To
understand my concern for RAF Driffield is to understand the current position of
Britain’s military/civilian aerodrome heritage.
There are a number of observations, which I have highlighted below:
Firstly,
we live on an island on which over 740 aerodromes were built or in use during
the Second World War - yet very few remain intact or have a secured future. However, because so many aerodromes were built, the
misconception is that hundreds must still remain in one piece. This is
incorrect. As each year passes we
loose more sites to the developers. While
buildings become endangered or just disappear, my concern is that we are also
loosing too many runway patterns. For
landowners the offer of hard cash for removing unwanted concrete is tempting.
While buildings can be rebuilt, once a runway has been removed, it cannot
easily be replaced. Alarmingly,
we are approaching a point of no return.
I would imagine that we are in position to save no more than a dozen
sites dotted around the country. The
problem is that there are no safety nets in place and unless action is taken it
will be too late.
The
real tragedy is that those bodies that we rely on to protect our heritage are
unable or unwilling to care for or finance the future preservation of these
remaining sites. The argument is that to justify action, the site must be of
historical importance.
Accordingly,
what makes one individual building or indeed an entire airfield more valuable
than another? Who decides what
should be protected and what should be left to the mercy of the developers?
In the context of RAF Driffield, a property developer once asked me: “what
is so important about RAF Driffield, when it hasn’t any real history attached
to it…?” My reply much thought
over was: “Nothing!” Indeed what constitutes historic value? To a wider audience RAF Scampton is famous for a single night
in 1943, while RAF Biggin Hill is famous for its exploits during the summer of
1940. RAF Finningley isn’t even
famous for its wartime contribution, rather the Battle of Britain air shows,
which became an annual event (up to the airbase’s closure in the mid 1990s).
The
argument of those of with influence or deep pockets is that for a site to be
protected it must be of historical importance.
One
could argue that RAF Driffield is famous for being the wartime home to No.466
Squadron RAAF, or for being the post-war home to the world’s first jet pilot
training school (No.203 AFS), or for being the temporary home to a multitude of
famous people, including Sir Leonard Chester VC.
RAF Goxhill (located in North Lincolnshire) is more famous for briefly
being the home to the Clark Gable, than for being a home to the fighters of the
USAAF. In this context anyone can
argue that even the most obscure of aerodromes has a historical value that
merits future protection.
This
same developer who ridiculed my concerns over the future of RAF Driffield, agued
that why should Driffield be spared when there were fifty other sites in the
offering – aerodromes whose predicament mirrors that of my former home.
But he was wrong – because there are not 50 other sites.
THIS IS A KEY CONCERN. Just
to remind the reader that this is the 21st century and that the
Second World War ended in 1945. Although
their were somewhere in the region of 740 aerodromes in use, there are very,
very few sites that remain intact and in good order.
There are even less that are in a position to be preserved and even less
which have been earmarked for preservation and/or protection.
Architecturally
Challenged or Just Different
In
May 2003 English Heritage published a summary (draft) report on its thematic study of British Military
Airfield Structures. Its
recommendations were thin on the ground – resulting in just 172 structures on
only 33 aerodromes being recommended for listing.
This figure was later reduced.
One
key heritage guideline to what or what shouldn’t be listed relates to
architectural merit – does the design of a building justify listing?
In relation to most aerodromes in this country, the answer is a
predefined “no!” Working within
well-established guidelines, English Heritage has admitted that most structures
relating to Britain’s aviation heritage contain little or no architectural
merit. Indeed, they have in some
cases “bent the rules” slightly to accommodate some structures. Accordingly, and as to reaffirm this Defence Estates have
clearly stated to this author that most of its structures from the 1930/40s have
little or no architectural currency and therefore they would have no qualms if
such structures were demolish or drastically altered. A visit to any frontline
RAF airbase (like Waddington) will confirm this statement of intent.
The
key to understanding this complex issue is to recognize that the long
established organisational procedures that have protected countless thousands of
“conventional” buildings have failed Britain’s airfield architecture.
