YOUR aerodrome heritage needs YOU...

I've been interested in aerodromes for over 35 years now and I’m keen to contribute towards this forum or exchange. That said, I'm rather concerned at the lack of interest or commitment shown in campaigning [openly] towards preserving what little remains.

Maybe I’m in the wrong place and maybe the clue is in the title: “Airfield INFORMATION Exchange” and it’s sub-heading, namely: “Airfield RESEARCH Group”. Now I know you chaps are busy with work and play, but if nothing is said or done to preserve what little remains, we might as well take it as read that nothing will remain after the developers have moved in, and we might as well shut up shop and stay at home.

Yes, I’m talking about RAF Driffield and yes, I have PM’s a few individuals asking for help, but what about the other complete sites like RAF Newton? I’m not saying we should take up the antics of “Fathers for Justice”, but a few well written and placed letters to local newspapers, planning authorities, owners, developers and those we rely on to save the day (English Heritage) can do wonders. Look at Tangmere. English Heritage walked away from that site, but a few local individuals, concerned about the possible demolition of the few remaining buildings, kicked up a fuss and now at least one building is safe.

I really do have a problem with those who exploit our aerodrome heritage just to entertain themselves on a weekend. There is more to this game than reading up on this aerodrome or exploring that aerodrome. We all have PCs and we can all write. Yes, it is political and it can get messy. I’m not a popular person because I have fought the good fight and probably lost, but at least I can say I did my bit.

There needs to be a change of mindset within this forum. If not them you will be complicit in the demise of the last of the few. Strong words? Not as strong as the sense of loss that will be felt for decades to come, because we didn’t save Driffield or Newton or a few other sites and individual buildings.

I was (still am) concerned about the involvement of the ARG within AIX, simply because the former have in the past expressed a disinterest in saving our aerodrome heritage. The ARG consider themselves as non-partisan. Yet there members must ask themselves this: how many aerodromes or individual buildings could we have saved if we had put pen to paper? True, I am aware of their involvement in the EH Thematic Survey – supplying information – which resulted in some buildings being listed. That said, the listed of recommendations was not comprehensive (Newton being a good example). Driffield was considered but rejected (sans control tower) or at least the one person (no one we know) who would have voted for the site was late or not present during a crucial meeting.

There needs to be an honest and open debate as to what AIX and ARG can do to change things round – to put the plight of our crumbling aerodrome heritage in the media spotlight. There also needs to be a free flow of advice and support and the clear premise that influence from or complicity with developers shouldn’t be tolerated.

We should also be realistic. Turning any aerodrome into a living-museum is unrealistic. Funds are limited and sympathetic redevelopment is the only option open to the few remaining sites. The work at West Raynham I am told is the way forward. I hope they succeed, but there are other sites. Yes, yes, yes I’m going on about Driffield again. Poor you, having to read this dribble, but I’m right, aren’t I? You all feel the same way about Driffield and other sites – I know because I’ve read your own concerned musings on the subject.

Now is your chance to make a difference – it’s a simple task of changing words into actions. There are some of you who are more experienced in such matters and your advice to lesser experienced members is invaluable, ergo: how do you campaign and save Driffield or Newton or that decaying control tower down the road? How can we convince planners that this aerodrome or that building is important. How do you define or quantify historical value. Solve that problem and the battle is won – not only for Driffield but for other sites and structures too.

A few well written emails or letters can make a difference. But it takes more than that if truth be known. Paul Francis once told me that to argue the case for preservation (statutory protection) you had to be objective and not subjective in your arguments. That said you do have to have a passion and the conviction to know what you are doing in right.

But maybe you’re more than happy just to drink from the well – exploring on a weekend – but the well will one day run dry and yes that’s not a very good analogy, but it will suffice. Would you explore a housing estate (bland and uniform) on the premise that it was once an aerodrome, now void of any sign or history? Yes, research is important and the work being undertaken by Paul at West Raynham is vital, but would you rather explore a preserved site in five years time or read about it in some archive? Your choice…

I wish I could have done more. I made mistakes over Driffield. I relied too heavily on those I thought would help and I…

…no, not I, rather RAF Driffield will pay the price. Thereafter what will you do during the weekend?

I cannot put it any clearer: help save RAF Driffield and RAF Newton and all.

Phillip Rhodes
Campaigner

Phillip: Over the years I have read your many posts on this and other forums etc and I admire the zeal with which you have tried to 'save' Driffield. Your basic problem is that you do not have the £millions needed to do it yourself and you have been unable to pursuade those that [did] have the millions needed to do it on your behalf.

The time has come to take a leaf out of your own posting here and be realistic. I dare say that everyone who posts on this site is a private individual with an interest in airfield history in the widest sense. I suspect that few are cash-rich property developers and that many have a mortgage and need to put food in the table to feed their family. We are at the top of a long and slippery slope that will no doubt see some of the AiX/ARG members lose their jobs. They have other things to worry about just now rather than 'saving' every airfield that is no longer required by this Government's defence policy.

I will spend £1.50 and buy a ticket for the Euro Millions lottery this weekend. If I win £100 million, I promise to set about saving airfields. Where would you like me to start? How about St Mawgan and Lyneham, as they should be in pretty good condition when Lizzy finally moves out? You mention Driffield and Newton, but what about Coltishall, and perhaps Scampton and Kirton-in-Lindsey if the Government changes RAF minor unit basing policy? All these airfields will be in good condition and a better bet to 'save' than Driffield or Newton. However, against this background it strikes me that £100 million will not go very far, and then there are the year-on-year running costs - electric bills, rates to the local council etc etc etc. As you say, we have to be realistic.

