Buried in a list of surplus MoD properties that await disposal (a list downloadable from the Defence Estates website) can be found “Alamien Barracks”, formally known as RAF Driffield. After six years of indecision the MoD have finally concluded they can find no new use for this historic site.

I discovered the list on one of my routine internet scavenges for news and information on RAF Driffield. Accordingly, I broke the news to the Driffield Times last week.

The former RAF camp at Driffield has largely remained vacant since 1996, with most of the site being unused since the 1970s. In 2000 the site was taken off the market when the MoD announced that it was retaining the camp for possible reuse. This process resulted in several army units and defence organisations being considered for relocation to Driffield. This process has come to an end, with the MoD unable to find new tenants.

I have spent the last ten years of my life campaigning to see the site preserved, while providing housing, employment and leisure opportunities geared towards local needs. The biggest problem has been in trying to convince a sceptical populous that preservation and [profitable and much needed] redevelopment can go hand in hand. In campaigning to see the site preserved, it must be noted that RAF Driffield isn’t unique, but such sites – those still retaining many original structures are becoming extremely rare. Accordingly, this might be a unique opportunity to preserve one of the few remaining aerodromes to survive into the 21^st century.

So why preserve RAF Driffield

I could understand local scepticism over my proposals if Carnaby or Hutton Cranswick or Catfoss or Lissett or Holme on Spalding Moor were preserved and Driffield was not, but none of these former airfields I mention remain intact. The frightening thing is that this level of decay and apathy is mirrored across the UK. During the war there were around 750 airfields in use – from temporary grass landing fields to large developed sites, like Driffield. Most have reverted back to farmland or have been turned into industrial estates. Those airfields that remain operational, like Waddington, have been enlarged and modernised. Most airfields currently in use by the RAF or British Army have in recent years undergone massive reconstruction, with new billets and other buildings being erected – usually after the demolition of original 1930s architecture.

I’m not against change or progress; the only way places like RAF Driffield are going to be preserved is through sympathetic redevelopment and continued occupancy. Driffield needs jobs and homes. Preserving RAF Driffield can offer both AND still retain many of its original buildings.

Preservation through Sympathetic and Profitable Redevelopment

Well, firstly I would like to see the vacant married quarters refurbished and the accommodation blocks converted into flats or apartments. This would realise around £15m in revenue. I would also like to see the original layout of paths and roads retained, along with the vast majority of trees that cover the site. I would allow new houses to be built on the land between the officer’s mess (which would be refurbished) and the accommodation blocks. I have already secured permission to name this development “Trenchard Close” by the grandson of Lord Trenchard – Father of the RAF.

It must be clearly noted that any restoration or refurbishment undertaken on the site will be undertaken using modern materials with an aim to retain the exterior character of each building, while creating modern and spacious interiors. Restoring these buildings “like for like” is impractical and unrealistic.

But is it viable to refurbished buildings that haven’t been used for years?

Well, yes – but taking on most of the buildings at Driffield isn’t for the faint hearted. Most internal fixtures and fittings will need replacing; some roofs need rebuilding as would internal walls and floors, but such work wouldn’t break the bank.

Like many, I’m inspired by Channel Four’s Grand Designs, which has shown that miracles can happen – many a condemned or long abandoned building having been resurrected. From my bedroom window in the centre of Hull you can see “Zinc House”, which was a former science lab run by Hull City Council. This 1930/50s building very much reminds me of the brick built structures on RAF Driffield. The building was vacated by the council a few years ago and bought by a developer who made a grand job in converting the structure into a series of luxurious flats. The council made money in its disposal and the developer made a packet in converting this unlisted structure into apartments. It’s a pleasure to walk past and I suspect a delight to live in, too.

So why can’t the accommodation blocks, married quarters and officer’s mess at Driffield be given the same treatment? Well, they can and it would also be profitable, too.

Imagine the time and money saved in reusing the existing buildings at Driffield? Planning issues in reusing the existing married quarters are minimal compared to securing planning permission to build anew. I know, because I have contacted the local council and they see no problems in retaining and reusing these fine two-bedroomed homes. You would also save a year or two awaiting complex planning decisions. The problem isn’t me or my proposals, rather it’s the mindset of your average developer, who will always go with what he or she knows – that of starting afresh. Well, the people of Zinc House are happy, as are those who live in numerous converted warehouses, barns, office blocks and municipal buildings, including Hull’s old Post Office on Alfred Gelder Street located in the city centre.

Obviously the concrete structures at Driffield, such as the MT Section, Stores and Engineering block are in poor condition, but I wouldn’t write them off, just yet. The good news is that there are only a few structures that are a cause for concern. I’ve looked at recycling the concrete so that these buildings can be recast onsite. I have also received offers of advice from a company in Australia, whose owner is the son of a pilot who flew from Driffield during the war. This company specialises in preserving concrete buildings.

The problem however isn’t the viability of retaining these structures – that’s the easy part. The question is: who would want to buy or lease a seventy year old structure when they can secure a tin shed for the same price?

I empathise with any property developer wishing to take on the old camp at Driffield. But also know that most developers have a mindset of wiping the slate clean. I would hate to think that whoever buys into the site their knee-jerk reaction would be to demolish everything in sight. Only if a building cannot be refurbished and sold on, then other alternatives should be sought.

