St Georges chapel - RAF Biggin Hill
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismarck! All the Services have memorials! Some government funded, others run by trusts! The Navy has just agreed £25 million to be spent on HMS Victory from MOD funds!
We are not obsessed but trying to preserve a memorial which for a change, really means something! It's near to where the B of B was actually fought and is already visited by 12000 people a year! As things stand, it may end up the only part of Biggin Hill that survives!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, that is why all of your efforts should be geared to setting up a trust to run the chapel, not expect MOD to fund it ad infinitum.
The 'family' on this occasion are the Government whose predessesors declared war.
Bismark
I get some of what you are saying and if the Chapel passes on to be funded by a trust overseen by the RAF/MOD (like VICTORY will) then I don't have a problem. It is the notion of it being possibly 'gifted' for someone else to look after that's the issue - it would be effectively 'ditched' to Biggin Hill Airport Ltd in the most likely scenario at present. As we know, commercial companies, however well intentioned, have good and bad times and I suspect the Chapel wouldn't fare to well in the bad times!
Look at the petition statement:
It is the threat of total withdrawal of support of what lies on the last RAF enclave of the site that is the problem (that includes the Air Cadet HQ and some of the old Married Quarters that they plan to keep). If they can continue to mow the grass and do the upkeep of the ATC HQ and Quarters then why not support the Chapel as well? I agree setting up a Trust funded by Heritage Lottery, English Heritage or some such is the best way forward, but the current plan of what looks like ditching it on the local Authority or the airport management company just doesn't cut it with so many (about 7,500 individuals so far in just under a week).
I hope that explains the position better?
LJ
I get some of what you are saying and if the Chapel passes on to be funded by a trust overseen by the RAF/MOD (like VICTORY will) then I don't have a problem. It is the notion of it being possibly 'gifted' for someone else to look after that's the issue - it would be effectively 'ditched' to Biggin Hill Airport Ltd in the most likely scenario at present. As we know, commercial companies, however well intentioned, have good and bad times and I suspect the Chapel wouldn't fare to well in the bad times!
Look at the petition statement:
By March 2016,the Royal Air Force/Ministry of Defence are withdrawing all support from the Chapel. If no one or group takes on the responsibility of this magnificent Memorial Chapel, it will be closed without access to the public or church services.
I hope that explains the position better?
LJ
I find myself in agreement with Bismark here.
I totally agree it is important to preserve heritage and to ensure that where possible the MOD can support facilities and sites. But, Defence is under incredible financial pressures, and the demands for savings are incessant. That this measure is being looked at is a sign of how difficult times are.
Ultimately, Biggin Hill is no longer an active RAF site, and there must come a point when we have to ask why the RAF is paying to keep a chapel open when its not actually used by the RAF. The answer would either be to move it to another facility still in use (if there is no equivalent chapel at one of these sites), or to hand over to a charity to run on in perpetuity, like many other facilities have been.
I would far rather a charity ran this location and was able to keep it going properly, than the RAF pay a large sum of money for something its not using.
I totally agree it is important to preserve heritage and to ensure that where possible the MOD can support facilities and sites. But, Defence is under incredible financial pressures, and the demands for savings are incessant. That this measure is being looked at is a sign of how difficult times are.
Ultimately, Biggin Hill is no longer an active RAF site, and there must come a point when we have to ask why the RAF is paying to keep a chapel open when its not actually used by the RAF. The answer would either be to move it to another facility still in use (if there is no equivalent chapel at one of these sites), or to hand over to a charity to run on in perpetuity, like many other facilities have been.
I would far rather a charity ran this location and was able to keep it going properly, than the RAF pay a large sum of money for something its not using.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just so I can get my head around this timeline, what's the sequence of events?
The Mail has now reported it and it's in the public domain, but did any MoD announcement predate it? Anna Soubry has tweeted back to me this morning, saying that she wants to save it, but the DM/MoS didn't consult her and give her a chance to explain. I (rashly?) suggested that it was her dept which set the wheels rolling before that, and she might like to consider why her bean counters didn't consult her first.