Being realistic means that we take the time now to record airfield histoiry and if possible make that information available through organisations such as the ARG and, hopefully, in the future in an archive such as that proposed by Paul. Such aims are realistic and attainable by us as private individuals. Trying to 'save' every airfield as it becomes vacant is not a realistic aim and there have to be priorities for scarce resources.

We have the Olympics coming up so Government money and hand-outs from the Lottery will totally dry up for just about everything else. Now, the property development companies are dropping like flies. The Banks and the City are undergoing an earthquake that must be about 20 on the Richter scale. Saving airfields just got a whole lot harder. There is one consolation though - with all these problems it is possible that there is no longer the money to build houses all over them either. So perhaps, in ten years time, there might be a chance to rescue decaying airfields, but I doubt it - aviation and all it stands for (even 'disused' airfields) is not politically correct in these days of tree hugging and climate change.

Phillip, please do not continue to burden us with your zeal, which I suggest is misplaced in the light of current circumstances.

Firstly I didn’t need to persuade those that [did] have the millions. I was approached by one developer over Driffield. His plans mirrored my own. Sadly his bid wasn’t accepted.

My plea for unity wasn’t about digging deep into your own pockets, rather it was to secure a more proactive stance. We are an extremely small minority with no voice. Hell, I can’t even remember when the issue of aerodrome preservation was mentioned on TV or in the nationals.

The problem isn’t about money, rather it’s about policy. There are developers out there who do the right thing – they work with the existing buildings. The owner of West Raynham is a good example. That said he’s in it to make money and rightly so. That’s the ONLY way to get things done. There are NO funding streams for Driffield – never was and there never will be. I ruled out government intervention or funding years ago. I have also ruled out creating a “living museum’. YES I am very realistic.

At Driffield (and other sites) you will need to build new houses and business units, without which any preservation attempt or proposal is stillborn. The important thing is that its been proven that you don’t have to knock everything down. At Driffield the mindset is to demolish everything and build as many houses as possible. This goes against The Local Plan and the various planning guidelines The developers are trying to move the ACF out of the enclave and thereafter they hope to engineer its demise.

You mention your desire to win the lottery. If I had a £100m, yes I would spend it on Driffield, BUT I would expect (even demand) to make a return on that £100m. I can handle suspect developments that grow beyond what was originally intended. What I cannot handle is this friction. In the past I have received emails and letters of support from a lot of individuals and from around the world. I didn’t ask for much and quite a few wrote to the local council and the local newspapers. I don’t expect anyone to chain themselves to a JCB, simply because it would look silly and achieve nothing.

What needs to happen at Driffield (and the reason for my message) is for the local planning authority to be made aware of the historical important of Driffield and its architecture. Again, how do you quantify historical value? That’s half the battle. Not much to ask for, really…

I also believe that they should be made aware of the full intentions of the developer. One minute I am told that the officer’s mess if safe and the next it is going to be demolished, but that’s my issue. I need help to highlight the importance of RAF Driffield. I don’t expect every building to survive, but if a single structure can be saved then good – well done. I will update you on another project, which I hope will illustrate what I mean. Give me two or three weeks.

Another thing about Driffield is its size. The enclave is well preserved as are the hangars, Most of the AMQs are also in use. What remains is more compact than the other airfields you mention. This makes the project more viable than most.

Running costs? Not sure what you mean? At Driffield there are 68 houses. There is also the need and demand for affordable housing. There is even a developer who wishes to buy these former married quarters and has the track record to turn them round. Now if I can only persuade him to buy the accommodation blocks...

Oh, the current financial crisis. This wont stop the demise of RAF Driffield or any other aerodrome; it will only delay things by a few months. Apologies for any spelling mistakes.

Phil Rhodes

Phil: I'm afraid you are still at it! You bang on about Driffield and how to quantify the historical importance of its architechture? Really? Just let me think - how many expansion period RAF stations were built? Funny old thing, don't they all have buildings and hangars that look the same? One might argue that so long as just ONE suite of expansion period buildings is retained (and not necessarilly all on the same site) then this generation's duty to humanity has been properly discharged. What claim does Driffield have to take precedence over the rest?

We all understand where you are coming from but we all do our own little bit in our own sweet way to make sure that our own conscience is clear in the face of all the other pressures we must confront. You have bitten off a great big bite which is proving difficult if not impossible to chew and your conscience is not yet clear. We cannot help you with that - that is a mountain you will have to climb alone.

Do you really believe that a few e-mails or letters from a handful of the 250 people subscribing to this internet forum have any hope of changing Government policy on any particular issue? With the problems facing the Government today, and I include local Government also, the last thing they want to be bothered about is a handful if zealous individuals banging on about something which has little or no public support. Have you thought about putting a petition on the Prime Minister's website? If you do, see how may votes you get - that will be the acid test of support for your zeal and will tell you in no uncertain terms what hope you have of getting policy towards disused airfields changed.

In the meantime, I have to say that while you climb your Everest, please leave us to climb our own mountains, however large or small we want to make them.

I'll lock this topic now but leave the actual post up as there have been some good views exchanged.

Please use the Northern England forum for any news regarding Driffield airfield in terms of changing infrastructure or indeed any questions relating to the airfield, it's history or current status.

NJR