3. CONservation Area & Historical analysis
3.4 Site evolution
Cotuit Hall - Site Evolution
The following text describes the evolution of the Cotuit Hall site both in terms of the use of the buildings and the order in which buidlings were added to the site.
1890 - Cotuit Hall (on the west side of Pullens Lane at its junction with Harberton Mead) was designed by H. W. Moore and built by Parnell & Sons of Rugby.
The building was formerly known as Napier House, and it took its name from Arthur Sampson Napier (1853–1916), Fellow of Merton College and Professor of English Language and Literature, who had it built and lived here with his large family in the house from 1892 until his death 24 years later.
1916 to 1930 - Cotuit Hall in Pullen’s Lane was the junior section of the Headington School.
1930s - Cotuit Hall was occupied by Redvers Opie, Fellow and Tutor in Economics at Magdalen College.
1940s to 1955 - Cotuit Hall was the City of Oxford Children’s Home 1 Aerofilms Collection - www.britainfromabove.org.uk
1950s - Cotuit Hall used was a private house again, occupied by the Revd D. B. Jones.
1962 - Cotuit Hall was a Hostel of the College of Technology, which later became the Polytechnic and then Oxford Brookes University.
1966 - Erection of three-storey building to provide residential accommodation for students and single- storey building for games/lecture room and ancillary accommodation approved.
Cotuit Hall was occupied by the Oxford College of Garden Design.
2011 - Cotuit Hall sold by Oxford Brookes University to the EF International Academy.
1. Aerial Photograph - 1949
2. Aerial Photograph - 1949
3. Aerial Photograph - c.2015 2 Aerofilms Collection - www.britainfromabove.org.uk 3 https://www.bing.com
26 3. CONservation Area & Historical analysis
3.5 Architectural Context
The work of Harry Wilkinson Moore - architect of Cotuit Hall
The architect who designed Cotuit Hall was a successful and accomplished Architect and there are several examples of his work in the City of Oxford.
The expansion of Oxford between 1850 to 1914 was in the main the work of a group of local architects.
“...two stand out for the quantity, and often for the quality, of their contributions to the architecture of Oxford and its environs. These are William Wilkinson and his nephew Harry Wilkinson Moore.”
Three Oxford Architects, Andrew Saint, 1970.
The drawings and photographs on this page are of buildings in Oxford made by the partnership of William Wilkinson and Harry Wilkinson Moore:
1. Buildings on the corner of St. Clement’s and Boulter Street - 1890-1
2 & 3. The Vines - 1889-90
4. Buildings on the corner of St. Clement’s and 1 http://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk 2 en.wikipedia.org 3 http://www.headington.org.uk Boulter Street - 1890-1
5 & 6. Logic Lane covered bridge - 1904
4 www.google.co.uk/maps 5 en.wikipedia.org 6 en.wikipedia.org
27 NOTES
All dimensions are from structure to structure unless indicated otherwise.
Elements of structure and services are indicated for coordination purposes only. For full structural and services layouts refer to Structural and Services Engineers' drawings.
Do not scale directly from the drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to construction or fabrication of 4. Site analysis & proximities to neighbours any elements. Any discrepancies between figured dimensions to be reported to the architect for clarification prior to commencing work.
For legend see signature sheet 112_C02B_001.
© Copyright Reserved
Rev Date 4.1 Immediate Surroundings Comments - --_--_-- Use this section for notes on revisions
The plan on this page indicates the shape and location of the site within the Conservation Area, in relation to the surrounding buildings, the buildings that are designated as contributing positively to the Conservation Area and the listed garden to the south.
It is important to note that although there are several buildings around the site, there are only a few which are in close proximity to the edge of the site.
TONY FRETTON ARCHITECTS
Tony Fretton Architects Ltd Highgate Studios, 53-79 Highgate Road, London NW5 1TL T: +44 (0)20 7284 2000 F: +44 (0)20 3227 1055 www.tonyfretton.com [email protected]
Job No: 275
Project: EF Academy, Oxford
Drawing title: Location Plan
Scale: 1:2500 @ A3
Origination Date: May, 2015 EF Academy site Positive Buildings Status: A Headington Hill Listed Gardens Drawing No : Rev Conservation Area 275_EX_001 - 28 4. Site analysis & proximities to neighbours
4.2 Neighbouring Buildings
Majority of surrounding buildings are visually and acoustically screened by mature trees and planting and are at a distance of between 30-80m from the nearest site building. F
Two properties have partial views into the site due E to proximity and gaps in the surrounding tree line and are at a distance of between 18-30m from the B C nearest site building. D
Two properties, Mendip House and Brock Leys, due G to their close proximity to the site [between 4-10m] require higher levels of consideration in terms of overlooking and acoustics.
