Resident letter

Grove Walk

Norwich

15th March 2008

I write as a retired Architect formerly employed by the Norwich City Architects Department from 1946 -1951. During this period I was a colleague of and working under the City Architect Mr L.G. Hannaford F.R.I.B.A.who I remember with great affection. He was a kind, understanding and generous man liked and admired by everyone who knew him, both in his private and professional life. A Gentleman in the true sense of the word. An Architect enormously respected, of repute and of great natural ability and more than an accomplished artist, both in the mediums of pencil sketching and watercolour.

The original main steel framed building was his concept and design. This method of construction was innovative at the time and an early example of steel framing, developed in the 1930's, which allowed for greater flexibility of planning and design.

The original scheme and working drawings were completed and building started before the outbreak of the Second World War, when building was stopped. The skeletal steel frame stood until the late 1940's when work began again and the building was finished and officially opened in 1953. The building is Neo Georgian in style and was built during a period when educational architecture reflected the aspirations placed in learning, which was thought of as a foundation of social improvement.

I recall during my time in the Architect's Department, serious doubts being expressed by everyone concerned that the site provided by the Local Authority was too small and even then the car parking allocation was considered inadequate. From my experience in the architectural profession I consider this to be an important and impressive landmark building in the City of Norwich. The proposed demolition rather than updating and refurbishment to a modern specification, achievable without compromise to its architectural integrity or heritage, either internally or to the external facade, is a decision I find indefensible. It is, therefore, my considered opinion that demolition is not an option. I do hope common sense will prevail and this building can be retained in its original and current form.

Surely this will also be less of a drain on the public purse, as some of the figures quoted in the local press are huge, as are the density and road infrastructure of the proposals. Remember this site was considered too small with inadequate parking facilities over half a century ago. These are questions that should be addressed by all those involved in the decision making and in authority.

In closing I am, with the help of a committee member, researching the career of Mr Hannaford and we will post this on the website if enough people show interest.

Arthur Towlson
Registered Architect