English Heritage and our Aerodrome Heritage
English Heritage is the Government Department responsible for protecting historic buildings and important archaeological sites in England. In the mid 1990s, English Heritage established a long-term "Thematic Survey" of military aviation sites and structures. In May 2000, Jeremy Lake (Project Leader) published a Summary Report that listed a number of recommendations for buildings and structures to be listed. This list was widely distributed, and as a result, by mid-2003, some recommendations were dropped – mostly at the request of the Ministry of Defence.
"Like all thematic surveys, this survey has been through a process of consultation. This was initiated in May 2000 at RAF Cranwell, and accompanied by the launch of the summary report with draft recommendations for listing. This report has been widely circulated within the MOD, to all other owners and to all concerned Local Authorities."
"The assessment of airfields and other military sites by English Heritage has increasingly come to reflect a unified approach to management and designation. The listing proposals arising from the thematic survey of military aviation sites have been through a long process of evaluation and consultation, which have highlighted the importance of focusing on key issues of historical importance and international context, in addition to formulating policies for the sustainable and long-term management of key sites." Jeremy Lake (English Heritage)
Okay, funds and resources are limited and it is impossible to save every building on every aerodrome. We know that. However, during the sixty years since the war, the number of complete aerodromes has gradually diminished to only a few dozen sites, worthy of consideration. We also know that both the Ministry of Defence, and property developers in general, don’t see preservation and conservation as priorities (within the context of this genre). Listed Status helps, but with most buildings classed as Grade II – this statutory protection, as a rule, does not attract Heritage Lottery Funding, which is needed to bolster sympathetic redevelopment.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
To understand my concern for places like RAF Driffield is to understand also the complexities and limitations of having a building list protected (see above). According to the DCMS website, much of which is reproduced below: “The Government, through the DCMS, is responsible for protecting the historic environment. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest.”
Accordingly, the Secretary of State has a duty under the Act to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, while the actual Department monitors the effectiveness of the controls.
There are three grades of listing:
• Grade II are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them;
• Grade II* are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;
• Grade I buildings are those of exceptional interest.
The good news is that even if English Heritage decides not to expand on its Thematic Survey, anyone can make a request to the DCMS for a building to be spot listed. Requests can be made to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at any time, although priority will be given to those buildings that are under threat.
Listing a building does not mean that it is preserved forever in its existing state. It merely ensures that the architectural and historic interest of a building is carefully considered before any alterations are agreed. Consent is normally required (usually from the Local Planning Authority) for a listed building's demolition, in whole or in part, and for any works of alteration or extension that would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. There is a presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings.
What must be of concern is the ability of property owners to obtain a Certificate of Immunity from Listing (COI). This is a legal guarantee that the building or buildings listed in it will not be statutorily listed as being of special architectural or historic interest during the five years from the date on which the certificate is signed. It’s simple, if you’re concerned about the future of your RAF structure (control tower or officer's mess, etc), you can apply for that building to be listed, but the MoD can also apply for a COI to block your application. It is possible that this has happened at RAF West Raynham, which like RAF Driffield, awaits redevelopment.
RAF Driffield – Second to None
As previously stated, RAF Driffield lost out to RAF West Raynham. Even before sending its list of recommendations to the DCMS, English Heritage clearly stated that Driffield was deemed a poor second to West Raynham, where 14 buildings and a number of married quarters were recommended for statutory protection (listed status). These structures are identical to those at Driffield, which has a comparable history to that of West Raynham.
The problem was that the Ministry of Defence objected strongly to these recommendations, stating they had plans for West Raynham. It was rumoured that the Royal Navy were to redevelop the site as a communications centre. Reluctantly, English Heritage removed West Raynham from its list of recommendations. What should have happened is that English Heritage should have taken a closer look at Driffield. My understanding is that English Heritage hadn’t even conducted a site visit at Driffield. Another person I spoke to stated that if present at a meeting, he would have strongly pushed for Driffield to be included in the list of sites submitted to the DCMS.