She strikes me (generally) as being a pretty poor excuse for a minister, not in command of her brief and just marking time before quickly returning to being an obscure hack or lobbyist. If I'm wrong about the timeline though, I might owe her an apology.
I am opposed to trusts looking after certain items of national importance. I only learned this morning that Isaac Newton's tree is just up the road and whilst I don't mind the National Trust looking after that, sending young men to die and remembering them should remain the sober, sombre and sacred responsibility of the government of the day, not a board of blummin' trustees looking for things to do as they out do the great and the good on the board of the next trust along and weedle their invitations for Buck House garden parties.
And don't get me started on the Heritage/National Lottery!
The Mail has now reported it and it's in the public domain, but did any MoD announcement predate it? Anna Soubry has tweeted back to me this morning, saying that she wants to save it, but the DM/MoS didn't consult her and give her a chance to explain. I (rashly?) suggested that it was her dept which set the wheels rolling before that, and she might like to consider why her bean counters didn't consult her first.
She strikes me (generally) as being a pretty poor excuse for a minister, not in command of her brief and just marking time before quickly returning to being an obscure hack or lobbyist. If I'm wrong about the timeline though, I might owe her an apology.
I am opposed to trusts looking after certain items of national importance. I only learned this morning that Isaac Newton's tree is just up the road and whilst I don't mind the National Trust looking after that, sending young men to die and remembering them should remain the sober, sombre and sacred responsibility of the government of the day, not a board of blummin' trustees looking for things to do as they out do the great and the good on the board of the next trust along and weedle their invitations for Buck House garden parties.
And don't get me started on the Heritage/National Lottery!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Up and Down
Age: 77
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Al R. English Heritage (EH) is the Government's adviser on historic and heritage matters. Perhaps you are unaware of EH's work on:
a. Guidance on the the management of historic military aircraft crash sites.
b. The EH RAF Scampton Historic Characterisation study.
c. EH's project to list (protect) 500 War memorials from the First World War.
d. EH's First World War "footprint" project to record the impact of the war
throughout the land.
If you argue that "the government" should be responsible then the best informed advice will come from EH.
Please try to hate a little less and to put forward evidence based arguments.
a. Guidance on the the management of historic military aircraft crash sites.
b. The EH RAF Scampton Historic Characterisation study.
c. EH's project to list (protect) 500 War memorials from the First World War.
d. EH's First World War "footprint" project to record the impact of the war
throughout the land.
If you argue that "the government" should be responsible then the best informed advice will come from EH.
Please try to hate a little less and to put forward evidence based arguments.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
It might be that you have fused the two separate strands of my post. I don't hate them at all (what a curious thing to suggest) and I used the word trust with a lower and with an upper case T. The idea that a local trust (or charity) should look after this chapel is appalling.
In the wider context, you provide a small but informative list of some examples of EHs work, thank you.
Isn't it the case though, that EH has been eager to hoover up work but is now stretched too thin? You asked for evidence.. to its credit, EH very quickly conceded it completely cocked up Stonehenge (quite important in the portfolio?) but seems generally, to be developing into a bit of a monster.
It might be that you have fused the two separate strands of my post. I don't hate them at all (what a curious thing to suggest) and I used the word trust with a lower and with an upper case T. The idea that a local trust (or charity) should look after this chapel is appalling.
In the wider context, you provide a small but informative list of some examples of EHs work, thank you.
Isn't it the case though, that EH has been eager to hoover up work but is now stretched too thin? You asked for evidence.. to its credit, EH very quickly conceded it completely cocked up Stonehenge (quite important in the portfolio?) but seems generally, to be developing into a bit of a monster.
This thread seems to be getting away from the original point! We are trying to support a petition to save the monument should the MOD find it can no longer do so!
If you support it then sign it. There is no petition for not saving the monument! If you want one you could always start one but I bet it would not get much support!
If you support it then sign it. There is no petition for not saving the monument! If you want one you could always start one but I bet it would not get much support!
Its highly likely that Soubry is on leave, as is the vast majority of the Govt and the Armed Forces. Her reply is likely being co-ordinated ahead of a return to work tomorrow when she can get more information.
