CHAPTER IX. The New County Offices – North and South Blocks
By the early 1930s the LCC was well on the way to
completing its headquarters building, but with the expansion of the Council's local government responsibilities its
staff was increasing at a rate which outpaced the building
programme. In April 1930 the Establishment Committee
asked the Clerk, the Architect and the Valuer to report
generally on the need for further accommodation after the
completion of Section D, and specifically on the possibility
of developing the east side of Belvedere Road for this
purpose. (fn. 1)
Growth of the Council's Staff
The passing of the Local Government Act of 1929, under
which the LCC took over the Poor Law administration
(see page 92), had added very considerably to the burden
of extra work, and in 1932 new duties in the field of
planning were laid on the Council by the passing of the
Town and Country Act. As the LCC's responsibilities for
public housing increased, so did the staff of the Valuation
Estates and Housing Department; while under G. H.
Gater's brilliant administration the Education Department had been expanded and was occupying much of
Section D.
When County Hall was originally planned a total staff
complement of under 3,000 had been anticipated. By 1934,
when the Chief Officers reported on the need for additional
accommodation, there were 4,112 central office staff, supported by a smaller army of 300 'housekeepers, messengers, male cleaners, engineering operative staff and
chainmen, and 175 charwomen'. Of the permanent staff,
3,726 worked in County Hall itself. (fn. 2)
By replanning Section D with offices on both sides of
the corridors, and by using parts of the basement and the
seventh-floor attic for offices, the Council had been able
to accommodate more staff at County Hall than had originally been allowed for. But the building was overcrowded,
and an additional 15,000 square feet were required to deal
with this problem alone. A further 40,000 square feet
would be needed for the Valuer's Department, which still
occupied the old Spring Gardens building.
The location of the medical examination rooms was also
causing concern. Between 1921 and 1930 the number of
schoolchildren examined each year had nearly doubled,
from about 12,500 to 23,500, and by the time new space
was allocated in Section D, the number of visitors had
reached 37,665, or nearly 70,000 if accompanying relations
and friends were included. It was hoped that the new
extension would provide for, and to a large extent isolate,
this function of the Council. (In the end, however, the
medical examination rooms were not transferred.) If existing overcrowding was to be alleviated and accommodation
provided at County Hall for the 'out-housed' departments,
a total of 82,500 square feet of additional space would be
required. (fn. 3)
Land on the east side of Belvedere Road
Although the proposed site on the east side of Belvedere
Road was already partially in the Council's ownership, its
potential was affected by the need to take into account
various proposals for road-widening and improvements
generally. The most important of these was for a new
Charing Cross road bridge, which had been engaging the
attention of London town planners and improvers since
the beginning of the century. There were variants of this
scheme, but in outline it involved the removal of the
railway station and the replacement of the rail bridge by a
high-level road bridge. This would be part of a magnificent
new boulevard extending from Trafalgar Square to the
Surrey side of the Thames, which, in the words of the
Lutyens Report of 1942, was 'seen as the geographical
hub of the Metropolis'. (fn. 4) Though the line of the new road
was considerably to the north of County Hall, it affected
plans for the whole area as far north as Waterloo Bridge.
One of the objectives of this plan was to relieve Rennie's
Waterloo Bridge, which had been proving inadequate for
the increased traffic flow through Kingsway. But once the
LCC decided in 1932 to provide a four-lane replacement
for Waterloo Bridge, (fn. 5) the scheme for a new bridge at
Charing Cross fell into abeyance, though it featured in the
1943 County of London Plan. (fn. 6) It was, of course, seen as
part of the projected rebuilding of the South Bank, which
also had its effect on the LCC's thinking about the extension of County Hall, and was to be a major element in
post-war redevelopment.
Another factor to be taken into account was a proposed
traffic scheme for Westminster Bridge Road and York
Road, for which, by 1932, the Council had already
acquired over two acres of land opposite County Hall. (fn. 7) It
did not own all the north side of Westminster Bridge
Road between York and Belvedere Roads, however, and
obtaining possession of the other buildings there presented
problems. The caterers J. Lyons & Company had a tea
shop at the Belvedere Road corner, and would have to be
compensated, probably with another site in the same area.