English Heritage stated that West Raynham is more complete than Driffield, which is true. However, most of those elements that make West Raynham a more complete site (runways, bomb dump, airfield defences) were not recommended for statutory protection. Yes, let’s protect West Raynham, but don’t mention the fact that the runways, bomb dump and airfield defences can be removed without infringing any statutory protection laws.
Ironically, despite all this kerfuffle, the MoD later changed its mind and declared former RAF West Raynham surplus to requirements. The site was sold to a private developer in 2005. Has English Heritage gone back to West Raynham? Have they reinstated their original recommendations, made after a considerable amount of work? Nope.
Is it possible that the reason why no further MoD owned sites will be considered is due to English Heritage being mauled over West Raynham? Frustrated at the inability of English Heritage to help save RAF Driffield, I asked if I could meet up with those responsible for the aforementioned thematic survey. In 2003, Jeremy Lake agreed to a site visit.
Come the day, and I brought along my only copy of Strong Foundations, which I gave to Jeremy Lake, hoping that an insight into RAF Driffield’s illustrious history would contribute towards success. With him were Will Holborow (English Heritage), Niall Hammond (Defence Estates – Senior Historic Buildings Adviser) and Trevor Sheard (Defence Estates – Estates Manager). I was asked to outline my concerns and personal connection with the site. Thereafter, we started the tour. I spoke about the camp, and why I felt it important enough to justify statutory protection. I made suggestions.
I also gained an insight into the workings of English Heritage and its thematic survey into aerodrome structures. What was also interesting was the reason given for why so many buildings at Driffield remained intact: it was due in part to the Defence Estate’s lack of funds needed to demolish some of the more ailing structures.
It was a warm summer’s day as we drifted from part of the camp to another. All the time, I did my best to reassure those present that my arguments for preservation were viable, while at the same time, I did my best to counter claim their reasons or arguments against statutory protection. As the tour progressed, I felt isolated by my position and inferior weaponry. Physically, I also found it difficult to keep apace with the others. Before we reached the MT Section, it was decided that the tour was over. I had hoped that we could access the hangars and Army Cadet Force enclave, but after exchanging a few pleasantries, those I had tried to impress departed.
There was nothing left to do, other than walk back into town and catch the next train home. A few weeks later, English Heritage wrote the following:
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 July 30th, 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 March 5th 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 August 15th 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.
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 (i.e. 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.
Yours Sincerely
Will Holborow and Jeremy Lake – English Heritage
After receiving several emails and letters from various officials, it became clear that the aforementioned Thematic Survey into Military Aviation Sites and Structures has a rather nasty side effect. Most Planners, Civil Servants and Politicians are of the opinion that the Thematic Survey into Military Aviation Sites and Structures and its recommendations was fully comprehensive in its nature – leaving no stone unturned. Most assume (wrongly) that if an aerodrome structure wasn’t on English Heritage’s list of recommendations, then it wasn’t important enough to be saved from being demolished.
Without doubt, English Heritage’s thematic survey, while protecting a number of key buildings, is being used to block additional work that needs to be done. Both the Government (local and central) and English Heritage can and have used this thematic survey to prove their commitment to our aerodrome heritage, but NOT beyond what has already been done. Yet there are scores of important buildings that were omitted, while desperate individuals (like myself) who are trying to save our local aeronautical heritage, need the support that only statutory protection will provide. We feel let down.
Other sites (apart from Driffield) of comparable importance also omitted from the thematic survey include RAF Newton, RAF Kirton on Lindsey and RAF Church Fenton. The remaining structures at RAF Tangmere warrant statutory protection – this being a former Battle of Britain aerodrome.
Concerned about the impossible position many find themselves in, I emailed English Heritage requesting they release a statement, declaring that while the statutory protection given to numerous buildings pertaining to its thematic survey was an important step, the list of structures championed by English Heritage was not inclusive. I wrote: “In recent weeks, I have been in contact with individuals who are trying to save parts of RAF Church Fenton (North Yorkshire) and RAF Tangmere (Sussex). These individuals (like me) feel let down by the system. Accordingly, we feel that while English Heritage might not be able to assist directly, a statement from English Heritage, reiterating that the aforementioned thematic survey should not be seen as the definitive list, would go a long way in helping us amateurs save our own (local) aeronautical heritage.”
