The Why and the How and the Impossible Dream
For someone who left Driffield in December 1987, my whole being has been preoccupied with the fight to save part of all our yesterdays. RAF Driffield closed in June 1996, and with no sign of progress, a corner of Driffield remains blighted by indecision and apathy. But why save RAF Driffield?
To understand my concern for RAF Driffield, is to understand the current position of Britain’s aerodrome heritage.
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 secure future. However, because so many aerodromes were built, the misconception is that hundreds must still remain complete and are destined for preservation. This is incorrect. As each year passes, we lose more sites to the developers. Alarmingly, we are approaching the point of no return. Even if a historic site is retained by the MoD, structures and landscapes are irreversibly altered or lost forever.
Although English Heritage recently secured statutory protection for a number of buildings on a number of airfields, many believe that more could have been done. The problem is that there is no other safety net in place, and unless action is taken, it will be too late for those buildings and sites not already protected.
Another issue is one of opportunity. It is not everyday that an aerodrome becomes available for preservation. But the real tragedy is that those bodies that we rely on to protect our heritage, are unable (some may argue, 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 superior historical importance.
Accordingly, what makes one individual building, or indeed an entire airfield, more important 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; “What does constitute historical value?” How do you quantify the history of one aerodrome over that of another? To a wider audience, RAF Scampton is famous for a single “dam-busting” 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 popular Battle of Britain air shows, which became an annual event (until the airbase’s closure in the 1990s).
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 Leonard Chester VC. Other famous visitors to Driffield include General Montgomery and Queen Elizabeth II. In this context, anyone can argue that even the most obscure of aerodromes has a historical value that merits future protection.
The truth is that most aerodromes have comparable histories and architecture – indeed some buildings were built using the same plans (that’s why some hangars and lesser buildings look identical on several sites). One key 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 itself admitted that most structures relating to Britain’s aviation heritage contain little or no architectural merit.
Accordingly, and 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 demolished or drastically altered. A visit to any frontline RAF airbase (like Waddington) will confirm this statement to be the policy.
The key to understanding this complex issue is to recognize that the long established organisational procedures protecting countless thousands of “conventional” buildings have failed Britain’s aerodrome 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. This inequality extends to other 20th Century structures as well.
Even if a building is list protected, it is normally no greater than Grade II. This means that it is not normally 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* (star) or Grade I military buildings, but most of these are already restored and cared for, though like other structures, listing does not guarantee their future survival. Indeed, in recent years, a number of airfield buildings have been delisted and thereafter demolished.
Some may argue that if Driffield is so important, then why didn’t English Heritage take a closer look at the site in the 1990s? Firstly, Driffield wasn’t visited by English Heritage, which was considered second best to another aerodrome, namely RAF West Raynham in Norfolk. My understanding is that not every aerodrome was inspected, and a number of other sites were omitted from the survey – notably RAF Newton (Nottinghamshire), RAF Swinderby (Lincolnshire) and RAF North Coates (North East Lincolnshire). These sites, along with Driffield (and it must be said an unknown number of other sites) are, or rather were, in excellent condition – prime candidates for preservation.
Yet, despite being ridiculed (not the first time) by those with more money than manners, if Driffield aerodrome is to be preserved, it must be at the hands of property developers – no mean feat, when you consider that some structures on site will be difficult to find new occupants. Preserving Driffield camp isn’t rocket science – but it does take guts. Anyone can clear this site and start afresh (building new houses and business units), but the preservation of Driffield through redevelopment can be profitable.
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 who should be there to protect our aeronautical heritage (English Heritage), working with a property developer maybe the only way to secure at least one site in its entirety for future generations. Although its 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.
So then, what do I propose in order to preserve former RAF Driffield?
Well, the camp at Driffield contains 68 houses (married quarters) and eight accommodation blocks. These can easily be restored and/or converted into a total of 116 dwellings (houses and flats). Add to this an additional number of new-build houses built on empty land located to the left of the former officer’s mess, and not only is the long term future of 80% of the structures on camp secure, but an income would also be generated that would impress even the most sceptical of property developers. The existing residential properties would realise around £14m 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 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. 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. So what constitutes good and bad practices?
Inappropriate street furniture, badly placed car parking spaces and inconsiderate use of building materials can lead to the character of any RAF camp 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 difference. The difficulty is in trying to incorporate these into any redevelopment of a historic site.
But is it viable to refurbish 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. Like many, I’m inspired by Channel Four’s Grand Designs, which has shown that miracles can happen – with 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 laboratory run by Hull City Council. This 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 through 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.
