Dear Mr Rhodes

Former RAF Driffield

Thank you for drawing our attention to RAF Driffield and for your interest in promoting its preservation. Having visited the site with you on 30 July, we are writing to confirm our views regarding the site’s historical and architectural significance. For the record, the site visit was also attended by Trevor Sheard and Niall Hammond (both from Defence Estates).

The current position is that the site is reserved for possible future military use and a decision on this is not expected until next year. In the event of disposal in the future, the site is regarded by the local authority as being in open countryside and I understand that this would preclude development for housing.

In earlier correspondence, you have asked English Heritage to take steps to protect RAF Driffield from redevelopment. Jeremy Lake’s letter to you dated 5 March 2004 explained the criteria used by English Heritage in arriving at its decision to recommend individual buildings for listing and to identify certain ‘key’ airfield sites as being of national significance. Having visited RAF Driffield, our view remains as stated previously – that the site does not meet these criteria. There are other sites that either retain more complete groups of Expansion Period buildings (e.g. former RAF Manby) or that are associated with more significant historical events (e.g. RAF Scampton).

Nonetheless, RAF Driffield is undoubtedly of local and regional significance in view of its role during the Second World War and as a Thor Missile base during the Cold War. The buildings at Driffield reflect a distinct change in the aesthetic quality and design of RAF stations in the inter-war period. Against the background of public resistance to rearmament and concerns about the impact of airfields on the countryside, the recently-formed Royal Fine Art Commission advised the Air Ministry on the design of new sites. The buildings erected for much of the Expansion Period were based upon a range of type designs, characterised by a homogeneity of materials and careful control of proportions: a clear distinction was made between the neo-Georgian domestic buildings and the more stridently modern style used for technical buildings such as workshops and hangars.

Of particular note are:

• The Officers’ Mess. This is in very poor condition. One wing is missing as a result of bomb damage sustained during the raid of 15 August 1940. This is of some historical interest in its own right, other RAF bases having also suffered bomb damage particularly in 1940.

• The group of buildings around the parade ground including the flat-roofed barrack blocks. Although in poor condition, these are relatively little altered and, in our view, have the potential for sustainable reuse.

• The area around the station entrance including the brick gate piers and entrance gates, the Guardhouse and the Station HQ. These form a coherent group around a formal open space.

• The four remaining ‘C’-type hangars. These are somewhat altered but in relatively good condition, having been maintained until recently by the Rural Payments Agency.

• The Married Quarters. There are two groups of terraces, one dating from the 1930s and the other apparently dating from the 1960s. These are vacant and in poor condition but may have the potential for sustainable reuse.

Sadly, the condition of the technical buildings, most of which are constructed in reinforced concrete, is almost irredeemable. Some buildings have already been demolished, notably the Watch Office and the Water Tower.   

On the airfield itself, now used by the Army Training Estate, the concrete runways and Thor missile site have been removed.  The perimeter defences have not survived as a major or exceptionally well-preserved grouping of their type.  

In the event that the site is developed for military use, the site’s historic character will need to be taken into account as part of the MoD’s framework for sustainability appraisal of development projects. Any planning guidance for the site should, in our view, consider the potential to retain and reuse key groups of buildings and to retain the attractive campus character, by retaining the existing road layout and tree planting, where practicable. The large number of mature trees within the domestic and technical areas, and the unusual diversity of tree species, could be a considerable asset in any future development.

English Heritage’s guidance note (Historic Military Aviation Sites, 2003) provides a framework for the protection of historic airfield sites, whether or not these have statutory protection.  Please note, however, that English Heritage has no statutory role in the development of a site of this type (ie where there is no statutory protection) and that any decisions about future development at RAF Driffield will rest with the local planning authority.

We hope that this reply will give you some encouragement in your campaign to save the airfield for the future.

 

                                 

Copy to:   

• Trevor Sheard, Defence Estates

• Niall Hammond, Defence Estates (Senior Historic Buildings Adviser)

• David Fraser, English Heritage (Regional Director, Yorkshire)

• Tom Barnes, East Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Forward Planning Manager)

• Steve Devey, East Riding of Yorkshire County Council (Conservation, Landscape and Archaeology)

Home