But English Heritage weren't having any of it. Yet, reading between the lines, even they consider additional work necessary. They wrote: “Having acknowledged the scale of the aviation legacy, we must acknowledge the challenge of making any thematic review a totally comprehensive one. While we were duty bound to offer reassurances to the Ministry of Defence that we would be consistent and definitive in our appraisals of their sites, there will undoubtedly be cases when further consideration is needed. Local pride is an important factor here: without a system of local designation, national listing has to bear the weight of such expectations and we cannot always oblige. Dealing with Local Authorities is often fruitful.
“In order to give you reassurance on this point, we are currently looking at a control tower in the New Forest (at former RAF Ibsley) that does not appear on the thematic review. This is not to undermine the status of the thematic review in any way; but I trust you will accept my reassurances that we will take all requests for designation very seriously. We have a sound basis on which to reach decisions; but also accept that the threats these sites face are very real ones, and that further consideration maybe necessary.” I hope that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council appreciate the importance of the above statement.
The good news is that other enthusiasts are making a difference. Recently, the Tangmere Preservation Society was formed with the sole aim to protect the last remaining buildings and sections of runway at former RAF Tangmere (Sussex), which is under threat from developers.
According to James Liskutin (secretary of the RAF Historic Association): “We need to preserve such an important piece of history for the youth of today to remember the debt of gratitude we owe. The RAF Fire Service buildings, barracks and hangers on this former Battle of Britain airfield – including the control tower – are very important to the heritage of Tangmere. These are unique structures and must be preserved [SNIP] as a memorial to those who flew from Tangmere. The entire village is very unhappy with proposed redevelopment, as it will reduce the quality of lifestyle to the entire community.”
The fight for RAF Tangmere shows what can happen if local communities and enthusiasts work together. They are slowly winning the battle. James Liskutin added: “Firstly, the developers who planned to demolish the remaining structures withdrew their planning application from Chichester Town Council, due to public opposition and protest. Then English Heritage, who were asked for their assistance, recommended that the barrack block be given Grade II listed status, which was recently approved by the DCMS. In addition, a number of local residents have discovered that there are a number of Whiskered bats habituating in the engineering buildings and hangers. Accordingly, this makes it illegal to demolish the remaining buildings. The Tangmere Preservation Society are proposing that both the RSPB and Wildlife Trust investigate.”
So banging the drum, kicking up a fuss, does work. Strange though that English Heritage didn’t include the aforementioned barrack block in their thematic survey – especially as they later described it as being unique, and the only one left of its type in the world.
Tale of Two Aerodromes
Bicester (Oxfordshire) was built as a Bomber Command aerodrome in 1924. According to English Heritage; “It retains – better than any other aviation site in Britain – the layout and build fabric relating to both the first expansion period of the RAF, and subsequent developments up to 1940. The grass flying field still survives with its 1939 boundaries largely intact. It is surrounded by a group of bomb stores built in 1938–9, and numerous airfield defences built in the early stages of World War Two.”
Considered by English Heritage as the “jewel in the crown”, no other site has received such preferential treatment, but there is a slight problem (apart from the fact that it wasn’t actually used operationally by Bomber Command during the war). In my opinion, the same statutory protection I have sought for Driffield has probably done more harm to Bicester’s future prospects than good. Former RAF Bicester is surplus to MoD requirements, and has been for a number of years.
Now the MoD want to dispose of the site, but property redevelopment is all about profit. A developer would normally make money from volume house building – either on the camp or the airfield itself. This won’t be permitted at Bicester. Not only have most of the buildings been given statutory protection, but the entire site was awarded conservation area status, making it difficult for any developer to financially benefit from buying the site, unless it went for peanuts.
