RAF Driffield – Anyone want to buy a house?

Check out my aspirations for RAF Driffield:

In my scheme of things, some of the original buildings will have to go, namely the firing range, stand-by generator house, solid fuel store, station works, modern gymnasium, lubrication store, etc. In their place I would position a number of business units. Thing is, the new owners of Driffield want to knock everything down and build 500 houses, even though the council prohibit such action.

Now, what else? Oh, ****** my train of thought. I was going to ask something. Nope, it’s gone!!!

Are they sure that they can sell 500 houses just outside Driffield?

The problem is that the new owners have a mind-set to clear and build hundreds of houses, even though local planning guidelines…

…tell you what, I emailed the following to The Driffield Times:

Dear Editor

Like many, I was rather taken aback by proposals to build 500 new houses on the former RAF camp.

As some of your readers maybe aware, my desire is to see the historic site retained, while providing new opportunities in residential, social and economic redevelopment. Accordingly, through your newspaper, I would like to remind those council officials, who are meeting Strawsons Property, that current planning guidelines, which they themselves drew up, prohibit the building of 500 houses on the site, in the first place.

While the planning authorities are open to “mix use” of the site, Strawsons are deluded if they think that 500 plus houses and a few shops construed “mix use”. Talking to the ERYC, they consider mix use to include industry and leisure. While it goes without saying that good public transport access and appropriate amenities are a necessity, again these also do not construed mix-use.

As with all planning authorities, there exists within the county a series of complex guidelines that largely dictate what can be built and where. Talking to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council in 2004, it was clear that building hundreds of houses on the site wasn’t going to be allowed under any circumstance. it was also made clear to me that both current and future guidelines, then being drawn up, prohibit the building of large volume of houses in the general locale, and that such large developments would be consigned in the Hull area.

According to council literature, “The Local Plan” identifies Alamein Barracks as an “exceptional opportunity” and sets out a series of policies, to “assist in enabling development to come forward in a comprehensive and co-ordinated manner. It states there are major constraints to development of the entire site as a single comprehensive scheme”, such as housing. It also: “allows for the conversion of barrack blocks for residential or office use”, and “the reuse of existing housing along Lumsden Close”. The “conversion of the former Officer’s Mess for reuse as tourist accommodation, public house, private club or a medical care facility” is also allowed.

The former RAF camp also falls within the “Northern Sub Region” of the “Joint Structure Plan” (JSP) for Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire. Accordingly, the site is classed as an area of restraint. Driffield itself is categorised as a town, where new housing and employment development, to meet essentially local needs, is to be concentrated. Even then, only limited new [housing] allocations are likely to be required during the plan period to 2026.

What surprises me, is the matter-of-fact way in which some local councillors have always pointed towards the inevitability that the site would end up as one giant housing estate, despite their own powers to block such a proposal, using the aforementioned guidelines, that prohibit such a development in the first place.

What must be of concern to many in Driffield, is the fate of the 68 former Married Quarters, which another bidder for the site, had planned to refurbish and sell to local, first-time buyers – those starting at the bottom of the property ladder. In early 2007, I was asked to show a team of developers around the site. The team included a finance director, project manager and local surveyor. All were experience in redeveloping sites like RAF Driffield. Despite being vacant for around 20 years, these experts were convinced that the married quarters could be reused.

What Adrian Sail failed to mention, was the attempt made by Strawsons Property to move the Army Cadet Force out of its cherished enclave. This part of the former RAF base is well preserved, and is a credit to those who maintain a military presence on the site. I understand that the developers are prepared to finance the relocation of the Army Cadet Force, in return for securing the enclave for redevelopment. Why? Because the more land Strawsons can acquire, the more houses they can build, and the more money they will make. The Army Cadet Force has confirmed that they are in talks with Strawsons, but refuse to elaborate on the issue.

I’m well aware of the apathetic nature shown by some. If you agree or disagree with my views, then write to the Driffield Times. Just don’t sit on the fence. This is your town and your heritage.

Phillip Rhodes

—————————————————

The problem isn’t the condition of the site. The problem is apathy (as in local) and the general mindset of Strawsons Property (as in have a look at RAF Swinderby). Just written to the editor of every newspaper in Australia. Simply because the Australians care more about RAF Driffield than the locals ever will.

Swords to Ploughshares

The people that flew from these airfields did so to preserve the British way of life – I don’t think they wished that in years to come all the airfields would still be in existance. Certainly sad to see them go but having looked around the remains of Kings Cliffe recently I am drawn to how fast deterioration can happen and to the fact that they were not built to last.

There’s not many disused WW2 airfields which are in a position to be used for historic aviation now. Driffield has been pretty mangled by its previous MOD owners, so an effective airfield to be developed there would have cost untold millions. It is a shame, especialy since I lived in Driff for a number of years, but look at what you still have in East Yorkshire. Leconfield is completely intact and with careful use of a JCB to remove the roundabouts, it could be used again when and if the army finish with it. There are dozens of old airfields in East Yorkshire, and all are prime development land. Aside from Leconfield, and Pocklington are there any viable airfield sites for preservation?

Given the deterioration of Driffield, is it worth preserving? That said, are the hangars and other buildings to be demolished? What exactly is being lost by the development?

RAF Driffield

It’s terrible that these things can happen to a site of historical importants such as Driffield. Anything that could be done to stop this??