She is, by all accounts, an excellent minister and one that everyone I know who has dealt with her has rated very highly as being passionate and in charge of her brief.
I wouldn't let a story breaking in the main leave season during a quiet time of year when many are away cloud judgement. The other point to note is that it would not necessarily have hit a Ministers desk to dispose of this site or others - without wishing to sound harsh, as this is a fairly routine process of disposal of a site no longer used by Defence, I'd argue wouldn't have needed to go to be briefed to a Minister who, IIRC doesn't lead on disposal of defence estate?
She is, by all accounts, an excellent minister and one that everyone I know who has dealt with her has rated very highly as being passionate and in charge of her brief.
I wouldn't let a story breaking in the main leave season during a quiet time of year when many are away cloud judgement. The other point to note is that it would not necessarily have hit a Ministers desk to dispose of this site or others - without wishing to sound harsh, as this is a fairly routine process of disposal of a site no longer used by Defence, I'd argue wouldn't have needed to go to be briefed to a Minister who, IIRC doesn't lead on disposal of defence estate?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we're over 10,000 signatures, then the department responsible, the MOD, are bound to provide a reply.
So I would expect the MOD to provide a written answer to the petition at the very least to provide transparency to the whole matter.
Al R - the MOD declared that they would be looking to stop supporting the Chapel in March 2016 accross several sources.
St George?s RAF Chapel of Remembrance
And page 3 midway down from the Airport Managing Director at:
http://www.johnwillis.co.uk/theclub/...ter01jan15.pdf
Are certainly mentioning it.
LJ
More e-petitions will receive written responses from the government, Commons Leader Andrew Lansley has announced.
Until now, there has been no formal obligation on government departments to respond directly to e-petitioners.
Any e-petition signed by more than 10,000 people will have a government response published alongside it, Mr Lansley said.
Until now, there has been no formal obligation on government departments to respond directly to e-petitioners.
Any e-petition signed by more than 10,000 people will have a government response published alongside it, Mr Lansley said.
Al R - the MOD declared that they would be looking to stop supporting the Chapel in March 2016 accross several sources.
St George?s RAF Chapel of Remembrance
And page 3 midway down from the Airport Managing Director at:
http://www.johnwillis.co.uk/theclub/...ter01jan15.pdf
Are certainly mentioning it.
LJ
The decision-makers behind this are, sadly, serving senior RAF officers. 'Cost of everything, value of nothing...'
Rather than dropping this PR disaster-bomb, this could have been much, much better handled by engaging with interested groups and providing a solution beforehand (Trust management, etc) rather than this omni-shambles - that is so wrong at every level!
Signed, btw - now just touching 12,000 signatures.
Rather than dropping this PR disaster-bomb, this could have been much, much better handled by engaging with interested groups and providing a solution beforehand (Trust management, etc) rather than this omni-shambles - that is so wrong at every level!
Signed, btw - now just touching 12,000 signatures.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Up and Down
Age: 77
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is impressive momentum in a very short period. And shows that the admirable purpose of this thread - to raise awareness of the MOD's intention to cease funding the chapel and to solicit support for the e-petition is being achieved.
In my view there is already not a snowballs chance of the chapel having to close. So the next question is about the best structure to keep it open, even more healthy than at present, and with long term security. I continue to believe that MOD is unlikely to be a reliable long term owner/guardian - they will be under almost impossible financial pressure from the Treasury over the next five years, probably more difficult than the last five.
There will be lots of alternative ideas. It would be remiss, in my view, to dismiss either English Heritage (EH) or the National Trust (NT) both of whom have fine records of success, just because of an initial cultural unease at the thought of a non-MOD body taking responsibility.
If you consider only Kent can you think of a better preserved or presented property ( with strong military links ) than Chartwell (NT), or a better preserved or presented military site than Dover Castle (EH). And Al R, I don't like to see the good folk who work and volunteer for NT and EH dismissed as motivated only by the opportunity to "weedle their invitations to Buck House garden parties".
In my view both EH and the NT are likely to prove more dependable long term guardians of the chapel than the Biggin Hill Airport Co., Bromley Council, or even Mr Bernie Ecclestone who owns most of the south-west side of the airfield (The West Camp I believe) and who has been most generous in the past.