Out of all the buildings that remain, the officer’s mess is the most iconic or most appreciated. This elegant structure survived the infamous air raid of August 15^th 1940, when German bombs rained down on the airfield – one scoring a direct hit on the west wing of the officer’s mess. I’ve often agreed with others that this building would make a excellent museum, but such day-dreams cost money and the Heritage Lottery Fund don’t fund new ventures. But the building would make an attractive residential home or offices (private or public sector).

Some businesses could financially benefit from relocating (onto the camp) from Driffield or Beverley, where existing premises could become extremely profitable redevelopment opportunities, if sold on. Therefore moving onto Driffield camp could be financially rewarding. The problem is that your average developer isn’t willing to put in the hours needed to target the right customer/s.

I’m not saying preserving most of the site will be easy, but with careful planning it can be profitable. And while most argue that it would cost countless millions to remove contaminants and replace most (if not all) of the onsite utilities, this would happen anyway – even if you removed most of the buildings. The problem is that if on paper a developer can prove he can make one penny more by clearing the site and starting afresh, that’s what he will do. Accordingly, RAF Driffield could be lost on a flip of a coin, literally.

My proposal is to split the site into two – a housing development (located north east of the Army Cadet Force enclave) and a business area (located to the north / west of the same enclave). There are spaces for new build business properties, but I would like to see some existing structures reused. Unlike housing, most commercial developments evolve around the customer – who usually demand bespoke tin sheds, but I would dearly hope that some effort could be spend in finding tenants for the aforementioned store, engineering block and vehicle sheds.

Where my proposals don’t differ from that of most developers, is largely as a result of current planning guidelines or constraints. Whoever takes on RAF Driffield will be obliged to safeguard most of the trees and open spaces. The Local Plan largely mirrors my own proposals on this issue. A developer would not be able to clear the site and shoehorn countless buildings into such a small and irregular shaped area. Another reason why the site needs to retain its open spaces is because of the need for car-parking, while some roads need to be widened to cater for increased levels in traffic.

What is important is the long term sustainability and consistency in site management. When the married quarters on Auchinleck Close were sold, co-operation between developers wasn’t fully realised. As a result when some of the roads were resurfaced, access to the southern part of the site was restricted, because access was partially blocked by newly laid paving stones, that dissected the estate.

When former RAF Driffield is redevelopment, whoever takes on the site cannot simply walk away. Site management is so easy to get wrong and if truth be known, my concern is more for the long term survival of the site, than in what happens in the next two or three years. Cooperation by everyone who buys into the site is vital, only then we can successfully and collectively sign-off the site as being preserved.

But, will RAF Driffield be preserved? Probably not. As I am repeatedly being told no one else [locally] cares about this site. And while I’ve received support from those living in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, not to mention most areas within the UK, local support is minimal, bordering on the apathetic.

What have I 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 I 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 being so 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. Most of my emails and letters go answered and that has been the hardest thing to reconcile. I’m not doing this solely for my own benefit.

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. 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 see through them – they go unnoticed, until the bulldozers have done their job.

When the bulldozers do move in I plan to write a book, about my life and experiences in trying to save RAF Driffield, not to mention in the state of our decaying and abandoned aerodrome heritage. I’ve spent ten years of my life – alone – fighting to save RAF Driffield and it’s cost me dear. People’s apathy is only matched by the greed and ignorance of others. If I had the funds I could both preserve the site and make a profit. That I am sure.

If some of the buildings onsite are demolished, I would like to see the fixtures and fittings carefully removed and stored, until needed in the restoration of similar buildings elsewhere. This is the minimal we must achieve in order to preserve our aerodrome heritage.

The above article was published in The Driffield Post on January 3rd and 10th 2007. A few months later, I wrote to the Driffield Times:

[SNIP] A few weeks ago I was cautiously optimistic that RAF Driffield's future was secure, but alas my preferred bidder failed in his attempt to secure the camp.

It appears that his proposal to work with the existing buildings, while creating new homes and business units, was not profitable enough for the MoD to consider. Accordingly, despite being a market leader in redeveloping former MoD sites, the camp was sold to Strawsons Property instead.

In 1997 this Retford based development company bought former RAF Swinderby (near Lincoln) and subsequently most of the domestic site was demolished. The thought that his could happen at Driffield has resulted in sleepless nights and more stress.

500-house plan for airfield site

DEVELOPERS are drawing up a master plan for a new village on the outskirts of Driffield.

The scheme, which could see more than 500 houses built on a section of the Driffield airfield site at Kelleythorpe, is to be discussed with officials from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in the next few weeks.

The project could also include shops, a bus link and a bridge.

The future of the site has been hanging in the balance since it was sold to Strawsons Property last year for £3.5 million.

Property manager, Adrian Sail, told the Driffield Times that the development was still at the early stages, but the thumbs up from the council could see a quick turn around at the site.

Mr Sail added: "The plans are broadly in line with the council's brief. This is a mixed use scheme of predominately houses with some local facilities and some shops.

"Because we have the Kelleythorpe industrial site next door we are looking to have buses coming into our development to link with Kelleythorpe.

"The bus route will take people from the town centre into the village and people who work at Kelleythorpe will be able to walk to and from work over a bridge," he added.

It is uncertain how long the planning process will take, but Mr Sail said he was optimistic that the plans would be finalised by the end of the year.
"It all depends on what the planners say. A master plan is being prepared so we can go to the council. If the planners say 'great', we will get a formal plan submitted."