Why buying an airfield is harder than you’d think…
Buying former military sites in Britain is no mean feat. The process can take years and requires lengthy discussions with the Ministry of Defence and UK Government. Dyson purchased R.A.F. Hullavington back in 2016 — but, before the sale could be finalised, an obscure piece of legislation had to be observed. This is the story of Crichel Down Rules or; how to buy an airfield…
In February 2017, Dyson announced that it would restore Hullavington airfield, and in the process, increase the size of its British R&D base by over 1,200 percent. What was once a run down R.A.F. base would soon be transformed into a tech campus for the 21st century.
But, purchasing a British military site and converting it for “civilian use” is a long process, fraught with complexities which make it unlike buying any other piece of land.
The story begins in 2016, when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) published A Better Defence Estate, outlining its 25-year plan to consolidate Britain’s military estate — at that time, covering 1.8 percent of the UK — into fewer, larger sites. To put this figure in perspective, only six percent of the entire UK landmass comprises physical buildings. Consequently R.A.F. Hullavington was listed as “ready for disposal”. Other surplus sites across the country are already being prepared for other uses, most notably housing.
Hullavington airfield was one of the MoD’s first sites to find a new owner, with Dyson announcing its purchase of the site just three months after the government published its estates report. At 750 acres, Hullavington airfield, Dyson’s third UK site, is over 10 times the size of its Malmesbury campus. The process of renovating the airfield’s 80-year old hangars started immediately, beginning with Hangar 86.
This makes the process of buying and renovating an airfield sound easy. It wasn’t.
Aside from the complex operational demands of converting a site from military to civilian usage, as the land used to create Hullavington was purchased using the government’s compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers, buying it means complying with an obscure set of rules that that date back to a political scandal in the 1950s — the Crichel Down affair.
What are Crichel Down rules?
Like many Royal Air Force facilities, R.A.F. Hullavington has origins in the frantic rearmament of the late 1930s. Conflict with Germany seemed inevitable, and the rapid expansion of British air power was seen as key to defending the country. As a result, airfields were widely dispersed to make it harder for enemy forces to knock them out. In the last three years of the 1930s, the R.A.F. opened more than 80 new airbases in every corner of the UK.
The speed of this expansion had its downsides. Buying lots of land in a hurry often means paying lots for it. But the government avoided the spiralling costs of the open market by making full use of CPO powers, acquiring all the land it required — whether owners wanted to sell or not. The war would see the government requisition more than 14.5m acres of land which it used for new airfields, accommodation and allotments.
The expectation — made explicit by Winston Churchill, in a 1941 parliamentary speech — was that much of this land would, after the war, be returned to its original owners for roughly the amount they’d been paid for it. In practice, that didn’t always happen.
In 1938 the government had CPO-ed 725 acres of Dorset farm land from the 3rd Baron Alington for bombing practice. Alington assumed that, when the R.A.F. no longer needed it, ownership would revert to his heirs. It didn’t.
Instead, it was passed to the Ministry of Agriculture, which valued the land at substantially more than its original purchase price, and promptly leased it out.
The case caused a national outcry which later became known as the Crichel Down affair. While few recall the affair now, the result was one of those minor political scandals that litter British history: a five-year campaign by Alington’s daughter led, first, to a public inquiry, and then, in 1954, to the first ministerial resignation since 1917. New rules on both ministerial responsibility and the government’s use of land still apply today.
Crichel Down Rules have been amended several times, weren’t even officially published until 1992, and have never consistently applied in any case. Essentially, they give the original owners of land (or their heirs) first refusal on any disposal of CPO-ed government land, providing it had been in government hands for less than 25 years, and “has not been materially changed in character”; and that they should not be materially disadvantaged by the terms of a buy-back.
In the official guidance document for “Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules” provided by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, the general rules state:
“Where a department wishes to dispose of land to which [Crichel Down] Rules apply, former owners will, as a general rule, be given a first opportunity to repurchase the land previously in their ownership, provided that its character has not materially changed since acquisition. The character of the land may be considered to have ‘materially changed’ where, for example, dwellings or offices have been erected on open land, mainly open land has been afforested, or where substantial works to an existing building have effectively altered its character. The erection of temporary buildings on land, however, is not necessarily a material change. When deciding whether any works have materially altered the character of the land, the disposing department should consider the likely cost of restoring the land to its original use”.
The land used for R.A.F. Hullavington was initially agricultural and purchased after 1st January 1935, leading some to argue that Crichel Down Rules need not apply. The government disagreed, deeming that the purchase should be subject to the rules — despite the fact that building an airfield could be considered a material change to the site.
Whereas after the war the MoD was keen to keep hold of the newly gained land, today the MoD is scaling back its estate. UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mark Lancaster, announced the Better Defence Estate plan. Describing its contents, he said “by streamlining the Defence estate, we will ensure that it better meets the needs of the Armed Forces well into the future”.
His comments address the fact that many of the MoD’s sites, including R.A.F. Hullavington had been left to decay.
When asked about the local reaction to Hullavington’s restoration, James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire said: “I welcome the work which [Dyson] are doing improving a site which was messy before. Broadly speaking, local people support the sensible reuse of R.A.F. Hullavington and are pleased to have Dyson in the area”.
“The area has always had engineering history. I heard the rumour that there’s a Spitfire engine buried under the runway. It is logical that a local site which used to be a proud home of the R.A.F.’s planes will be used to develop electric cars in the future, rather than another housing estate”.
This article was originally published in Dyson on: magazine. To read more visit on.dyson.co.uk