A
A 32 Feilden Grove
B 6 Rolfe Place
C 7 Rolfe Place
D 8 Rolfe Place H E 1 Harberton Mead N F 2 Harberton Mead L G Pullens End Cottage M K
H Rye St Antony School
I Rye St Antony School I
J High Wall
K Mendip House
L Brock Leys J M 28 Feilden Grove
N 30 Feilden Grove
29 5. Analysis of PREVIOUSLY withdrawn scheme
5.1 Key characteristics
This drawing is the copyright of West Waddy : ADP and may not A previous planning application was submitted in be copied or reproduced without written permission. The Copyright Order 1990 provides for the Planning Authority to copy and distribute drawings for public inspection in relation to a Planning Application only if those copies are marked in the 2012 for the comprehensive redevelopment of the following manner:! ! "This copy has been made with the authority of West Waddy: ADP! pursuant to Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and for the purposes only of public inspection. This copy site, as illustrated in the adjacent plan. must not be copied without the priorwritten permission of the Copyright owner."! ! Do not scale from drawings unless for planning purposes only. Use figured dimensions at all other times. In case of doubt contact The previous application included the following: West Waddy:ADP ! ! Dimensions to be checked on site before work commences and any discrepancies reported to the Architect.! ! The accuracy of this drawing may be reliant upon survey information provided by third parties. No liability will be accepted by WestWaddy:ADP for errors in or arising from such third party • Residential accommodation for 300 students and survey information. teaching accommodation for 408 students. PLANNING! • The principal entrance was placed on the south side of Cotuit Hall, connecting to an ‘external street’ through the building. • A common room was to be excavated in the lawn on the east of the site adjacent to Pullens Lane. • New three storey accommodation, with
compost/garden waste reserved turning area basements, were ranged along the north side reserved disabled 88.20
85.61 88.43 85.27 85.88 86.22 87.31 84.79 87.96 of the site between Cotuit Hall and the retained 86.56 86.90 87.71 88.93 89.50 89.11 89.74 89.82 85.25 89.28 89.39 85.81 86.64 86.92 87.72 93.76 94.0 90.39 93.27 94.29 94.55 95.40 88.78 90.20 94.91 95.64 85.08 89.49 90.50 94.31 dormitory blocks and in the open land to the 89.81 89.96 91.17 93.18 93.62 93.83 84.77 89.27 96.76 88.98 88.41 89.58 90.74 90.83 92.29 94.03 95.24 97.32 89.21 89.66 91.21 91.50 93.30 94.26 94.74 95.94 86.31 91.39 92.03 92.38 95.21 97.66 85.29 91.78 96.0 88.04 89.81 90.59 91.64 97.40 97.45 90.97 93.06 97.62 87.44 89.83 92.88 96.78 97.61 86.22 87.0 93.16 97.72 87.92 86.0 90.04 92.33 95.57 97.72
5 STAFF PARKING SPACES, 1 VISITOR 97.10 90.08 90.50 90.94 91.17 92.11 west. 93.95 91.24 92.08 93.05 AND 1 DISABLED SPACE RETAINED 97.88 85.82 86.54 88.59 90.14 90.65 93.41 V 97.95 88.95 89.56 89.77 89.99 91.12 91.24 91.81 91.90 97.47
89.04 92.19 93.0 93.33 84.99 85.21 89.95 90.93 90.99 STAFF CYCLE 94.24 97.03 90.24 90.52 91.99 92.0 92.65 93.00 93.10 90.0 SHELTER 94.77 95.70 87.35 89.0 90.93 91.59 92.05 92.51 95.95 89.17 90.62 90.71 90.80 90.88 91.19 91.40 93.77 97.0 84.77 88.0 88.75 90.30 90.49 93.29 93.56 97.51 90.82 92.92 93.14 89.19 88.68 89.0 93.62 95.75 96.58 97.80 88.68 88.79 90.03 95.30 96.00 84.74 88.76 89.84 93.06 85.93 88.79 88.75 89.28 93.85 94.40 85.0 87.27 87.92 88.41 92.53 94.51 94.72 W-HT 92.13 92.61 94.77 98.0 88.73 90.66 98.13 90.77 90.85 91.0090.84 91.47 94.92 96.54 86.79 87.03 87.45 88.75 7NR BINS ! 92.94 93.70 95.34 88.77 (INCL 2NR RECYCLE BINS) 90.00 87.62 97.74 88.67 +88.860 ! 90.96 91.24 95.04 84.77 88.70 89.92 90.21 90.62 93.71 97.81 Following several objections from the local residents 85.21 85.66 +89.900 92.68 93.25 94.22motorcycle 88.65 +90.770 95.03 TAXI DROP OFF