Both NT and EH, as I said earlier, would bring respect, professional management, investment and repair when needed, and a proven approach to managing volunteers if needed.
In my view there is already not a snowballs chance of the chapel having to close. So the next question is about the best structure to keep it open, even more healthy than at present, and with long term security. I continue to believe that MOD is unlikely to be a reliable long term owner/guardian - they will be under almost impossible financial pressure from the Treasury over the next five years, probably more difficult than the last five.
There will be lots of alternative ideas. It would be remiss, in my view, to dismiss either English Heritage (EH) or the National Trust (NT) both of whom have fine records of success, just because of an initial cultural unease at the thought of a non-MOD body taking responsibility.
If you consider only Kent can you think of a better preserved or presented property ( with strong military links ) than Chartwell (NT), or a better preserved or presented military site than Dover Castle (EH). And Al R, I don't like to see the good folk who work and volunteer for NT and EH dismissed as motivated only by the opportunity to "weedle their invitations to Buck House garden parties".
In my view both EH and the NT are likely to prove more dependable long term guardians of the chapel than the Biggin Hill Airport Co., Bromley Council, or even Mr Bernie Ecclestone who owns most of the south-west side of the airfield (The West Camp I believe) and who has been most generous in the past.
Both NT and EH, as I said earlier, would bring respect, professional management, investment and repair when needed, and a proven approach to managing volunteers if needed.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Canadian, {ex RCAF} I tried to submit my voice but the site tells me I have to be a UK resident, having flown out of the "Hump" and feeling that enough of my fellow Canadians went missing flying from the place, can some kind soul PM me as to how I add my voice in protest about this outrage? Maybe Britain has another Rock Star with a sense of pride in his nation, unlike the total turds who are trying to close this memorial!
Last edited by clunckdriver; 4th Jan 2015 at 16:36. Reason: Miss spelt "Turds"!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also signed...... and saddened that the MOD has handled this in such a clumsy manner.
Sadly it would seem that the "Great British Public" at large are not concerned. Daily Mail circulation 1.47 million (sunday mail 2.28 million, but they may not be running with the story) compared with the 13K+ who have signed so far....many of whom, like me don't see or read the paper.
Need to put the story on shows like "The One Show" OK I don't watch that either but folks who do say it's watched by millions daily.
Sadly it would seem that the "Great British Public" at large are not concerned. Daily Mail circulation 1.47 million (sunday mail 2.28 million, but they may not be running with the story) compared with the 13K+ who have signed so far....many of whom, like me don't see or read the paper.
Need to put the story on shows like "The One Show" OK I don't watch that either but folks who do say it's watched by millions daily.
Don't knock it ROG - it is currently the highest scoring e-petition on the Gov website with over 680 signatures an hour!
Please see here for the scores: HM Government e-petitions
I somehow think someone in the 'Centre' or 'Head Office' or what other b0ll0x we're calling Main Building these days will be busy tomorrow. It will probably mean that the question will come into HQ Air at around 1500hrs on Friday to be answered by 1700hrs
Anyway, all positive news as far as I can see and hopefully there will be a sound plan hatched to ensure the Chapel's continuance under the eye of the MoD/RAF but looked after by a Trust. We've just got to keep the lobbying/petitioning going to ensure that this doesn't become yesterday's news before we go into purdah for the General Election.
Current 15,668
LJ
PS. Tiger Mate for MBE?
Please see here for the scores: HM Government e-petitions
I somehow think someone in the 'Centre' or 'Head Office' or what other b0ll0x we're calling Main Building these days will be busy tomorrow. It will probably mean that the question will come into HQ Air at around 1500hrs on Friday to be answered by 1700hrs
Anyway, all positive news as far as I can see and hopefully there will be a sound plan hatched to ensure the Chapel's continuance under the eye of the MoD/RAF but looked after by a Trust. We've just got to keep the lobbying/petitioning going to ensure that this doesn't become yesterday's news before we go into purdah for the General Election.
Current 15,668
LJ
PS. Tiger Mate for MBE?