|
|
|
Anxieties Over the Closure of Tweedsmuir Camp Abstract When Tweedsmuir Camp completed its WWII function the anxieties over its closure were felt by a broad spectrum of authorities, organisations and individuals. For the British Government, Tweedsmuir was but a tiny cog in a large wheel that assisted in the demobilisation of the Polish Resettlement Corps (PRC) whose personnel, for one reason or another, could not return to Poland. In this respect Clement Attlee's Labour government were less interested in Tweedsmuir the camp than in the dispersal of people it housed. Since Tweedsmuir existed on Ministry of Defence land, the War Office (WO) reserved the right to dictate just what it proposed to do with the site. Hence in early 1947 WO officials announced that they were keeping Tweedsmuir open for their employees (PRC personnel on record) at the Pay and Record Office, Witley in Surrey. But in so doing they failed to foresee the repercussions this decision would have on their relationship with the civilian authorities particularly the National Assistance Board (NAB). Under the Polish Resettlement Act of 1947
In 1949 this delicate relationship became serious when Tweedsmuir's population swelled by the arrival of Polish civilians, some of whom were dependants of PRC personnel. Yet despite this development the NAB persisted in having "nothing to do with the camp." As will be discussed in due course, this prompted the WO to declare that it would close Tweedsmuir by the last day of 1949. Upon hearing this news Tweedsmuir Camp's occupants turned to the Polish Combatants Association (PCA) to help them explain to British authorities why the camp should not be closed immediately. On 18 November 1949 the PCA copied a letter, in broken English, to those whom they considered could influence the imminent fate of Tweedsmuir Camp. When NAB officials received their copy of the letter, they immediately corresponded with the Ministry of Labour and National Service (MoL and NS). Having reiterated that they did not regard the rehousing of the camp's residents as the Board's "job" and highlighting that the WO were desirous of closing Tweedsmuir by the end of 1949, NAB officials asked the MoL and NS to resolve the problem "as a matter of urgency." This was the second time that the MoL had been approached by the Board for this purpose and on both occasions the MoL refused to oblige because of the lack of employment opportunities in the area for Tweedsmuir's tenants. By 1950 the NAB persuaded a number of local authorities throughout the UK to become involved in the question of rehousing the Polish tenants who at the time were living in army camps similar to Tweedsmuir. Consequently, Hambledon Rural District Council (HRDC) stepped in to become responsible for the administration of Tweedsmuir Camp. Records show that it was HRDC who brought about Tweedsmuir's eventual closure. The council soon found itself having to correspond with both the MoL and NS and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MoH and LG). For the MoL and NS the concern was one of finding appropriate employment for the heads of Tweedsmuir families. But, under NAB rules, employment without suitable accommodation could not be considered; ex-PRC personnel had to demonstrate that they had both alternative work (other than being employed by the WO) and alternative accommodation (other than in Tweedsmuir Camp), which they did not have. The matter became more involved because when, as in some cases, accommodation was provided by HRDC, the council was required to respond to national needs presided over by the MoH and LG. Individuals, both the camp's occupants and local people, had their own grievances. The head of each Polish family living in Tweedsmuir Camp was unfamiliar with Britain's social and political conventions hence experienced moments of uncertainty with regard to their future. For local people it was a question of facing up to HRDC as it used compulsory purchase orders in an endeavour to rebuild the district after a devastating war by providing houses for both local English families and families living in Tweedsmuir. These circumstances provided the backdrop to Tweedsmuir's closure. They were so complex and administrative policies so entrenched that for the authorities, closing the camp to everyone's satisfaction became a complicated procedure. It comes as no surprise, then, that the camp remained open for a further three or so years after HRDC declared Tweedsmuir would close. Post World War Two Immediately before the general election in July 1945, Winston Churchill pledged that Polish Army personnel both women and men, could, if they so desired, begin to rebuild their lives in the UK. Having lost the election, however, Churchill committed Clement Attlee's incoming Labour administration to accept the responsibility of accommodating thousands of Polish Army personnel as PRC 'enlistees' under British command. At the time of writing there seems to be little agreement regarding the number of personnel who eventually enlisted in the PRC. Arguably the most accurate statistics were published in a letter to Mr F Jones (NAB) on 14 February 1951 by the Ministry of Labour and National Service; six years after the war had ended. By this time "agreed figures" representing repatriates, emigres, those who had passed away and the like had given the MoL and NS an opportunity to complete a "final analysis" in the form of a table, which is reproduced below.
