homes, building work, DRAINAGE