03 - Present & Future

02 - Post-War

03 - PRESENT & FUTURE

Restoration offers a second chance to buildings which were destined to be destroyed

Our buildings' histories, and the design icons we fill them with, provide us with inspiration and perspective as we develop new technologies for the future. Our atypical approach to creating new spaces isn’t the cheapest or easiest; but the results excite us. And we're only just beginning. Taking on a restoration project on this scale is complex, but by investing in Hullavington airfield we are building a campus that's imbued with a spirit of engineering, invention and risk taking. These are the ideals that drove those who went before us and they will, we hope, help to propel us forward on our journey into the future.

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 began 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.

“ In the last three years of the 1930s the R.A.F. opened more than 80 new airbases in every corner of the UK. ”

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.

“ Whereas after the war the MoD was keen to keep hold of the newly gained land, today the MoD is scaling back its estate. ”

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 1 st 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”.

**An Andrews’ and Dury’s map of north Wiltshire, 1773 © Wiltshire & Swindon History Centre**

**Map of the R.A.F. Hullavington base plans drawn up by the MoD showing Bell Farm © Wiltshire & Swindon History Centre**

Chris Wilkinson — Architect

THE MAN GIVING DYSON ROOM TO BREATHE

You're mentioned in Sir James Dyson's autobiography, Against the Odds, pubished back in 2000. How did you first meet?

We met through Tony Hunt, a very talented engineer who I worked with at Foster Associates, Richard Rogers and Partners and other practices. We kept in touch when I set up on my own. James asked Tony to recommend an architect and I was one of them. I went to see him and got on well. This was over 20 years ago and we are still working together now on new projects.

Do you talk with Sir James frequently about his future projects?

Well, I am fortunate to have direct access to him, and we have regular design updates on all the projects we are working on. But everything is going to be judged against the Dyson standard. That's the thing. So, it has to be right.

Which of Dyson's buildings did you most enjoy designing?

I'm very pleased with the London and New York shops. James always refers back to the Paris shop, which we designed with him 15 years ago. We put all the vacuums on pedestals. They were like artworks. He liked that.

Is actually sketching ideas an important part of your work?

Yes, I always carry a sketchbook. A couple of years ago I put on an exhibition called ‘Thinking Through Drawing’ at The Royal Academy of Arts which featured 21 of my sketchbooks. So, yes it's very important. I have also noticed that James always has a one on his table when I go to see him.

How do you translate your ideas into what a client wants?

I guess my design preferences are quite austere and minimalistic, but I respect my clients’ various tastes and am happy to work with them to develop their ideas.

What is the most important part of designing a Dyson building?

The most important thing is the wider Dyson identity. It's not about individual projects and products so much as the whole - which is getting bigger. I'm quite well tuned into how the design process works in Dyson and we try to design the buildings in the same way. But personally, I like to see the engineering. I don't want to cover things up, I want to see how it works. James and I have that in common, I think.

Hangar 86, your most recent Dyson building was a restoration project rather than a new building. How does it compare?

I think it's the most fantastic space. It doesn't feel like a hangar, it feels like a Dyson building. It's quite high with a curved roof and big mezzanines that create big openings. It feels very light and airy and modern even though it's a Second World War hangar. The funny thing was that, in our first meeting about it, I'd drawn the exterior in dark grey. Without me saying anything, [James] said, "I want it black." I said, "Oh, I've got dark grey." He said, "Well, dark grey or black." He wanted it dark and it was exactly the same feeling I had. If you made them white they're big. Not ugly, but they're big. Making them black is somehow gives them a chic presence. It's funny because we must have both been thinking about it at the same time.

Do you like using new technology in your architecture?

Every building is an opportunity to do something new and interesting. I hate seeing buildings which are bad. For example, it's easier to get planning permission if you use local stone, but nobody encourages developers to use technology. They build houses with a wet process: plaster, mortar, bricks. It they take forever to build. Developers who are only interested in money want to hold back house building because, if there’s a shortage, they charge more for it, which is exactly the opposite of what the government want. They want more cheaper houses. The only way is to get some enlightened developers and encourage them to use better processes - modern processes.

Is Hullavington a 100 percent fresh air office like Malmesbury?

Yes. That's the first thing I say to people. Most modern units recycle air because it's cheaper. But when it's in open countryside? Dyson in Malmesbury was the first building with 100 percent fresh air. At the first meeting to discuss air-conditioning, engineers were explaining the technology and James asked: "What percentage of fresh air are you going to provide?" They said, "10%." He said, "No, I want 100 percent. I'm not sharing my air with anybody." The engineer said it wasn't possible and James said, "We need to get a new engineer." So we did and they made it possible. It is also becoming more popular because its healthier.