88.72 88.70 95.98 97.65 88.71 90.47 95.76 94.00 96.90
86.25 86.96 88.65 88.78 89.20 90.85 95.35 97.74 +88.710 93.29 87.70 90.85 93.05 motorcycle +90.470 +90.600 95.60 96.0 94.26 97.08
88.70 95.03 89.99 93.07 84.60 86.22 88.72 89.94 95.03 95.21 84.86 90.87 93.09 93.99 95.43 97.59 97.71 temporary bin ! 95.45 95.75 96.18 97.38 86.29 90.79 STAIRS storage area DOWN 87.12 ! 90.29 94.20 and advice from the planning officers, the scheme 95.45 95.40 whilst awaiting95.26 87.36 92.96 ! 84.71 88.81 87.69 88.36 90.68 95.27 96.58 97.03 92.71 93.01 collection 93.05 95.15 95.46 85.58 86.55 93.00 85.83 88.78 90.93 92.83 92.89 95.77 95.86 85.58 88.61 88.76 90.84 93.03 95.33 96.22 96.97 86.08 88.78 90.53 90.71 90.68 92.82 93.01 88.83 90.36 9 0 . 8 2 90.84 92.95 97.68 97.81 88.60 +90.900 95.36 95.42 88.78 91.38 92.95 90.65 95.35 86.33 90.33 90.84 90.85 90.89 92.95 93.05 96.37 97.09
84.46 87.77 was withdrawn in 2013. The main concern with the 86.65 88.79 95.29 88.80 84.71 90.28 95.77 97.36 88.77 95.39 86.96 LOWER BLOCK 88.77 90.30 +90.000 +93.00 95.72 88.74 90.32 97.37 97.84 86.03 88.61 90.28 95.75 95.35 87.28 88.77 97.57 84.71 97.77 97.96 84.78 87.60 +88.900 +88.900 MIDDLE BLOCK W-HT +90.940 96.24 96.78 90.32 91.54 +90.900 COTUIT HOUSE 90.26 scheme raised in that public consultation process 90.83 90.83 95.76 95.25 97.73 85.74 UPPER BLOCK LIFT +88.900 90.44 93.10 93.10 98.05 97.83 90.52 97.75 88.23 90.28 90.28 93.10 95.73 96.42 90.26 95.72 95.59 service 93.03
84.31 92.83 86.38 ! +93.00
84.90 88.61 riser 95.76 95.72 95.24 98.0
85.45 88.74 98.03 88.55 92.83 96.46 86.63 93.18 97.88 were: 90.28 86.79 87.71 90.25 91.04 92.70 92.72 93.02 93.10 97.86 87.17 90.41 90.89 95.73 95.73 90.34 95.67 88.79 90.22 93.24 97.79 88.73 88.72 88.79 94.84 95.22 87.54 92.67 93.32 93.29 95.92 97.78 84.60 88.58 88.70 93.31 95.70 94.86 90.42 92.68 98.08 !"#"$%&'()*!(%+** 95.12 86.11 95.72 88.81 92.68 92.59 94.89 96.40 85.28 85.83 86.73 90.55 +93.000 92.68 92.62 95.72 95.17 98.02 85.55 +90.940 ****,%+"*$%&""%- 93.30 85.28 ramp up !"#"$%&'()*!(%+** +90.940 92.64 92.61 92.6292.61 +92.000 97.85 +87.500 !"#"$%&'()*!(%+** Ramp up +88.900 disabled! +95.760 97.97 87.0 +88.900 86.0 91.09 94.33 platform 95.57 ****,%+"*$%&""%- 92.59 92.82 ****,%+"*$%&""%- 90.10 91.05 93.05 93.67 95.55lift ! 95.04 98.0 87.97 90.34 90.81 92.58 93.36 +93.000 94.13 88.24 STREET 90.77 97.93 84.36 88.59 ! 90.93 disabled 95.23 95.42 85.80 90.29 +90.940 ! 90.96+93.000 94.06 94.70 95.17 85.50 86.30 87.31 disabled ! platform lift 93.74 94.44 98.38 84.61 +88.900 92.55 +95.460 platform lift +90.940 98.09 • The intensity of residential occupation. 84.18 84.83 92.56 94.31 98.34
84.54 88.44 94.00 95.01 95.16
88.68 +95.460 94.64 95.0
86.03 90.09 94.0 94.31
92.93
MARCUS LOWER 90.02 89.0 90.48 91.07 97.87 88.04 88.70 Void 92.21 92.59 90.07 91.65 UP 95.61 85.01 86.88 W-HT 90.89 W-HT 92.58 97.86 88.58 90.18 90.39 90.93 92.56 90.69 98.04