However, the MoD want top dollar for the site, which is located in the south of England, where land prices are at a premium. The MoD (I understand) is obliged to seek the best price for all of its disposals, even those protected from demolition. Even if a site is earmarked for preservation, unless you know what to do with the myriad of decaying structures, statutory protection becomes irrelevant. Despite being granted conservation area status, with many structures listed, the MoD are scratching their heads – unsure what to do with the site.
So, as each year passes, the site becomes more decrepit, while the minions involved with conservation produce an endless stream of bum fodder, or attend protracted meetings between agencies. I fear that RAF Bicester might end up being lost – due to being too protected. Preservation through profitable and sympathetic redevelopment is my buzz phrase, but you won’t find it on any management–speak bingo card. The only way places like Bicester or Driffield can survive, is if retaining the original buildings can be profitable. Some demolition (even at Driffield) is inevitable, and new-build will always be required to please the accountants.
What went wrong for RAF Driffield
The reason why English Heritage walked away from RAF Driffield in 2003, was because of the MoD’s previous decision to retain the site, for possible future redevelopment. This hints at the complex relationship between English Heritage and the Ministry of Defence.
The Thematic Survey of Military Aviation Sites and Structures, was based around the premise that English Heritage made the recommendations (to the DCMS), after (and only after) the MoD vetoed those recommendations it found objectionable. In this duel, English Heritage wanted to protect more buildings than those finally recommended to the DCMS, as the MoD insisted that a sizeable number of important buildings be excluded. This resulted in structures at Catterick, Halton, Henlow, North Luffenham, Northolt and West Raynham being dropped. These buildings were important. If they weren’t, then why did English Heritage recommend them in the first place? The reason why they were dropped was because of current and future Defence needs.
Back at RAF Driffield, and with the MoD’s ability to veto English Heritage, it was always going to be impossible to secure statutory protection for the various buildings which now await possible demolition. With this in mind, English Heritage (who had already published its final report) decided that with its list of recommendations already in the system, it would be expedient to simply walk away from Driffield.
English Heritage is the Government Department responsible for protecting historic buildings and important archaeological sites in England. In the mid 1990s, English Heritage established a long-term "Thematic Survey" of military aviation sites and structures. In May 2000, Jeremy Lake (Project Leader) published a Summary Report that listed a number of recommendations for buildings and structures to be listed. This list was widely distributed, and as a result, by mid-2003, some recommendations were dropped – mostly at the request of the Ministry of Defence.
"Like all thematic surveys, this survey has been through a process of consultation. This was initiated in May 2000 at RAF Cranwell, and accompanied by the launch of the summary report with draft recommendations for listing. This report has been widely circulated within the MOD, to all other owners and to all concerned Local Authorities."
"The assessment of airfields and other military sites by English Heritage has increasingly come to reflect a unified approach to management and designation. The listing proposals arising from the thematic survey of military aviation sites have been through a long process of evaluation and consultation, which have highlighted the importance of focusing on key issues of historical importance and international context, in addition to formulating policies for the sustainable and long-term management of key sites." Jeremy Lake (English Heritage)
Okay, funds and resources are limited and it is impossible to save every building on every aerodrome. We know that. However, during the sixty years since the war, the number of complete aerodromes has gradually diminished to only a few dozen sites, worthy of consideration. We also know that both the Ministry of Defence, and property developers in general, don’t see preservation and conservation as priorities (within the context of this genre). Listed Status helps, but with most buildings classed as Grade II – this statutory protection, as a rule, does not attract Heritage Lottery Funding, which is needed to bolster sympathetic redevelopment.
Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
To understand my concern for places like RAF Driffield is to understand also the complexities and limitations of having a building list protected (see above). According to the DCMS website, much of which is reproduced below: “The Government, through the DCMS, is responsible for protecting the historic environment. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest.”
Accordingly, the Secretary of State has a duty under the Act to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, while the actual Department monitors the effectiveness of the controls.
