Church Broughton

[Ossington_2008]

Church Broughton Apr 90

This is one of those places that was recognisably an old airfield, then has been suddenly redeveloped. Mind you, the A50 has improved...














Quite sad if you check it today on Google Earth.

[CDP]

Noel and self went past there earlier this year as we thought there might be SOMETHING tangible but no, not really. Your fourth photo down Ossington is pretty much it now and we only found those dispersals by accident! There's a small stump of runway but that's about it. Does anyone know if there may be a memorial somewhere locally?

You're quit right Ossington - satellite imagery doesn't make it look any better does it?

Chris

[norwichpaul]

Chris, u on the right thread or is it me? I thought this was Broughton? If it is Broughton, the Iris or Romney sheds in pic three are post-war, erected by the army

[CDP]

Definitely Church Broughton Paul. The three frying-pan dispersals in the fourth photo down, to the north of the site, are a bit of a giveaway, along with the stump of runway and as Ossie mentions, the A50 is "much improved" - it cuts straight through the south side of the airfield site (it's a dual carriageway these days). Unless you know the area well, it's a bit of a chuff to get on and off of it if you're trying to find the site! Ossington did it the right way - from the air!

"JCB has acquired a 12-acre site at Church Broughton, Derbyshire, to manufacture diesel engines, and 100 jobs will be created at the newly-formed JCB Power Systems division. 27-Jan-2004" (from UK Business Park - UK Activity Report).

A little further down the same document comes "Toyota is considering plans to expand production at its Burnaston car factory in Derbyshire, which could involve the addition of a third shift. 07-Mar-2002"

I'll try and find some more up-to-date information when I get a spare minute. As I asked in my previous mail, and this goes for Burnaston now - any memorials anywhere for these sites?

Chris

Chris

[PNK]

Are those hut bases in pic6? They look thrown in the air to see where they fall.

Peter

[Ossington_2008]

I think it was deliberate policy to avoid that "military look" on some dispersed sites, at least for part of the war. Do we have a forum camouflage expert?

[norwichpaul]

Well its funny you should say that PNK, as in 1933, the country's leading architects who were on the Preservation of Rural England Comittee were invited by the Air Ministry to comment on the architectural style of the buildings at Upper Heyford and Abingdon, the offiicial comment was something like: 'it looks as if the RAF had got their builder up in one of their planes and dropped a pile of bricks onto the airfield'!

[norwichpaul]

I think it was deliberate policy to avoid that "military look" on some dispersed sites, at least for part of the war. Do we have a forum camouflage expert?

Yes I am here, what is it you need to know Mr Ossington?

[Ossington_2008]

Why are some dispersed sites laid completely at random and others more precisely aligned? Was there a change of policy date?

[norwichpaul]

The random or dispersed approach is a form of passive defence whereby the huts face different directions to improve the sleeping airmen's chances of survival at night during a suprise air-raid . This planning generally dates from between 1939 and the end of 1942. Generally speaking huts erected after that date and particularly those erected for US forces are arranged in lines or curves, by this time the threat of night attacks on our airfields had fallen, that is up to 1944 when dispersal yet again became the order of the day leading up to D-Day. Off course pre-war hutted camps are nearly always in lines (following the old army line principle).