Guidelines that have been adhered to for so many years and for so many
structures are not suitable for this type of architecture or period in history.
Basically if you want your local airfield to be preserved – you’re on
your own. Oh, and Airfield Research
Group is just that – reading up on the history of your local airfield might be
entertaining, but reading Action Stations didn’t save Holme-on-Spolding Moor
or the runways at North Coates.
Heritage Lottery
Fund
Even
if a building is list protected, it is normally no greater than Grade II, which
means that is not eligible for lottery funding, either directly (through the
Heritage Lottery Fund) or indirectly (through organisations such as the Building
Preservation Fund), There are a handful of Grade II* or Grade I buildings, but
most of these are already restored and cared for, though like most buildings,
listing does not guarantee there future survival.
Indeed, in recent years a number of airfield structures have been
delisted and some even demolished.
As
the costs involved in preserving any site are prohibitively expensive and/or
beyond the current scope of most lottery-fund based cash cows, any future
preservation of any site, no matter how historically important, famous or
idolised by the general public will have to be at the discretion of the private
sector.
Preservation
through Redevelopment
A
naughty word: “redevelopment” - a word seen by many as meaning “demolition”
and “new build”. But with no financial support or useful advice from
potential funders (Heritage Lottery Fund) or from those bodies which should be
there to protect our aeronautical heritage (English Heritage), working with a
property developer maybe the only way to secure at least a few sites in their
entirety for future generations. Although
it’s future is still in the balance, RAF Driffield can be used to illustrate
what can happen if the right people with the right attitude are in the right
place at the right time can do to secure a similar site.
RAF
Driffield camp contains 68 houses and eight accommodation blocks.
These can easily be restored and/or converted into a total of 116
dwellings. Add to this the former
officer’s mess, which can be turned into an additional 18 luxury apartments,
and not only do you secure the long term future of 80% of the structures at
Driffield, but you also generate an income that would impress the most sceptical
of property developers.
The
problem is that most property developers wouldn’t want to stop there!
While some technical buildings can easily be converted into business
units, some structures, though important to an airfield’s heritage, are
decidedly more difficult to find new uses or tenants/owners.
For example, what would you do with a stand-by set house, bulk fuel
installation or firing range? It is
these buildings that are most at risk from even the most sympathetic of property
developers. Remember that it’s
not the buildings that are important to a developer, rather the land on which
they build on. Restore RAF
Driffield and you end up with a modest housing estate and adjoining business
park – knock the whole lot down and you end up with a 600 unit housing estate,
with an increased profit margin to match.
At
Driffield there are also a variety of concrete structures pertaining to the
technical site, which can easily be restored and offered commercially.
There are the former main stores, engineering block, MT section
(including additional vehicles sheds located around the site) and four remaining
hangars - which were recently closed by the Rural Payments Agency.
These large Type C hangars offer a total of 180,000ft2 of
floor space. Each hangar can be
sympathetically converted to a wide range of new uses – the preferred uses for
the hangars at Driffield are warehousing and document/archive storage.
This would entail the retrofitting of stacked shelving or the
construction of additional floors – possible resulting in each hangar having
floor space equal to 180,000ft2 or 720,000ft2 in total.
Character
Assassination
Preserving
the character of an aerodrome is as important as preserving the structures
contained within. There is a wide
margin between living in the past and preserving the past.
Prior to and shortly after September 3rd 1939 most airfields
were heavily camouflaged. Grass
landing fields, buildings, roads and even paths were washed in green paint to
mimic farmers’ fields. So at what point does such “set dressing” become
unacceptable? Small trees planted
on the eve of war are now mature giants that add greatly to character of most
airfields. In order to replicate
the past, do you cut down these trees, or do you create an alternative past?
One problem is that most property developers appear to rather ashamed of
owning a part of our history.