(Isidore Salmon, the firm's Chairman and Managing
Director, was still an LCC Member, so the matter needed
tactful handling.) The New Inn public house at No. 254
Westminster Bridge Road would probably require similar
compensation. Between these two buildings stood a branch
of the National Provincial Bank, which had recently
bought the freehold of properties on the west corner of
Westminster Bridge Road and York Road with the inten
tion of rebuilding there. The Bank had also made an
agreement with the GPO to sublet part of its new premises
as a branch post office.
a Preferred scheme extending from the old line of Chicheley
Street to Westminster Bridge Road, showing the bridges originally intended to link County Hall to the new offices
Fig. 48. The New County Offices (North and South Blocks). Outline plans of the development as originally proposed in 1930–1
b Alternative scheme stopping short of Westminster Bridge
Road where the existing properties did not belong to the
Council
Early Proposals
The new offices project was discussed in January 1931 by
a group of senior officers – including the Clerk (Sir
Montagu Cox), the Valuer (Frank Hunt), and the Architect (G. Topham Forrest) – who had before them an
outline plan for the development drawn up by the Architect's Department. (fn. 8)
The suggested development (fig. 48a) consisted of two
L-shaped blocks following the Chicheley Street-York
Road-Westminster Bridge Road edge of the proposed site,
each block having short return ends facing into a new
large courtyard or place which addressed the main building
across Belvedere Road. Passing between the two blocks,
under a linking bridge, was a new entrance to County Hall
from York Road. There had been concern for some time
about the deleterious effect of the narrow Belvedere Road
on the main entrance to County Hall, and it made sense
for any extension to combine road widening with civic
improvement. Two other bridges, at the north and south
ends of Belvedere Road, connected the new building to
the old. Although revised, the essential form of the new
development as laid down in this early plan was never
significantly changed nor seriously challenged. (fn. a)
For the meeting in January 1931 the Architect's Department had ready two versions of the scheme, the second
(fig. 48b) showing how the layout might be adapted to a
curtailed site excluding the properties along Westminster
Bridge Road which the Council did not own. The Valuer
pointed out that the frontage here would eventually be
rebuilt as part of a road-widening scheme, but this
improvement was still some years off and he doubted if
anything could be done to bring it forward. He thought
the north front of the proposed development should be
'squared up', to align with the north front of Knott's
building, and Chicheley Street moved further north as
part of the Charing Cross Bridge scheme. It was felt that
the northern half of the site would be adequate for the
Council's needs, and that the southern half
should be developed in such a way that the upper floors
could be let out as offices, to be repossessed as the need
arose. The whole of the ground-floor front along York
Road should be shops. Since no Chief Officers would be
housed in the new blocks they were to be plain office
buildings. The Council should offer the National Provincial Bank accommodation in the new building in
exchange for the freehold of its important corner site. (fn. 10)
It was in these terms that the officers reported to the
Establishment Committee the following May, but shortly
afterwards all building plans had to be abandoned in the
face of the national economic crisis of August 1931. (fn. 11)
The scheme was not formally considered again until
1934, when a report was prepared for the Establishment
Committee reviving the 1931 proposals in an amended
form. One of the changes was the 'squaring up' of the
north end and the re-alignment of Chicheley Street, as
previously suggested by the Valuer. It was now proposed
that the north and south blocks should be linked together
by an 'open architectural screen' embodying two enclosed
bridges (one at sixth-floor level), and that the east side
of the place or courtyard 'intervening between the new
building and the central portion of County Hall' should
be laid out as 'a flat elliptical crescent, 460 feet in width'.
The point of the crescent-shaped lay-out was to 'ensure a
spacious and impressive effect'. Some of the site was set
aside for gardens, to be made 'additionally attractive' by
the planting of trees. The question of what to do with the
problematic frontage along Westminster Bridge Road was
left open. (fn. 12) At this time the proposed extension was known
officially as the New County Offices, and it was not until
after the war that the nomenclature North and South
Blocks was adopted.
Choosing an Architect
When the revised scheme was sent to Committee in
October 1934 the question was raised whether the new
offices should be designed by the Council's Architect or
thrown open to a public competition. Hitherto all the
planning and design work had been carried out 'in house'.
Further consideration of the scheme was therefore adjourned while Gater, who was now the Clerk, reported
on the implications of holding a competition. (fn. 13) It was
'undoubtedly desirable', he said, that the merit of the
design and layout of the new building should be beyond
question, and he thought that a competition (or the
appointment of an eminent outsider) would best secure
public confidence. But there were some serious practical
objections, not least the impossibility of indicating the
exact site, since the Council did not own all the land.
