Cookridge 1960

[iansmithofotley]

I think that the photograph of the extended semi detached house may well be 23 Smithy Lane. Number 21 is out of the picture and would have been to the left of the detached garage on the left.

Old Maps shows number 21 as a smaller detached house, at the junction with Crag Hill Avenue. The more modern Google picture shows that this house has been greatly extended. All this fits.

I don’t think that the photographs of the new bungalows being built in 1960 are at this location. There are too many discrepancies as described in other posts.

Also, I noticed that the bungalow photographs show that some were built on a slope (higher than the next one). The ground in this area of Smithy Lane/Crag Hill Avenue/Cookridge Avenue/Cookridge Lane is more or less dead flat and I can’t recall a slope in the area. I still don’t recognise the bungalow photographs.

[gchq]

I don’t think that the photographs of the new bungalows being built in 1960 are at this location. There are too many discrepancies as described in other posts.

Also, I noticed that the bungalow photographs show that some were built on a slope (higher than the next one). The ground in this area of Smithy Lane/Crag Hill Avenue/Cookridge Avenue/Cookridge Lane is more or less dead flat and I can’t recall a slope in the area. I still don’t recognise the bungalow photographs.

I noticed that the driveways were on a different level, so I guess they are not relevant - I'm going with 20, Crag Hill Avenue for now

[tyke bhoy]

The google one is detached, the 1960 one is a semi.

With respect the Google one is semi-detached too

I think the location 'Cookridge' is misleading .The ones on the photographs are all semi detached with a narrow gable at each end at the front. They have lots of natural stone and the end walls are gables not hipped and the chimneys do not match. Having carried out a detailed check, I am convinced that here are no bungalows in 1960 Cookridge which match the photographs. I think we ought to widen the search, or get more accurate information.

Again with respect, I think th OP had already reached the conclusion that they weren't all from the same location. The fact that the photos were found together an showing a fairly rural location caused a jump to the wrong conclusion. I think my "spot" of Smithy Lane for the first is too near to be coincidental even with the passing of 60 years. They were all taken during a search for a new house to move to where one of those moving couldn't actually visit . We actually don't know the scope of the search and unless the reason for the move was to a new job in Leeds then it could be anywhere in Yorkshire. All we do know is the OP is certain the eventual move was to Cookridge. Unless the decree nisi turns up an address other than Crag Hill Avenue I suspect we will never know where the other photos were from.

[gchq]

...unless the reason for the move was to a new job in Leeds...

Yes it was - London and Edinburgh Insurance in Park Square!

After the split my father did, however, buy a bungalow in Garforth but later moved back to Leeds on Vesper Road

[tyke bhoy]

Have you checked Garforth for anything that might resemble the bungalows in 3 of the other photos?

I am assuming that he had a car, which is a bit of a leap of faith for 1960. Even if not then a rail or bus commute from Garforth isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

[gchq]

I am assuming that he had a car...

The Ford Popular in the first photo (with the boot open). Companies were creative in the 60's with high taxation, and company cars happened to be a good loophole for quite a while

[gchq]

Unless the decree nisi turns up an address other than Crag Hill Avenue I suspect we will never know where the other photos were from.

[iansmithofotley]

The bungalows on the north east side of Crag Hill Avenue, Cookridge, are all semi detached from number 18 to number 58. The bungalows were built in pairs and the fronts were different with one side having a gable end which, from a distance, makes the pairs of bungalows appear to be a single detached bungalow.

[warringtonrhino]

There are no bungalows in Craig Hill Avenue which match the originally submitted photographs, They have the wrong roof shape -hipped not gabled. They have the wrong front elevation with large gables and 2 windows not small gables WITH NATURAL STONE. The chimneys do not match, and the proportions are totally wrong.
Earlier I looked at the 1960 street map of Cookridge and then drove down every street - on Google, looking carefully at every single building houses bungalows, shops etc and there are no matches.

[gchq]

There are no bungalows in Craig Hill Avenue which match the originally submitted photographs, They have the wrong roof shape -hipped not gabled. They have the wrong front elevation with large gables and 2 windows not small gables WITH NATURAL STONE. The chimneys do not match, and the proportions are totally wrong.
Earlier I looked at the 1960 street map of Cookridge and then drove down every street - on Google, looking carefully at every single building houses bungalows, shops etc and there are no matches.

I think we have established further up the thread that the photograph in the first image is not from one of the bungalows in the subsequent images - my bad! Making assumptions from some 60 year old images that were together.

The thread content, though, has been very helpful - and once I get the full transcript of the divorce proceedings from tapes (Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute do not contain that information, and the Courts have destroyed everything else) which will take a few weeks I suspect that tyke bhoy nailed it!