FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Over the years a number of people have contacted me regarding my interest in RAF Driffield.  Most have been supportive, while a very few have been sceptical or defeatist in their attitude towards me and my proposals.  Anyway the following FAQ section should satisfy most inquisitive minds.

Why should RAF Driffield be preserved?

Our past is very important to our cultural identity.  We are because of who we were.  What physically remains of our past is our heritage – a physical path that leads us to our grandparents and previous generations – the very people that shaped our society.  Sadly, through the passage of time, people die and buildings are demolished.  Therefore what remains becomes even more important.  Former RAF Driffield is a reminder of what past events and should not be demolished.

During the war over seven hundred airfields were in use at one time or another.  Sixty years later and the number of airfields that are primed for preservation are very low.  There are probably only around ten airfields that are in a position to be preserved – this for future generations to explore.  Former RAF Driffield is one of these airfields.  We have an unprecedented opportunity to preserve our heritage, while at the same time create new jobs. 

We can either remove RAF Driffield from the landscape so that jobs and homes can be created or we can preserve the camp and airfield while creating the same number of jobs and homes.

Where would you find the money to preserve RAF Driffield?

The only way RAF Driffield is going to be preserved is through sympathetic, yet profitable redevelopment.  My argument is that this can be achieved while keeping the vast majority of historic buildings, which can be reused.  The best way forward is for parts of the camp to be assigned to individual developers who would work to a strict series of guidelines.

Surely the technical (concrete) buildings are far too gone to be saved?

This depends on your attitude towards our heritage.  Admittedly, they are in a poor state of disrepair, but so are a large number of other buildings across the country, which have been successfully restored.  As someone who regularly watches Channel Four’s Grand Designs, it’s quite clear that the most important requirement needed in restoring any dilapidated old building (apart from loads of money) is the will to take the initiative and make things happen, something it appears that is alien to those living and around Driffield.

I would also like to add that apart from the hangars, there are only around eight technical buildings that can be easily restored and leased to local businesses.  Additional new-build business units would provide additional employment opportunities.

The site is too contaminated to be preserved?

Former RAF Driffield, like most other military sites, will contain a low level of contaminates (mostly oil spillage and asbestos) that have accumulated over the years.  For the MoD to dispose of the site, they first have to undertake a Land Quality Assessment, which will accurately assess the level of contamination, which can then be easily dealt with.

Living or working on the camp will be no less hazardous than living or working on any new housing or industrial estate built on any brown field site.

The officer’s mess is a wreck and should be pulled down?

Sometimes a really decrepitated building is easier to restore than one needing only remedial work.  Because the officers mess is in such a poor state internally, the only option is to strip out all the rotten wood and start afresh.  Rebuilding internal walls using concrete blocks set upon newly laid concrete foundations is cost effective. 

Externally the officers mess is in excellent condition (as are all the brick built structures).  Pulling down the officers mess will cost money as would designing a new structure, which would require planning permission, which takes time and more money.  Using the existing shell would greatly reduce costs, while offering a spacious canvas on which to create new offices for local businesses and government agencies.

Surely it would be cheaper to demolish the married quarters and start afresh?

Like the officers mess, the external brickwork is in excellent condition and because the houses are already built, you don’t need planning permission to refurbish them.  The internal fixtures and fittings can easily be replaced with concrete foundations and internal walls, not to mention block and beam first floors.  Any competent builder can do this with his eyes closed.  Because the houses are not listed uPVC windows and doors will suffice, while the roof can be repaired and retiled.  Would it be profitable to restore the houses?  The answer is yes.  Would people want to buy them?  The answer is yes – just ask those living on Auchinleck Close.

If restored the houses on camp would be worth around £6.8m in sales revenue.

Who would want to live in a converted accommodation block?

Ask yourself this: who would want to live in a converted mill or warehouse?  But such conversions are popular.  On Alfred Gelder Street in Hull, former council science laboratories were recently converted into luxury apartments.  Near the Hull New Theatre another commercial property is currently being rebuilt.  Yet this former warehouse is in worse condition than those buildings on camp.  The accommodation blocks at Driffield can be easily refurbished and sold on as either spacious apartments or rural offices. 

If restored and converted into apartments the accommodation blocks on camp would be worth around £7.2m in sales revenue or more.

Why bother when the hangars have already been sold and the main entrance area is occupied by the Army Cadet Force?

Why bother indeed.  In all honesty the new owners of the hangars are already awaiting for current guidelines to change so that hundreds of houses can be built on the site.  I doubt very much if they can be persuaded from this inevitable, yet profitable conclusion.  The only way to prevent the inevitable is to convince the planning authorities not to allow house building on this part of the site, but allowing the existing houses to be refurbished and for additional houses to be build on part of the site where such a development would not be out of place. 