Furthermore, a competition would certainly delay the
start of work on the building, which might lead in turn
to problems with the National Provincial Bank, who had
given up their corner site on the understanding that the
Council would provide them with accommodation as soon
as possible. (fn. 14) The solution, hinted at by Gater and adopted
by the Council, was to bring in an eminent Consultant
Architect to be 'associated with the general planning and
design of the building as developed by the Council's
architect'. (fn. 15)
The man chosen for this role was Sir Giles Gilbert
Scott, who had already advised the LCC on architectural
and town planning matters. Scott's appointment, and his
fee of £4,000, were approved by the Council in December
1934. (fn. 16) The fairly narrow limits of his responsibility are
made clear in a letter he wrote to the Clerk:
I shall be able to act as consultant, provided I have not got to
prepare a design for the elevation ... I have seen the plans
prepared by the L.C.C. Architect's Department, and I think it
would be possible for me to modify these and get the necessary
drawings prepared by the Architect's Department, so as to save
my having to do them.
My supervision will naturally have to extend to the detail
drawings, even down to the full size sections of mouldings, but
it will be more in the nature of amending than creating.
Scott's duties as President of the RIBA prevented him
from assuming more than the usual obligations of a consultant architect; he would not, therefore, be doing as
much as he had at Battersea Power Station, where he
'redesigned and detailed the whole of the exterior'. (fn. 17) Subsequently, however, he agreed that he and the Council's
Architect were to have joint design responsibility for the
exterior of the buildings. As regards planning, Scott's role
was that of a consultant only, and he had no responsibility
for the construction. (fn. 18)
Within the LCC's Architect's Department the development, planning and designing of the new offices was largely
in the hands of Frederick Hiorns (1876–1961), a former
senior assistant under Riley who had risen to the rank
of assistant architect. Neither Topham Forrest, nor his
successor as Architect to the Council in 1935, E. P.
Wheeler, appear to have had more than nominal responsibility for the work. (fn. b) Hiorns himself had been in charge of
the design and construction of buildings for the Council
since 1926, and in evidence to the House of Commons in
1935 he defended the layout and plan of the new offices
in a way that clearly indicates him as their author. (fn. 20) Over
twenty years later, at the age of eighty-two, Hiorns was
to recall the origins of the designs in a letter to the
Architects' Journal, intended in part to counter the then
prevailing impression that the elevations had been largely
the work of Scott:
When the London County Council acquired the York Road Site,
I was invited to a small, 'all-party', meeting of three Leaders
(with Sir George Gater, the Clerk) and was asked if I would
personally undertake the design and carrying-out of an extension
building, corresponding in length with the County Hall itself.
This I was glad to agree to do ... Later – in the working drawing
stage – a confirmatory opinion was obtained from Sir Giles
Scott, with some modifications of detail that were valuable. But
the general design was not altered. (fn. 21)
This meeting must have taken place sometime between
Gater's promotion to Clerk in 1933, and Scott's appointment in December 1934.
At the end of May 1935 a report went before the
Establishment Committee which incorporated Scott's
main recommendations. These were, firstly, the addition
of curved two-storey wings connecting the central and end
blocks of the building on the Belvedere Road side and
occupying the space which had been provisionally allotted
for gardens; secondly, the omission of the open architectural screen or colonnade between the two blocks, and
with it the proposed high-level bridge; and, thirdly, the
replacement of Hiorns's roof, with its two storeys of attics
above the main cornice, by a roof containing only a single
storey. (fn. 22) The only one accepted by the Committee was
the omission of the screen and high-level bridge. (fn. 23) There
is an undated drawing for the screen and the bridge among
Scott's papers (Plate 39a) suggesting that he did at least
attempt to find a satisfactory treatment for this feature
before recommending its total excision. (fn. 24)
Scott also advised that the LCC should take the opportunity provided by the building of the new offices to
improve traffic circulation near County Hall:
I fully appreciate that it is important to avoid delay with the
new building, but the lay-out of roads in the vicinity is faulty,
and future road improvements should not be made impossible
by building work being done now...
Westminster Bridge Road is a main thoroughfare, and it is
crossed twice within 100 yards by York Road and Belvedere
Road, necessitating two traffic policemen and frequent hold-ups.
Motor buses are sent on a detour round St. Thomas's Mansions
in an attempt to relieve the congestion.