There are three grades of listing:
• Grade II are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them;
• Grade II* are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;
• Grade I buildings are those of exceptional interest.
The good news is that even if English Heritage decides not to expand on its Thematic Survey, anyone can make a request to the DCMS for a building to be spot listed. Requests can be made to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at any time, although priority will be given to those buildings that are under threat.
Listing a building does not mean that it is preserved forever in its existing state. It merely ensures that the architectural and historic interest of a building is carefully considered before any alterations are agreed. Consent is normally required (usually from the Local Planning Authority) for a listed building's demolition, in whole or in part, and for any works of alteration or extension that would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. There is a presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings.
What must be of concern is the ability of property owners to obtain a Certificate of Immunity from Listing (COI). This is a legal guarantee that the building or buildings listed in it will not be statutorily listed as being of special architectural or historic interest during the five years from the date on which the certificate is signed. It’s simple, if you’re concerned about the future of your RAF structure (control tower or officer's mess, etc), you can apply for that building to be listed, but the MoD can also apply for a COI to block your application. It is possible that this has happened at RAF West Raynham, which like RAF Driffield, awaits redevelopment.
RAF Driffield – Second to None
As previously stated, RAF Driffield lost out to RAF West Raynham. Even before sending its list of recommendations to the DCMS, English Heritage clearly stated that Driffield was deemed a poor second to West Raynham, where 14 buildings and a number of married quarters were recommended for statutory protection (listed status). These structures are identical to those at Driffield, which has a comparable history to that of West Raynham.
The problem was that the Ministry of Defence objected strongly to these recommendations, stating they had plans for West Raynham. It was rumoured that the Royal Navy were to redevelop the site as a communications centre. Reluctantly, English Heritage removed West Raynham from its list of recommendations. What should have happened is that English Heritage should have taken a closer look at Driffield. My understanding is that English Heritage hadn’t even conducted a site visit at Driffield. Another person I spoke to stated that if present at a meeting, he would have strongly pushed for Driffield to be included in the list of sites submitted to the DCMS.
English Heritage stated that West Raynham is more complete than Driffield, which is true. However, most of those elements that make West Raynham a more complete site (runways, bomb dump, airfield defences) were not recommended for statutory protection. Yes, let’s protect West Raynham, but don’t mention the fact that the runways, bomb dump and airfield defences can be removed without infringing any statutory protection laws.
Ironically, despite all this kerfuffle, the MoD later changed its mind and declared former RAF West Raynham surplus to requirements. The site was sold to a private developer in 2005. Has English Heritage gone back to West Raynham? Have they reinstated their original recommendations, made after a considerable amount of work? Nope.
Is it possible that the reason why no further MoD owned sites will be considered is due to English Heritage being mauled over West Raynham? Frustrated at the inability of English Heritage to help save RAF Driffield, I asked if I could meet up with those responsible for the aforementioned thematic survey. In 2003, Jeremy Lake agreed to a site visit.
Come the day, and I brought along my only copy of Strong Foundations, which I gave to Jeremy Lake, hoping that an insight into RAF Driffield’s illustrious history would contribute towards success. With him were Will Holborow (English Heritage), Niall Hammond (Defence Estates – Senior Historic Buildings Adviser) and Trevor Sheard (Defence Estates – Estates Manager). I was asked to outline my concerns and personal connection with the site. Thereafter, we started the tour. I spoke about the camp, and why I felt it important enough to justify statutory protection. I made suggestions.
I also gained an insight into the workings of English Heritage and its thematic survey into aerodrome structures. What was also interesting was the reason given for why so many buildings at Driffield remained intact: it was due in part to the Defence Estate’s lack of funds needed to demolish some of the more ailing structures.
It was a warm summer’s day as we drifted from part of the camp to another. All the time, I did my best to reassure those present that my arguments for preservation were viable, while at the same time, I did my best to counter claim their reasons or arguments against statutory protection. As the tour progressed, I felt isolated by my position and inferior weaponry. Physically, I also found it difficult to keep apace with the others. Before we reached the MT Section, it was decided that the tour was over. I had hoped that we could access the hangars and Army Cadet Force enclave, but after exchanging a few pleasantries, those I had tried to impress departed.