84.58 90.79 90.77 92.55 96.33 97.95 • Potential noise nuisance from the entrance and 88.0 88.68 91.53 92.0 W-HT 93.0193.0 93.23 +88.900 90.33 95.09 98.13 85.20 85.51 +88.700 emergency 92.65 95.46 !"#"$%&'()*!(%+** 86.13 95.85 85.82 escape only 90.74 ****,%+"*$%&""%- 90.08 Rainwater ! BREWER 85.0 87.46 97.99 Harvesting! +90.690 93.81 94.77 95.67 98.22
Soakaway tank below 97.0 83.91 84.83 85.33 +88.700 ! 98.03 98.09 88.57 deck +92.000 94.26 RF ‘external street’. 88.03 +95.300 85.87 90.06 90.71 95.37 86.58 90.42 91.93 97.91
88.25 88.65 92.34 84.47 92.46 96.0 84.78 2m high brick wall +88.900 98.24 87.49 88.68 84.08 92.36 92.48 90.42 92.75 92.63 RF 96.39 85.40 90.65 91.80 97.99 • Building heights resulting in overlooking of 84.94 85.61 88.59 90.23 93.23 97.91 87.04 700m high brick wall 91.59 ! 90.78 93.70 94.18 98.15 90.87 94.65 85.85 86.23 90.44 95.19 98.01 98.00 83.66 emergency escape only 95.76 98.05 85.07 85.35 Attenuation Tank COMMON ROOM 87.52 98.08 87.59 90.73 W-HT neighbouring properties and loss of open views 84.29 87.23 88.71 90.00 87.83 88.57 88.66 +90.230 91.62 84.60 Soakaway 98.08 88.68 90.0 92.74 92.51 91.83 92.32 96.29 92.54 97.98 84.98 85.26 +90.330 88.00 90.77 92.50 98.19 98.05 85.74 90.19 90.33 90.60 90.60 90.87
83.49 86.02 90.10 92.38 across the site. 84.84 90.00 90.56 93.15 97.83 83.72 83.94 85.33 98.0 84.88 RF
97.92 85.06 88.75 93.66
98.14 85.32 97.49 84.90 87.58 91.58 89.35 90.01 92.70 92.51 94.76 95.32 84.04 86.79 94.25 95.81 97.81 89.02 83.31 87.73 96.15 83.59 90.09 90.44 92.70 92.82 88.69 90.32 98.08 84.0 84.59 86.37 89.94 90.76 92.81 88.05 92.56 98.13 85.12 88.68 88.69 92.73 83.42 83.65 85.94 84.20 86.0 87.0 90.21 93.36 94.65 84.33 92.12 94.18 95.14 97.94 90.33 98.04 W-HT 91.71 83.14 85.08 85.52 89.0 90.19 The feedback obtained from local residents, 85.07 86.64 86.61 91.63 95.98 87.45 83.46 85.0 87.34 88.65 90.78 90.74 92.66 93.72 83.79 84.11 87.94 88.72 95.64 84.39 91.53 98.13 84.67 85.36 85.74 87.72 84.83 86.12 87.68 90.02 92.88 95.78 84.98 87.77 88.50 90.25 90.49 90.77 96.32 96.43 87.13 89.26 91.12 92.21 92.52 87.66 89.96 90.01 90.48 86.65 87.17 87.78 87.83 90.0 87.70 90.04 90.79 97.94 stakeholders and officers at Oxford City Council in 91.08 92.14 98.0
88.12 88.31 92.39 98.09
88.72 89.36
91.37 92.62 96.49 98.05 89.43 93.0 94.0 96.62
89.04 91.91 95.0 96.61 89.84 92.63 96.0 97.75 90.06 93.30 89.68 90.53 94.02 90.01 90.85 92.0 93.68 98.03 90.05 98.03
90.47 92.03 92.82 94.73
91.15 94.08 94.77 93.28 97.0 98.04 91.63 92.19 relation to the withdrawn scheme has informed our 93.32 96.38 97.38 98.02 98.16
95.28 97.92 97.92 93.83 94.50 96.78 98.02
97.48 96.40 approach to the site and we have sought design 96.05 96.99 97.99 97.99 97.95 97.90 98.09 resolutions in response to each of the objections. 98.13
B 25.05.12 SitebBoundary emphasised RS RA and 'Indicative' label removed A 18.05.12 Middle Block minor change JG RA
Rev Date Revisions Initials checked
Cotuit Hall, Pullens Lane! Oxford OX3 0DA! ! EF ACADEMY ! STREET LEVEL ! LAYOUT PLAN
The Malthouse! 60 East St. Helen Street! Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 5EB Tel (01235) 523139 ! Fax (01235) 521662
e-mail: [email protected]
A R C H I T E C T S A N D T O W N P L A N N E R S For detailed landscaping proposal! Scale N westwaddyADP refer to Anthony Stiff Associates! Date May 2012 drawing no. ASA-365-DR-001 Site Boundary STREET LEVEL SITE PLAN 0 2 4 6 8 10 Scale 1:200@A0
Drawn JG checked RA
Job Dwg No. Rev. 2012/0023 P001 B
Doc. Ref: QF 34 - 9
Ground Floor Site Plan 30 5. Analysis of PREVIOUSLY withdrawn scheme
5.2 Withdrawn Scheme Layout