These problems could be solved by turning Belvedere
Road into a private road where it passed between County
Hall and the new buildings, and by making a 'traffic circus'
at the junction of Westminster Bridge and York Roads. (fn. 25)
Both suggestions were adopted after the war, the closing
of Belvedere Road in 1948, and the traffic roundabout as
part of the Island Block development in 1970. (fn. 26)
Acquisition of the Site
The proposed extension covered three-and-three-quarter
acres, of which more than half was already in the Council's
possession. The National Provincial Bank had agreed to
sell their recently acquired site on the corner of Westminster Bridge and York Roads to the LCC on condition that
it was allowed to lease back part of the new offices. Thus
the Council was able to extend the first phase of building
round the south-east corner of the site, as it was unable
to do at the corresponding northern end. Under an Act
passed in June 1935, the Council obtained compulsory
purchase powers, together with authority to stop up parts
of Belvedere Road and Guildford Street, and to move
Chicheley Street further north. (fn. 27) Some properties were
acquired under existing Council powers such as slumclearance and highway-improvement. (fn. 28) The difficulty of
obtaining actual possession of all the land immediately
was the reason why the scheme could not be completed
under a single contract, and was only partially finished at
the outbreak of the Second World War.
Fig. 49. Ground-floor plan of the New County Offices (North
and South Blocks) as finally approved by the Council in 1936
but only partially built
The Final Design
The Council approved the scheme in July 1935, although
the elevations had still to be finalized. The Establishment
Committee reported only that they would be 'on generally
plain lines expressed in Portland stone with a red tiled
roof'. (fn. 29) A detailed adjustable model was, however, available showing not only the recommended scheme but also
Scott's preferred version, which included features already
rejected by the Committee, chiefly the curved quadrant
wings (Plate 39b). (fn. 30)
The new offices were planned as eight-storey blocks,
two floors being fitted into the mansard behind a parapet,
with additionally one basement floor for dry storage. At
fourteen feet the ground storey was rather higher than the
others in order to accommodate the Bank and retail uses.
The internal planning, which dispensed with light-wells,
was 'double-banked', that is, the offices were arranged
on both sides of a central corridor (fig. 49). (fn. 31) Hiorns
had recommended this arrangement as providing the
'maximum of effective office area for the minimum of
occupied land' while ensuring the 'maximum amenity
outlook and access of sunshine' that seemed possible in
the circumstances. (fn. 32)
In December 1935 the working drawings for the superstructure were sent to Scott, who had been making
sketches for the elevations in November and now suggested improvements. (fn. 33) Scott's principal modification to
the design was to repeat the grand architectural order of
the two pavilions at the return ends of the two blocks,
which faced each other along Belvedere Road, on the two
central pavilions flanking the new entrance from York
Road. Scott not only repeated this element but, as the
Architect's Report said, wished to add further modifications 'to this now monumentally embellished ensemble
... i.e., one-storey projecting pavilions, breaks, rusticated
corners and applied pylon motifs at the 6th floor corner
returns'. (fn. 34) He also suggested replacing the two-storey
curved wings which had already been rejected by the
Council with one-storey wings of identical form. Since
the Committee had objected to two-storey wings on the
grounds of expense and obstruction of the space needed
for access to an underground car park, Hiorns advised
against the single-storey wings. This apart, he recommended approval of the drawings as modified by Scott.
As working drawings progressed throughout the following
year, Scott continued to make suggestions. All concerned
matters of detail, and chiefly involved tinkerings of the
sort which many architects of 'refined classicism' at that
time found difficult to resist. (fn. c) The changes to the elevational treatment were finally approved by the Council in
July 1936. (fn. 36)
Construction
Because of the uncertainties over the site, the original
construction contract was only for the central portion of
the new offices either side of the new entrance from York
Road – northwards as far as the old line of Chicheley
Street, southwards up to and including the corner with
Westminster Bridge Road (see fig. 50). The building programme was split into three contracts, in a similar way to
the original County Hall programme. Foundations, steel
framing and superstructure were designed separately to
allow work to start while the details of the elevations were
still under consideration by the architects. The contract
was nominally under the direction of the Council's Architect, E. P. Wheeler, but in recognition of Hiorns's role in
developing the plan and the design he was named as the
'associated architect'. Engineering work was handled by
the Council's Chief Engineer, T. Peirson Frank, two
assistants in his department, H. Firth and F. M. Fuller,
being apparently responsible for design work on the foundations. (fn. 37)
The foundations were begun in the spring of 1936 and
the superstructure in the summer of 1937. Both were
built by Higgs & Hill and cost £31,600 and £436,000
respectively. The steel frame, which cost £46,500, was
executed by Redpath Brown. (fn. 38) The external walls were
faced with Portland stone, above a granite plinth, and
the roofs covered with reddish Italian tiles – the same
combination of materials as Knott had used. Some of the
granite salvaged from old Waterloo Bridge was incorporated in the piers of the triple-arched bridge connecting
the two blocks – a sentimental gesture in no way compensating for the Council's controversial demolition of
Rennie's masterpiece.
