As some of you may know the old Grahame-White hangar at Hendon is both listed (Grade II) and was recently moved (1990s) a few hundred yards onto the RAF Museum site.
Now, when the building was moved and rebuilt, this resulted in new foundations, brick work, electrics and metal sheet covering both the doors and roof.
As some of you may also know, I’ve done my best to save RAF Driffield through statutory protection, but English Hertiage walked away from the site. Originally I was told this was because Driffield and its buildings weren’t important enough – yet buildings built using the same plans, on other sites with comparable histories were given statutory protection. Since then, I’ve been told that the reason why Driffield wasn’t selected for statutory protection was due to the MoD wanting to redevelop the site.
Now surely, if English Heritage are keen to show they are whiter than white in the decisions it makes, then they surely should have delisted the Grahame-White hangar, because a high proportion of original material was discarded when it was moved. Also, the historical element of it being built in the first place was also removed, when it was moved – in that people actually built the structure and that element has gone. That last sentence could have been more clearer, but I’m running out of time.
What do you think?
By: springbok - 14th February 2008 at 19:45
Gentlemen,
Listing means absolutely nothing in the UK!
The survival of historic sites in the UK is totally in the hand of the owner/developer!
English Heritage has not the slightest knowledge or interest in military or industrial heritage.
Regards,
Chris
By: richc1977 - 14th February 2008 at 18:34
I did a heritage degree at uni and do a bit of heritage work for an environmental consultancy. Listed buildings are afforded protection for their architectural or historic significcance or cultural/social associations. If a particular building in an outstanding example of its type then it will be listed; if buildings were only listed if 100% of original material remained very few would be listed. Many cathedrals will have had a lot of external stonework, glass, lead roofs replaced so should they be de-listed? (All buildings before a certain date are listed automatically but I’m making a point).
By: GliderSpit - 14th February 2008 at 17:35
What’s the difference with many historic aircraft restorations?
By: TEXANTOMCAT - 14th February 2008 at 15:32
What constitutes a building? The cladding? the trussess? the foundations?
I understand that a VERY large amount of original material was retained right down to the rather fab lightswitches, plumbing and gas pipes!
IIRC the experts at moving historic buildings – the Avoncroft Museum were consulted, if they dont know how to move buildings incorporating the maximum amount of original material, no one does.
If you’ve never been/heard of it – see herehttp://www.avoncroft.org.uk/about.asp
Well worth a visit if only for their 100 year collection of telephone boxes ! 🙂
TT
By: SMS88 - 14th February 2008 at 15:29
The Grahame-White Hanger at Hendon while clearly built to the original design had the look and feel of a freshly constructed building to my eyes on the one occasion 3 years ago that I managed to gain access.A fine building worthy of listing yet the feel that old buildings have of time passing and people living their lives with the building were absent from the G-W hanger IMHO.I am glad to have seen it but sad that I couldnt feel its soul.
Housing developements in particular seem to be swallowing up an increasing proportion of the UK, and I hope that if there is an alternative cost effective use for the existing buildings of Driffield then may they prevail rather than be sacrificed to the holy cow of profits for housing developers and their politcal cronies…
By: Phillip Rhodes - 14th February 2008 at 14:47
Hands off – that’s holy ground!
Holy Ground…
…as in the original site, or the modern foundations?
Okay, reading the other posts, how about this then: What constitutes an original building, if the foundations, brickwork, roof and main door cladding are new?
Yes, the RAF Museum or rather the developers were right in moving the structure, but it’s not the same building. And there is one important element missing – that invisable element.
A few years ago, I met a security guard at Driffield. He was guarding the camp, and was located in a portakabin, located next to the officer’s mess. My a quirk of fate, this chap’s father helped build the officer’s mess, back in the 1930s. And it’s this element – the fact that people stuck one brick upon another, or who bolted one cross beam onto another that will be lost if this or any other building is moved. Yes, buildings can be moved and I have no problem with that. What concerns me is the knowledge that you’re loosing that important element, when you move a building.
I ask this because, I’m thinking of approaching the owners of RAF Driffield. If they plan to demolish the officer’s mess, my hope is that it can be dismantled. It would then be rebuild off site, by a third party. This can only happen later, rather than sooner, as it would take me at least 18 months to arrange things. Another issue is that you could only save the brickwork and internal metal structure. Most of the original wood has rotted away.
My argument is that others might see the building devalued, but you’ve proven this not to be the case. The only problem is that it’s a big building. The internal layout would change, but hopefully the internal features would be copied. Or do I just sit back and watch the building me demolised.
Another reason, why I ask the question, is I didn’t want other’s to think that the building was inapproprate to list at a later date, because it had been moved.
By: Bluebird Mike - 13th February 2008 at 23:20
Delisted? Certainly not!
But opened from time to time wouldn’t hurt! 😀
By: mark_pilkington - 13th February 2008 at 20:30
No,
Despite being moved, it is still largely intact is it not, the loss of foundations and original site have degraded its originality, but it is still a heritage building.
The preservation of a rare and unique heritage building, (even at a last resort through location) is justified when it is of high significance. (Although the high significance hopefully would protect it where it is.
The same protection would not be provided to a RAF WW2 building if there were numerous examples elsewhere.
In relation to Driffield, if all of its buildings are duplicated elsewhere it would weaken its protection, but unfortunately quite often heritage assessments of such sites are done on a “building by building” basis.
There is some argument to also test a site in terms of its intactness or completeness, as compared to other sites, not just the uniqueness of its buildings.
In Victoria Australia, the wartime EATS base at Ballarat has been added to the Victorian Heritage Register.
It is one of the few EATS bases in Australia with substantial building infrastructure left in place.
Victoria had 12 EATS schools of the 41 across Australia, many are no longer operating airfields, and the remaining ones (have) lost most buildings other than hangars.
While the buildings at Ballarat are not unique, and do exist at some of the permanent RAAF bases, the heritage value of Ballarat is its “intactness” as a whole representing the EATS history, rather than the architectural merit of each individual building as a stand-alone.
Driffield might then benefit from trying to assess its relative completeness rather than the uniqueness of individual buildings.
Obviously however, the Graham-White Hangar is unique.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
By: Pondskater - 13th February 2008 at 20:26
No.
Why should replacing some material cause a problem? Many listed buildings have a complex history – modified, extended, rebuilt.
And buildings without a use are at greater risk of being lost – now it has a use the museum will maintain it. There is a tendency these days is to allow some “at risk” buildings to be modified to allow new uses – and therefore survival.
It becomes part of the history of the building – and better than the building becoming history.
Allan
By: kev35 - 13th February 2008 at 19:57
You might have put considerable effort into saving Driffield. But surely, that failure can’t make you believe that other’s efforts should result in delisting out of some notion of spite?
Regards,
kev35
By: Rlangham - 13th February 2008 at 19:20
Should the Grahame-White Hangar at Hendon be delisted?
No
Sign In
February 13, 2008 at 7:12 pm