Additional storeys above existing building line
Proposed new pedestrian entrance to site
External ‘Street’ connecting building volumes External escape stairs Ground Floor Second Floor
Subterranean common room below garden
Basement First Floor
Key
Bedrooms Showers / WC Office / Store
Classrooms Parent / Tutor Flat Circulation
Common Rooms Dining Hall Kitchen & Teapoints
31 5. Analysis of PREVIOUSLY withdrawn scheme
5.3 Previously withdrawn scheme in context
This page illustrates the withdrawn scheme through visuals and an elevation. The increased height of the proposed buildings is clear in Cotuit Hall the aerial view and long elevation. Existing The existing buildings when viewed in elevation define a building Brewer profile which the withdrawn scheme added another floor to. The Building existing profile of the buildings on site has informed the scale of the buildings in our proposed scheme, which is discussed in section 6 of Existing this document. The following page shows the existing building on Marcus Lower site for comparison. Building
Proposed New Upper Block
Proposed New Middle Block
Proposed New Lower Block
Sketch up image looking into submerged common room at the front of site by West Waddy ADP
Aerial View from the south-west Sketch up image showing rear of Middle Block by West Waddy ADP Existing Cotuit Hall
Existing Marcus Existing Brewer Proposed Lower Block Lower Building Proposed Middle Block Building Proposed Upper Block
common room basement
basement basement Profile of existing buildings
South Elevation
32 5. Analysis of PREVIOUSLY withdrawn scheme
5.4 The existing buildngs on the site for comparison
Cotuit Hall
Existing Brewer Building
Existing Marcus Lower Building
Aerial View from the south-west
Existing Marcus Existing Brewer Existing Cotuit Hall Lower Building Building
South Elevation
33 6. PROPOSALS – OVerView
Existing Cotuit Hall 6.1 A New Approach 6.2 Key Aspects Existing Marcus Existing Brewer Lower Building Building
The new approach to redevelopment at this site is led New buildings proposed along the north of the site by design through feasibility studies and exploration are of similar height to the existing Refectory and of options. The new proposal acknowledges the Lecture Hall which they replace. The south facing proximity of the neighbours and the needs of facades have pergolas to further reduce overlooking the Conservation Area. Feedback from previous of neighbouring properties proposals have been carefully considered. These South Elevation design constraints have informed EF Academy of the The area where the proposed new building in the optimum operation that the site can accommodate. land to the west is excavated and the building would present as only a single storey above ground. Its A key principle of the option studies that follow is rooms look inwards to a central court with minimal Profile of existing buildings to reduce the perception of over-development in fenestration facing towards neighbouring properties. the withdrawn scheme by minimizing the apparent scale of the project and to make clear and significant concessions to the neighbours.
Key drivers to the new approach:
• Consolidate operations to form a more contained school.
• Provide adequate accommodation that is suitable for the site; reducing intensity of occupation from previous proposals
• Reduce noise nuisance to neighbours and provide more control over access with new internal circulation route.