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 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 advice from a company in Australia, who specialise in preserving concrete buildings. The owner is the son of a pilot who flew from Driffield during the war.
The problem, however, isn’t the viability of retaining these industrial 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 brand new tin shed for twice the price?
I empathise with any property developer wishing to take on the old camp at Driffield. But I also know that most developers have a mindset of wiping the slate clean. I would hate to think that whoever buys into the site has a knee-jerk reaction to demolish everything in sight. Only if a building cannot be refurbished and sold on, should other alternatives be considered. But if you don’t try…
Out of all the buildings that remain, the officer’s mess is the most iconic or most appreciated. This elegant structure survived the famous air raid of August 15th 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 (see page 154) cost money and the Heritage Lottery Fund don’t fund new ventures. 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 their existing premises could become extremely profitable redevelopment opportunities. Therefore, moving onto Driffield camp could be financially rewarding. The problem is 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 would 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 if a developer can prove on paper that 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 was to split the site in 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 spent in finding tenants for the aforementioned stores, engineering block and vehicle MT sheds.
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 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 curb stones, that dissected the estate.
When former RAF Driffield is redeveloped, whoever takes on the site cannot simply walk away. Site management is so easy to get wrong (RAF Binbrook) 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.
So, 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 lose 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 wrongly think that any problem or failing is the responsibility of Local Government to put right.
What else have I learnt?
There is more to life than abandoned aerodromes and apathetic communities, but proving it has been problematic. It’s wrong to think that RAF Driffield could be restored as a living museum, as a fully working and operational wartime aerodrome. Such a proposal would take superhuman strength and funding; something which 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 I was too optimistic.
In essence, we all have the same rights and obligations to voice our concerns and to help shape our future landscape, through open and honest debate. Not being proactive in making change, or in protecting what is valuable, is to accept or cultivate an apathetic and culturally inferior society.
We all have the right to make a difference. I have never regretted living in East Yorkshire and my childhood memories are a welcome companion. The only way places like RAF Driffield will be preserved is through sympathetic redevelopment and continued occupancy. Driffield needs jobs and homes. Preserving RAF Driffield can offer both and yet still retain many of its original buildings. The problem is this: places like Driffield Aerodrome are so essential to our countryside and collective psyche that we see right through them; they go unnoticed, until the bulldozers have done their job.
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.
An Impossible Dream?
For someone who left Driffield in December 1987, my whole being has been preoccupied with the fight to save part of all our yesterdays. RAF Driffield closed in June 1996, and with no sign of progress, a corner of Driffield remains blighted by indecision and apathy. But why save RAF Driffield?
To understand my concern for RAF Driffield, is to understand the current position of Britain’s aerodrome heritage.
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 secure future. However, because so many aerodromes were built, the misconception is that hundreds must still remain complete and are destined for preservation. This is incorrect. As each year passes, we lose more sites to the developers. Alarmingly, we are approaching the point of no return. Even if a historic site is retained by the MoD, structures and landscapes are irreversibly altered or lost forever.
Although English Heritage recently secured statutory protection for a number of buildings on a number of airfields, many believe that more could have been done. The problem is that there is no other safety net in place, and unless action is taken, it will be too late for those buildings and sites not already protected.
Another issue is one of opportunity. It is not everyday that an aerodrome becomes available for preservation. But the real tragedy is that those bodies that we rely on to protect our heritage, are unable (some may argue, 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 superior historical importance.
Accordingly, what makes one individual building, or indeed an entire airfield, more important 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; “What does constitute historical value?” How do you quantify the history of one aerodrome over that of another? To a wider audience, RAF Scampton is famous for a single “dam-busting” 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 popular Battle of Britain air shows, which became an annual event (until the airbase’s closure in the 1990s).
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 Leonard Chester VC. Other famous visitors to Driffield include General Montgomery and Queen Elizabeth II. In this context, anyone can argue that even the most obscure of aerodromes has a historical value that merits future protection.
The truth is that most aerodromes have comparable histories and architecture – indeed some buildings were built using the same plans (that’s why some hangars and lesser buildings look identical on several sites). One key 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 itself admitted that most structures relating to Britain’s aviation heritage contain little or no architectural merit.
Accordingly, and 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 demolished or drastically altered. A visit to any frontline RAF airbase (like Waddington) will confirm this statement to be the policy.
The key to understanding this complex issue is to recognize that the long established organisational procedures protecting countless thousands of “conventional” buildings have failed Britain’s aerodrome 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. This inequality extends to other 20th Century structures as well.