The Army Cadet Force through their presence have done more than most to preserve former RAF Driffield.  Yet, they could do more.  It was a shame that they didn’t replace the existing iron railings (located around the main entrance) with like for like, when the originals were judged to be beyond repair and scrapped.  While, they are desperate to enlarge their facilities, one hopes that if and when the camp becomes available they can occupy a number of additional buildings.  But this is just a suggestion...

What right do you have to tell others what to do, when you don’t own any of the site or haven’t lived in Driffield since 1987?

We all have the same rights and obligations to voice our concerns and to help shape our future landscape – this through open and honest debate.  To do nothing or to ridicule the belief of others (without knowing the facts or without making an effort yourself in contributing towards your community) is an abhorrence.   Without being proactive yourself in making change or in protecting what you hold close to your heart, you are consigning, not only your own well-being, but that of others to a society that is both monotonous and subservient.

Well all have the right to make a difference.  It doesn’t matter that I personally won’t own Driffield Aerodrome.  I know that won’t happen.  It also matters not that there are those who dislike me or my beliefs.  Most of my adversaries don’t know me or are fuelled by hearsay and gossip, which sadly Driffield is famous for. 

I have never regretted living in East Yorkshire and my childhood memories are a welcome companion in a world filled with suffering and hatred and misnomer.  Yet, I’m racked with guilt at not being able to do more, which is only surpassed by the stark reality that I know I didn’t do enough.  I’ve given my all in trying to save this historic site (and then some).  This without reward or it appears appreciation from many.  I fight on because in the wider picture, preserving RAF Driffield is the wider picture.  I dearly hope that at least some of you reading this will appreciate what benefits preserving the site can bring to both Driffield and our nation.

The problem is that places like Driffield Aerodrome are so ingrained into our countryside and collective psyche that we haven’t acknowledge the importance of places like former RAF Driffield.

In recent months I made it known that I thought it right and proper for flying to return to Driffield, albeit on a limited basis – restricted to gliders and light aeroplanes.  Accordingly, I hope the following questions are answered to your satisfaction.

Would you need planning permission to rebuilt the airfield?

You probably will require planning permission to remove the remaining concrete and the cross-country driving course, but creating a large grass field does not require planning permission.  What does require permission is the long term use of the site for flying.

However, at first the airfield could operate under the 28 Day Rule, which means flying can take place on the airfield for no more than 28 days in any calendar year (365 days) – this without the need for planning permission.  This would help in valuating the site as being suitable for continued flying.  As an all grass landing field it would not be safe for jet aircraft to operate from the airfield.

Why do you want to remove the runways when you want to preserve the site?

Approximately 92% of the original wartime concrete was removed in the early 1980s.  What remains cannot be used and will probably be removed anyway.  My proposal would see what remains being used to finance the restoration of the original 1930s landing field.  There are a number of road building schemes in the area which will require a ready supply of hardcore, close to hand.  Selling off this remaining concrete (500,000³ft) should help finance the creation of a large grass landing field – about 50% of the current size of the airfield.

Furthermore, my proposal would see a sizable nature park being created on the far side of the airfield, which would encompass an existing lake.  The idea is to create a new access road to this site.  Land to the left of this access road would return to agriculture, while land to the right would be retained as a grass landing field.  The question is where do you position this road?

Surely the airfield would be offered back to the original farmers?

If the airfield was requisitioned after January 1^st 1935 then the airfield would be offered back to the original owners under The Crichel Down Rules.  The original owners or their descendants would have two months in which to decide if they wanted to buy back the land, at a priced fixed by an independent third-party.  If the owners decided not to buy the airfield then it would be sold on the open market.  Either way, the new owners would be approached with the aim of persuading them to reinstate flying at Driffield.

How can you rebuild the airfield when there are too many trees covering the site?

During the 1970s trees were planted on both sides of the airfield – close to the former A163 road and on the far side of the airfield.  These trees were planted close together and weren’t managed.  As a result this has effected both their growth and future prospects.  The Local Plan does not stipulate that these trees must be retained.

After the Defence School of Transport vacated the camp in 1992, the Army Training Estate took over the airfield and thereafter a large number of trees were planted.  Most of these would form part of a nature reserve on the site.  However, a large number of trees would need to be removed.  This is unavoidable.  But the provision of a nature reserve or park – some fifty acres in size would be both viable and sustainable.  An access road to this area would give secondary access to the Kellythorpe Industrial Estate and offer views of the airfield when in use.

Would flying be safe now that the Kellythorpe Industrial Estate has built up close to the airfield?

This is not a problem as the direction of the runways can be altered to avoid flying over the industrial estate, not to mention both Kirkburn village and Little Driffield. 

Would flying disrupt the local community?

Driffield Aerodrome will never become a regional airport nor will it see the level of activity it experienced in the past.  If flying does return to Driffield it will probably be restricted to gliding and light single-engined aeroplanes.

When will this happen?

Probably never, but one can but dream and write an endless stream of letters, that normally aren’t replied.  The MoD have no plans to vacate the airfield at present.  If they do, then the site will probably revert back to the original owners.  If flying does return to Driffield, then it will probably take upto three years to clean up the site and create the right environment or both flying and agriculture.  But it will be at the discretion of the new owners.  They alone will have the opportunity to make things happen.