There was nothing left to do, other than walk back into town and catch the next train home. A few weeks later, English Heritage wrote the following:
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 July 30th, 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 March 5th 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 August 15th 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 (i.e. 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.
Yours Sincerely
Will Holborow and Jeremy Lake – English Heritage
After receiving several emails and letters from various officials, it became clear that the aforementioned Thematic Survey into Military Aviation Sites and Structures has a rather nasty side effect. Most Planners, Civil Servants and Politicians are of the opinion that the Thematic Survey into Military Aviation Sites and Structures and its recommendations was fully comprehensive in its nature – leaving no stone unturned. Most assume (wrongly) that if an aerodrome structure wasn’t on English Heritage’s list of recommendations, then it wasn’t important enough to be saved from being demolished.
Without doubt, English Heritage’s thematic survey, while protecting a number of key buildings, is being used to block additional work that needs to be done. Both the Government (local and central) and English Heritage can and have used this thematic survey to prove their commitment to our aerodrome heritage, but NOT beyond what has already been done. Yet there are scores of important buildings that were omitted, while desperate individuals (like myself) who are trying to save our local aeronautical heritage, need the support that only statutory protection will provide. We feel let down.
Other sites (apart from Driffield) of comparable importance also omitted from the thematic survey include RAF Newton, RAF Kirton on Lindsey and RAF Church Fenton. The remaining structures at RAF Tangmere warrant statutory protection – this being a former Battle of Britain aerodrome.
Concerned about the impossible position many find themselves in, I emailed English Heritage requesting they release a statement, declaring that while the statutory protection given to numerous buildings pertaining to its thematic survey was an important step, the list of structures championed by English Heritage was not inclusive. I wrote: “In recent weeks, I have been in contact with individuals who are trying to save parts of RAF Church Fenton (North Yorkshire) and RAF Tangmere (Sussex). These individuals (like me) feel let down by the system. Accordingly, we feel that while English Heritage might not be able to assist directly, a statement from English Heritage, reiterating that the aforementioned thematic survey should not be seen as the definitive list, would go a long way in helping us amateurs save our own (local) aeronautical heritage.”
But English Heritage weren't having any of it. Yet, reading between the lines, even they consider additional work necessary. They wrote: “Having acknowledged the scale of the aviation legacy, we must acknowledge the challenge of making any thematic review a totally comprehensive one. While we were duty bound to offer reassurances to the Ministry of Defence that we would be consistent and definitive in our appraisals of their sites, there will undoubtedly be cases when further consideration is needed. Local pride is an important factor here: without a system of local designation, national listing has to bear the weight of such expectations and we cannot always oblige. Dealing with Local Authorities is often fruitful.
“In order to give you reassurance on this point, we are currently looking at a control tower in the New Forest (at former RAF Ibsley) that does not appear on the thematic review. This is not to undermine the status of the thematic review in any way; but I trust you will accept my reassurances that we will take all requests for designation very seriously. We have a sound basis on which to reach decisions; but also accept that the threats these sites face are very real ones, and that further consideration maybe necessary.” I hope that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council appreciate the importance of the above statement.
The good news is that other enthusiasts are making a difference. Recently, the Tangmere Preservation Society was formed with the sole aim to protect the last remaining buildings and sections of runway at former RAF Tangmere (Sussex), which is under threat from developers.
According to James Liskutin (secretary of the RAF Historic Association): “We need to preserve such an important piece of history for the youth of today to remember the debt of gratitude we owe. The RAF Fire Service buildings, barracks and hangers on this former Battle of Britain airfield – including the control tower – are very important to the heritage of Tangmere. These are unique structures and must be preserved [SNIP] as a memorial to those who flew from Tangmere. The entire village is very unhappy with proposed redevelopment, as it will reduce the quality of lifestyle to the entire community.”