• Minimise the height of proposed buildings to prevent overlooking of neighbouring properties and protect lateral views across the site. 1 2 The following pages of this section look at how the existing buildings (with relatively modest rebuilding 5 and extension) can accommodate what is required. The proposal seeks to give a more consistent architec- Outline of existing buildings tural identity to the school whilst addressing concerns during the previous planning process. The following diagrams set out the main design principles that we 1 Existing Lecture Hall have used to formulate our final proposals. 3 4 2 Existing Refectory Building
3 Existing Marcus Lower Building
4 Existing Brewer Building
5 Existing Cotuit Hall
34 6. Developed Scheme OVerView Existing Cotuit Hall Existing Marcus Existing Brewer new entrance Lower Building Building position
6.3 Accessibility – Internal circulation & Servicing
REFECTORY The proposed scheme provides a single point of entry into the site from Pullens Lane. There is a new single New Accommodation Block New Refectory Block New Teaching Block entry point into the school with adjacent accessible parking. All floors of the new buildings are accessible Section showing New Circulation route in the interior of the buildings via lifts. new entrance routes in on the north side of Cotuit Hall • Circulation will be through the interior of the buildings so that there will be no noise nuisance vehicle turning kitchen delivery accessible parking to the neighbours. refuse • Service access is improved in the northern edge of the site with turning facilities at the western end of the service route, preventing reversing on service access site.
The new buildings provide teaching and social spaces that are accessible throughout; wheelchair accessible dormitory rooms will be provided for students at ground level of the existing Marcus Lower and Brewer buildings.
Lower Garden Middle Garden Upper Garden 6.4 Landscape Strategy lower garden middle garden upper garden Plan of the New Circulation route connecting through the inside the buildings Todd Longstaffe-Gowan Design Ltd (TLG) were appointed by to work closely with Tony Fretton Architects and the design team to develop the additional trees and large shrubs Green roofs landscape proposals. The aim is to further enhance to enhance boundary planting the sense of enclosure offered by the mature boundary planting to the grounds of Cotuit Hall and to reinstate the original layout of the three distinctive landscape characters: FFL 88.920 new formal approach
+87 .45 A. A formal south-facing lawn (as seen in the panorama image, section 8.3 pp. 54) B. A tranquil enclosed garden with notes of an orchard. Courtyard
Woodland C. A woodland
The new cohesive landscape will complement and Terrace Garden enhance the ecological quality, structure and diversity South Lawn as well as aesthetic value of the setting and the neighbouring mixed woodland through new tree and understorey planting. C B A Please refer to the landscape report prepared by Todd Longstaffe-Gowan Design Ltd (TLG) that accompanies this application. Proposed Landscape Character Areas 35 NOTES
All dimensions are from structure to structure unless indicated otherwise.
Elements of structure and services are indicated for coordination purposes only. For full structural and services layouts refer to Structural and Services Engineers' drawings.
Do not scale directly from the drawing. All dimensions to be checked on site prior to construction or fabrication of 6. PROPOSALS – OVerView any elements.
Any discrepancies between figured dimensions to be reported to the architect for clarification prior to commencing work.
For legend see signature sheet 112_C02B_001.
© Copyright Reserved
Rev Date 6.5 Site Plans Comments
- --_--_-- Use this section for notes on revisions
2 Harberton Mead
1 Harberton Mead 117
6 Rolfe 7 Rolfe Place Place 8 Rolfe Place
Pullens End Cottage HARBERTON MEAD
FFL 88.920
32 Pullens End Fielden Grove Cotuit Hall
New Refectory Block New Teaching Block
New Accommodation Block
Marcus Lower Brewer Building Building Heathfield House NOTE: Drawing must be printed in colour
30 Feilden KEY : Grove Brock Mendip Leys House RYE ST Surrounding Buildings 28 ANTONY Feilden SCHOOL Grove
Site Boundary
Langley Lodge
TONY FRETTON ARCHITECTS
Tony Fretton Architects Ltd Site Plan as proposed Highgate Studios, 53-79 Highgate Road, London NW5 1TL T+44 (0)20 7284 2000, F+44 (0)20 3227 1055 [email protected], www.tonyfretton.com High Wall Job No: 275
Project: EF Academy, Oxford
Drawing title: Proposed Site Plan N
Scale: 0 50 100 1:500 @ A1 & 1:1000 @ A3 meters Origination Date: July, 2016
Status: Planning
Drawing No : Rev 36 275_PL_200 -