How can I help?

Well, you could write to your MP or the Driffield Times.  The good people of Driffield* and those elected by them must be made aware that former RAF Driffield is important and that its future preservation is both warranted and viable.  Apart from that there is little anyone can do.  I’ve given up hope of ever winning the lottery, though ironically a silence prayer was partially answered, when a syndicate in Driffield won £18m.  The almighty was probably busy with the washing up and only heard half of my prayer.

*former RAF Driffield is actually situated within the Kirkburn parish boundaries.  They have there own parish council.  I guess you could write to them as well.

The only way the site will be preserved is if the MoD make an exception to the rule and sell the site to an reputable body , such as an established preservation trust or something like Yorkshire Forward or CityBuild in Hull.  For this to happen it must be profitable for the MoD to even consider.  They simply wouldn’t give the site away.  But alas the rules are strict and there will always be someone with deeper pockets who can offer more.  The killer is what is known as the Clawback Provision, which means the MoD will receive a percentage of the profit made from former RAF Driffield’s redevelopment. 

This is why not only Driffield but several other sites across the UK will also be demolished and these sites are the best of what remains.  Once places like Driffield, Newton, West Raynham, Bicester and Kirton on Lindsey have been demolished, then we will have lost the last opportunity to save a few of the many aerodromes, that once brought victory to the allies during the Second World War.  Places like Scampton, Waddington and dozens of other airbases still in use have been extensively modernised in recent years, with numerous historic buildings being demolished to make way for new structures, including hangars and accommodation blocks.

What are your future plans

I will keep batting on.  I have given much thought to creating the Driffield Aerodrome Preservation Trust.  But that will only be as affective as its trustees and I doubt if anyone local would be interested.  I’m planning to write a book about me and RAF Driffield, not to mentioned the state of our aviation heritage.  I’m also planning to work with a number of artists in order to create a number of 3D images and a DVD of what the site would look like if preserved.  I’m also hoping to meet up with the original landowners on which Driffield Aerodrome was built.  My plan is to suggest the possibility of flying returning to the site.  If and when the camp is demolished, the reintroduction of flying (albeit on a limited basis) would act as monument to what has passed. 

What lessons have you learnt?

It’s not nice being a lone voice or someone ridiculed for his beliefs.  It’s also upsetting not to be appreciated by those who have more to loose than most.  I speak of the people of Driffield themselves.   I’ve also learnt that those we entrust to protect our heritage and the checks and balances we all rely on will not save former RAF Driffield, nor any other aerodrome for that matter.  Also, if Driffield is to flourish its inhabitants need to be more vocal and proactive.  The people of Driffield must realise that they themselves need to take the lead.  And I’m not only talking about saving an aerodrome.  Driffield has many problems and too few good citizens to take the initiative.  They think wrongly that any problem or failing is the responsibility of local government to put right.     

What else have you learnt? 

There is more to life that abandoned aerodromes and apathetic communities, but proving it has been problematic.  Also, my difficulty is that being different (or caring) is seen as being at odds with the deficiencies of others.  I’m seen as the oddball because I care and not because others, my critics included, are apathetic.  I’m a realist and I foolishly thought that would also score me points.  It’s wrong to think that RAF Driffield could be restored as a living museum – a fully working and operational wartime aerodrome.  Such a proposal would take superhuman strength and funding – something both the region and our heritage movement lack.  The sensible approach of preserving the site through profitable redevelopment, I had hoped would have gained the support of many, but alas I was foolishly optimistic.

What do you think will happen to the site?

The hangars were recently sold to a property development company.  The Rural Payments Agency sold these hangars to a company who would make the most money out of developing the site – because the government receives a percentage of the income or profit generated.  At present the planning authorities will not allow houses to be built on the site, but that will probably change. 

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council are in the process of changing or amending its planning guidelines, which will probably allow house building on the site in the future.  When these amendments have been approved developers will submit plans to demolish the hangars.  They might not even wait and apply for permission sooner rather than later, if they are unable to find temporary tenants.

It is possible that the MoD are also awaiting for the aforementioned planning guidelines to change.  One possible reason why the MoD withdrew the site from sale in late 2000, was the derisory sums being offered by developers.   If the site is approved for new housing then the value of the camp (or rather the land on which it is located) will increase.  Thereafter the site will be sold to the highest bidder – the company who can place the most houses on the site. 

Then again, the MoD might still use the site or at least part thereof.  But don’t hold your breath.  Originally, the Rural Payments Agency offered the hangars to the MoD, but they either didn’t want them or the RPA were tired of waiting and decided to sell the hangars anyway.

I would imagine that it would be unlikely that the airfield will be swamped with new houses, well not for another decade.  But, when the camp has gone and existing and planned building plots have been used up, then we can expect this policy to change.