The fight for RAF Tangmere shows what can happen if local communities and enthusiasts work together. They are slowly winning the battle. James Liskutin added: “Firstly, the developers who planned to demolish the remaining structures withdrew their planning application from Chichester Town Council, due to public opposition and protest. Then English Heritage, who were asked for their assistance, recommended that the barrack block be given Grade II listed status, which was recently approved by the DCMS. In addition, a number of local residents have discovered that there are a number of Whiskered bats habituating in the engineering buildings and hangers. Accordingly, this makes it illegal to demolish the remaining buildings. The Tangmere Preservation Society are proposing that both the RSPB and Wildlife Trust investigate.”
So banging the drum, kicking up a fuss, does work. Strange though that English Heritage didn’t include the aforementioned barrack block in their thematic survey – especially as they later described it as being unique, and the only one left of its type in the world.
Tale of Two Aerodromes
Bicester (Oxfordshire) was built as a Bomber Command aerodrome in 1924. According to English Heritage; “It retains – better than any other aviation site in Britain – the layout and build fabric relating to both the first expansion period of the RAF, and subsequent developments up to 1940. The grass flying field still survives with its 1939 boundaries largely intact. It is surrounded by a group of bomb stores built in 1938–9, and numerous airfield defences built in the early stages of World War Two.”
Considered by English Heritage as the “jewel in the crown”, no other site has received such preferential treatment, but there is a slight problem (apart from the fact that it wasn’t actually used operationally by Bomber Command during the war). In my opinion, the same statutory protection I have sought for Driffield has probably done more harm to Bicester’s future prospects than good. Former RAF Bicester is surplus to MoD requirements, and has been for a number of years.
Now the MoD want to dispose of the site, but property redevelopment is all about profit. A developer would normally make money from volume house building – either on the camp or the airfield itself. This won’t be permitted at Bicester. Not only have most of the buildings been given statutory protection, but the entire site was awarded conservation area status, making it difficult for any developer to financially benefit from buying the site, unless it went for peanuts.
However, the MoD want top dollar for the site, which is located in the south of England, where land prices are at a premium. The MoD (I understand) is obliged to seek the best price for all of its disposals, even those protected from demolition. Even if a site is earmarked for preservation, unless you know what to do with the myriad of decaying structures, statutory protection becomes irrelevant. Despite being granted conservation area status, with many structures listed, the MoD are scratching their heads – unsure what to do with the site.
So, as each year passes, the site becomes more decrepit, while the minions involved with conservation produce an endless stream of bum fodder, or attend protracted meetings between agencies. I fear that RAF Bicester might end up being lost – due to being too protected. Preservation through profitable and sympathetic redevelopment is my buzz phrase, but you won’t find it on any management–speak bingo card. The only way places like Bicester or Driffield can survive, is if retaining the original buildings can be profitable. Some demolition (even at Driffield) is inevitable, and new-build will always be required to please the accountants.
What went wrong for RAF Driffield
The reason why English Heritage walked away from RAF Driffield in 2003, was because of the MoD’s previous decision to retain the site, for possible future redevelopment. This hints at the complex relationship between English Heritage and the Ministry of Defence.
The Thematic Survey of Military Aviation Sites and Structures, was based around the premise that English Heritage made the recommendations (to the DCMS), after (and only after) the MoD vetoed those recommendations it found objectionable. In this duel, English Heritage wanted to protect more buildings than those finally recommended to the DCMS, as the MoD insisted that a sizeable number of important buildings be excluded. This resulted in structures at Catterick, Halton, Henlow, North Luffenham, Northolt and West Raynham being dropped. These buildings were important. If they weren’t, then why did English Heritage recommend them in the first place? The reason why they were dropped was because of current and future Defence needs.
Back at RAF Driffield, and with the MoD’s ability to veto English Heritage, it was always going to be impossible to secure statutory protection for the various buildings which now await possible demolition. With this in mind, English Heritage (who had already published its final report) decided that with its list of recommendations already in the system, it would be expedient to simply walk away from Driffield.