Even if a building is list protected, it is normally no greater than Grade II. This means that it is not normally 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* (star) or Grade I military buildings, but most of these are already restored and cared for, though like other structures, listing does not guarantee their future survival. Indeed, in recent years, a number of airfield buildings have been delisted and thereafter demolished.
Some may argue that if Driffield is so important, then why didn’t English Heritage take a closer look at the site in the 1990s? Firstly, Driffield wasn’t visited by English Heritage, which was considered second best to another aerodrome, namely RAF West Raynham in Norfolk. My understanding is that not every aerodrome was inspected, and a number of other sites were omitted from the survey – notably RAF Newton (Nottinghamshire), RAF Swinderby (Lincolnshire) and RAF North Coates (North East Lincolnshire). These sites, along with Driffield (and it must be said an unknown number of other sites) are, or rather were, in excellent condition – prime candidates for preservation.
Yet, despite being ridiculed (not the first time) by those with more money than manners, if Driffield aerodrome is to be preserved, it must be at the hands of property developers – no mean feat, when you consider that some structures on site will be difficult to find new occupants. Preserving Driffield camp isn’t rocket science – but it does take guts. Anyone can clear this site and start afresh (building new houses and business units), but the preservation of Driffield through redevelopment can be profitable.
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 who should be there to protect our aeronautical heritage (English Heritage), working with a property developer maybe the only way to secure at least one site in its entirety for future generations. Although its 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.
So then, what do I propose in order to preserve former RAF Driffield?
Well, the camp at Driffield contains 68 houses (married quarters) and eight accommodation blocks. These can easily be restored and/or converted into a total of 116 dwellings (houses and flats). Add to this an additional number of new-build houses built on empty land located to the left of the former officer’s mess, and not only is the long term future of 80% of the structures on camp secure, but an income would also be generated that would impress even the most sceptical of property developers. The existing residential properties would realise around £14m 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 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. 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. So what constitutes good and bad practices?
Inappropriate street furniture, badly placed car parking spaces and inconsiderate use of building materials can lead to the character of any RAF camp 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 difference. The difficulty is in trying to incorporate these into any redevelopment of a historic site.
But is it viable to refurbish 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. Like many, I’m inspired by Channel Four’s Grand Designs, which has shown that miracles can happen – with 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 laboratory run by Hull City Council. This 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 through 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.
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 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 advice from a company in Australia, who specialise in preserving concrete buildings. The owner is the son of a pilot who flew from Driffield during the war.
The problem, however, isn’t the viability of retaining these industrial 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 brand new tin shed for twice the price?
I empathise with any property developer wishing to take on the old camp at Driffield. But I also know that most developers have a mindset of wiping the slate clean. I would hate to think that whoever buys into the site has a knee-jerk reaction to demolish everything in sight. Only if a building cannot be refurbished and sold on, should other alternatives be considered. But if you don’t try…
Out of all the buildings that remain, the officer’s mess is the most iconic or most appreciated. This elegant structure survived the famous air raid of August 15th 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 (see page 154) cost money and the Heritage Lottery Fund don’t fund new ventures. 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 their existing premises could become extremely profitable redevelopment opportunities. Therefore, moving onto Driffield camp could be financially rewarding. The problem is 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 would 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 if a developer can prove on paper that 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 was to split the site in 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 spent in finding tenants for the aforementioned stores, engineering block and vehicle MT sheds.
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 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 curb stones, that dissected the estate.
When former RAF Driffield is redeveloped, whoever takes on the site cannot simply walk away. Site management is so easy to get wrong (RAF Binbrook) 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.
So, 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 lose 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 wrongly think that any problem or failing is the responsibility of Local Government to put right.
What else have I learnt?
There is more to life than abandoned aerodromes and apathetic communities, but proving it has been problematic. It’s wrong to think that RAF Driffield could be restored as a living museum, as a fully working and operational wartime aerodrome. Such a proposal would take superhuman strength and funding; something which 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 I was too optimistic.
In essence, we all have the same rights and obligations to voice our concerns and to help shape our future landscape, through open and honest debate. Not being proactive in making change, or in protecting what is valuable, is to accept or cultivate an apathetic and culturally inferior society.
We all have the right to make a difference. I have never regretted living in East Yorkshire and my childhood memories are a welcome companion. The only way places like RAF Driffield will be preserved is through sympathetic redevelopment and continued occupancy. Driffield needs jobs and homes. Preserving RAF Driffield can offer both and yet still retain many of its original buildings. The problem is this: places like Driffield Aerodrome are so essential to our countryside and collective psyche that we see right through them; they go unnoticed, until the bulldozers have done their job.
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.
An Impossible Dream?
