homes run by the DGAA at the time, and was regarded as something of a
‘Cinderella’. But with the Le Rossignol gift the Report records that ‘the Fairy
Godmother has now arrived!’ In the event, a decision was made to extend the
home and increase its capacity from twenty-one residents to thirty-six. The
supervising Architect for the build was E. Forster BA FRBIA. The Annual
Report of the DGAA for 1963 includes a sketch of the new extension and the
Foundation Stone was laid by Robert and Emily on 10 July 1963. By
November 1964, shortly after the signing of the Agreement at Penn, the
extension was officially opened and all thirty-six beds occupied (Plate 18.4).
Here then we can at last make sense of the Le Rossignol’s engagement with
Muspratt’s Penn-Pennsylvania Fellowship. Certainly, common circumstance
of life may have played a part, certainly too Muspratt may have been persuasive in ‘drumming up’ support for his cause. But clearly Robert and Emily
already had a substantial ‘track record’ in such benefaction and equally they
saw Muspratt as an opportunity to progress their agenda, already begun at
Merlewood. A philanthropic symbiosis if ever there was one. Robert and
Emily’s gift to the DGAA, the building of the extension and its official
opening in November 1964 does not seem to have attracted any great interest
from the national Press at the time. But conversely—and undoubtedly driven
by Muspratt’s ‘showmanship’—05 September 1964 saw The Times publish
the short article, ‘Trust to be link with Pennsylvania’, which described the
general aims of the new Penn-Pennsylvania Trust, the Curzon and Le
Rossignol gifts, the collaborating bodies, and naming Muspratt’s cousin, the
eminent Sir Hugh Casson—whose works were generally characterised by
elegance, lightness of touch and sensitivity to surroundings—as consulting
architect. The Le Rossignol conditions clearly obliged the Trustees to provide
accommodation for the most deserving on a humanitarian rather than
parochial basis. Nothing in the Agreement aligned itself with Muspratt’s
Penn-Pennsylvania link neither did it predispose any particular capacity for
the flatlets. But the two-year clause meant that the Trustees and the consulting architect had to move quickly and plan this aspect of their Penn
Centre if they wished to use the Le Rossignol gift. One cannot help feeling
too that the agreement was meant to ‘rein in’ any tendency towards flamboyance. A year later, on Friday 12 November 1965, after seeking the best
legal advice from Lincoln’s Inn regarding the Almshouses, Sir Hugh Casson
presented and explained the Trust’s proposals to a large gathering of
parishioners. The old Almshouses were to be demolished, along with the old
school already used as a Church Hall. A new hexagonal Hall was to be built,
together with a 3-story block of 22 small flats and apartments with parking
for up to 60 cars and there was also a recommendation for a relief road to take
18 Penn, Buckinghamshire 1949–1976
479
‘Cinderella’. But with the Le Rossignol gift the Report records that ‘the Fairy
Godmother has now arrived!’ In the event, a decision was made to extend the
home and increase its capacity from twenty-one residents to thirty-six. The
supervising Architect for the build was E. Forster BA FRBIA. The Annual
Report of the DGAA for 1963 includes a sketch of the new extension and the
Foundation Stone was laid by Robert and Emily on 10 July 1963. By
November 1964, shortly after the signing of the Agreement at Penn, the
extension was officially opened and all thirty-six beds occupied (Plate 18.4).
Here then we can at last make sense of the Le Rossignol’s engagement with
Muspratt’s Penn-Pennsylvania Fellowship. Certainly, common circumstance
of life may have played a part, certainly too Muspratt may have been persuasive in ‘drumming up’ support for his cause. But clearly Robert and Emily
already had a substantial ‘track record’ in such benefaction and equally they
saw Muspratt as an opportunity to progress their agenda, already begun at
Merlewood. A philanthropic symbiosis if ever there was one. Robert and
Emily’s gift to the DGAA, the building of the extension and its official
opening in November 1964 does not seem to have attracted any great interest
from the national Press at the time. But conversely—and undoubtedly driven
by Muspratt’s ‘showmanship’—05 September 1964 saw The Times publish
the short article, ‘Trust to be link with Pennsylvania’, which described the
general aims of the new Penn-Pennsylvania Trust, the Curzon and Le
Rossignol gifts, the collaborating bodies, and naming Muspratt’s cousin, the
eminent Sir Hugh Casson—whose works were generally characterised by
elegance, lightness of touch and sensitivity to surroundings—as consulting
architect. The Le Rossignol conditions clearly obliged the Trustees to provide
accommodation for the most deserving on a humanitarian rather than
parochial basis. Nothing in the Agreement aligned itself with Muspratt’s
Penn-Pennsylvania link neither did it predispose any particular capacity for
the flatlets. But the two-year clause meant that the Trustees and the consulting architect had to move quickly and plan this aspect of their Penn
Centre if they wished to use the Le Rossignol gift. One cannot help feeling
too that the agreement was meant to ‘rein in’ any tendency towards flamboyance. A year later, on Friday 12 November 1965, after seeking the best
legal advice from Lincoln’s Inn regarding the Almshouses, Sir Hugh Casson
presented and explained the Trust’s proposals to a large gathering of
parishioners. The old Almshouses were to be demolished, along with the old
school already used as a Church Hall. A new hexagonal Hall was to be built,
together with a 3-story block of 22 small flats and apartments with parking
for up to 60 cars and there was also a recommendation for a relief road to take
18 Penn, Buckinghamshire 1949–1976
479