The new offices were 'completed' in 1939, being occupied during the course of the year, but an opening ceremony planned for July, seems to have been abandoned. (fn. 39)
The final costs were £287,113 for the acquisition of land,
and for buildings £537,176. An additional and grim extra
was £18,348, spent on wartime provisions, such as blackout and the equipment of air raid shelters for the whole
County Hall complex. (fn. 40)
Architectural Description and Comment
The LCC's own opinion of its new offices is revealed in
the text of a press release drafted in September 1938. The
buildings had been designed to accord harmoniously with
Knott's work, but no attempt had been made to copy it.
While 'generally following tradition', the new offices had
'a definitely modern flavour'. (fn. 41) To Nikolaus Pevsner,
writing in 1952, they showed the 'typical later approach
of the epigones of Edwardian Imperial glories: no change
of heart, but under a willy-nilly influence of the coming
Modern Movement a reduction in moulding and ornaments, and a more straightforward emphasis on verticals
and horizontals' (Plates 40–41). (fn. 42)
The 1938 press release drew attention to certain points
of interest in the design:
The offices and communication corridors are treated internally
with extreme severity, but an attempt is made to give a special
character and interest to the vestibules of the various entrances,
the external doors of which latter will be of bronze. These
and other features, where decorative treatment is involved, are
intended to show the high quality still possible in the traditional
handicrafts of this country. (fn. 43)
This is not just lip service to the ideals of Swinton and
other early Members: the suave yet severely detailed
entrance vestibules still look well after half a century of
use (Plate 41c, d). Very characteristic of the period are the
'moderne' staircase balustrades and the light-fittings, the
decorative plasterwork of the ceilings, and the treatment
of the walls, which are lined with travertine marble and
Ancaster stone in light and dark shades of brown. The
floors are paved in 'Perrycot' Portland stone. Each vestibule has two stone panels carved in low relief by J. B.
Spiro with Thames-side scenes and some rather sinister
birds (Plate 41b).
Externally the decoration was concentrated on the
two pavilions facing Knott's building and around the
entrances. Scott was particularly concerned with the
detailing of the pavilions and it was he who designed the
large ornamental bronze windows with their elaborate
swan-neck pediment feature (Plate 39c). These, together
with the bronze doorways in York Road (Plate 41a), and
the heavy curved boundary railings on the west side of
the building, were made by J. Starkie Gardner Limited.
E. J. and A. T. Bradford and F. P. Morton carved the four
stone panels set in the single-storey projections at the base
of the pavilions. These show heraldic devices and various
wide-ranging allusions to London and the Empire, and to
the work of the Council (Plate 40b, c).
Another sculptor, A. J. Oakley, designed and carved the
capitals of leaping fish for the ten free-standing columns
of Portland stone which guard the entrances from York
Road. The columns are fourteen feet high and carry
bronze lanterns (Plates 40a, d, 41a).
The axis of the layout was originally emphasized by a
Portland stone plinth and a flagstaff in the centre of the
courtyard. The upper surface of the plinth was fitted with
floodlighting for ceremonial occasions (Plate 39d). (fn. 44) Both
the plinth and the island on which it stood were demolished as part of a post-war 'traffic rationalization'. (fn. 45)
In 1966 Pevsner's unfavourable view of the HiornsScott buildings was echoed by Ian Nairn, who dismissed
them as 'fawning, curry-favour extensions'. (fn. 46) Nearly a
quarter of a century later, however, their cool neo-Georgian classicism and architectural good manners are held
in somewhat higher esteem. The central portion of the
building, with its imposing and carefully detailed
pavilions, is a handsome composition, but the necessary
symmetry of the ensemble has been seriously compromised by the LCC's unfortunate post-war decision not to
complete the buildings in accordance with the original
Hiorns-Scott designs. Under recent proposals for the
development of County Hall (see pages 121–2) these buildings would not survive.
Sketch of the bronze and iron gates at the foot of the Ceremonial Stairs made by Singers