If
you bought a former AMQ, would you object if it were unable to repaint the front
door? Would you run a business from
a camouflaged engineering block – prohibited from painting your onsite café
bright pink or indeed from displaying neon signs.
The Yorkshire Air Museum has famously demonstrated that you can run a
successful business without having to revert to modern design consciences.
So what constitutes
good and bad practices?
Inappropriate
street furniture, badly place car parking spaces and inconsiderate use of
building materials can lead to the character of any airfield being lost. And it’s the character of a site, which in some ways can be
the more important. It’s the
small touches that make all the different.
The difficulty is in trying to incorporate these into any redevelopment
of a historic site. Another problem
is in trying to encourage property developers to be proud of their new charges.
On more than one occasion I have found advertisements that do not mention to the
potential customer that he/she is buying former MoD property, yet such married
quarters are highly sought after for their build quality.
A vision of the
future rooted in the past
As
a recent visitor to RAF Waddington, I was impressed by the way this major
frontline airbase has been maintained. Obviously current and future commitments
in the UK’s defence dictated that additional structures are needed, but what
impressed me most is that the overall tidiness and cleanliness of the site.
This added greatly to the character of this quintessential military
aerodrome. Most former RAF sites,
such as Hemswell and Binbrook (both now lacking their runways) lack this
commitment – yet this cost effective ethos can go a long way towards
preserving the character of a site.
Whose to blame?
We
have become complacent. We have
also relied on others to protect our heritage. The media is ineffective –
often reporting after the fact – not wanting to rock to boat and jeopardise
access to national collections or bodies.
But
what can be done? We are taught by
those in positions of power and influence (English Heritage) to be objective and
not subjective in fighting to save our favourite structure.
We must hide our emotions and articulate in a cold and calculating manner
that (we hope) will persuade others that our aviation heritage is worth
protecting – either on a local level (in trying to protect an individual
airframe or aerodrome) or nationally (in trying to increase awareness and
funding). The problem is that it’s not working.
Each year we loose another airframe or another aerodrome.
But unlike fox hunting, GM crops, the war in Iraq and social deprivation,
the fight for our aviation heritage often falls on deaf ears – BECAUSE IT’S
NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
What to do?
Concerned
about the ineptitude of both the MoD and English Heritage, I decided to seek the
help of my local MP. While I waited
to see him during his monthly surgery, I was made aware that his other
constituents waiting had more pressing needs or concerns.
Thing is, how can you argue your point in the face of stiff “competition”
or social deprivation? My concern
was duly noted and my query sympathetically dealt with.
Yet, I am no closer in knowing what fate awaits RAF Driffield.
Personally, I would like to meet those who are currently drawing up plans
for this site, so I can explain my concerns and also make suggestions.
However, I doubt is this will happen.
Question:
Metaphorically speaking, how do
you put a gun to someone’s head without putting a gun to someone’s
head? How do put your point across
without making enemies? How do you
campaign for what you believe is right without being made to look the fool? Take my word for it – this is a lonely business.
You are a lone campaigner, and like most loners, there isn’t much
sympathy or incentive (good PR) for others to help – this no matter how
important your cause.
During the British Grand Prix
2003 a protestor stormed
the racetrack. The image of a “crazed” man dressed in a kilt shocked many
and he was lucky to have escape with his life. The
problem is that his message was lost (and rightly so) in a sea of derision and
ridicule. He was later prosecuted
and imprisoned. Yet, his message
was lost. It took a number of days
before I was able to establish that he was protesting that people no longer
prayed or went to church. Such
actions not only make enemies out of potential sponsors and supporters (the
media), but also give ammunition to those eager to suppress dissent or irritable
little shits like me.
I
fight this loosing battle to save RAF Driffield because it is important to me. It is also important to all of use that at least one site is
preserved for future generations. I fight on also because when we finally
realise that mistakes were made (when it's too late), I can at least hold my
head up high and say I did my part, while others did not.
Phillip
Rhodes
November 2003
Home
|