The arguments for creating the resettlement corps, the list for w hich opened in 1946 (Army Order 96 of 1946), are documented fully elsewhere and will not be discussed here. Surfice it to say that its purpose was to control the disbandment of the Polish Army, permitting its personnel to make a smooth passage from army life into British society. The political instrument that enabled this transition to take effect was the publication of the Polish Resettlement Act, which became law on 27 March 1947. It provided "for the application of the Royal Warrant as to pensions, etc., for the military forces to certain Polish forces, to enable the Assistance Board (NAB) to meet the needs of, and to provide accomodation in camps or other establishments for, certain Poles and others associated with Polish forces, to provide for their requirements as respect health and education services, to provide for making arrangements and meeting expenses in connection with their emigration, to modify as respect the Polish resettlement forces and past members of certain Polish forces provisions relating to the service of aliens in the forces of the Crown, to provide for the discipline and internal adminstration of certain Polish forces and to affirm the operation up to the passing of this Act of provision previously made therefor, and for purposes connected therewith and consequential thereon."
The phrase "certain Poles and others associated with Polish forces" used in the Act referred to thousands of Polish civilians, comprising in the main women, children and others who were regarded by the forces as 'non-effectives'. Many of them were dependants of PRC personnel who, during the war, were evacuated to safe havens such as Uganda and Kenya. Although exact figures representing the number of civilians permitted to join the PRC have not as yet been fully analysed, in 1946 the WO acknowledged a count of around 50,000 dependants. As a consequence, between 1946 and 1951, British authorities accepted responsibility for roughly 164,037 Polish citizens some of whom were still deciding what next to do with their lives. As a stop-gap remedy they were housed in military camps that were vacated by Allied Forces immediately after WWII; and so for some 170 PRC personnel and their dependants Tweedsmuir Camp became "home" for more than a decade. Administration Arrangements
Providing accommodation for over 160,000 people, for whom the English language and British culture in general were completely alien, proved a monumental task. In the first instance, central government (The Foreign Office and The War Office) devised a dispersal policy with regard to the PRC personnel. An integral element of the policy was to control the number of personnel in any one region of the United Kingdom. Subsequently the UK was nominally divided into five Home Command areas comprising Scottish Command, Northern Command, Eastern Command, Western Command and Southern Command. It was then possible to transfer an appropriate number of PRC personnel to the now vacant military camps in each Home Command. As shown in the graphic opposite, PRC matters in Tweedsmuir Camp were managed by Eastern Command. The policy framework established that all PRC affairs were to be administrated centrally by the Aftermath Liaison Section, PRC/PLF Affairs from offices in Egerton Gardens, South Kensington in London (PLF is an acronym for Polish Land Forces). Moreover, since, as a military corps, the PRC was under WO orders it was for WO officials to rule how best to execute the policy and, above all, help PRC personnel overcome the language barrier. Hence the PRC Inspectorate General, headed by General Kopanski, was counselled by WO staff who officiated from Ashley Gardens in Westminster, London. Witley Camp, a long established military site at the time and a little over 6 kilometres east of Tweedsmuir, acted as the PRC Pay and Record Office until the corps was officially disbanded on 30 September 1949. In conversation with Major (Retired) Franciszek Szuta, a WWII veteran, we discovered that he was one of many Polish administrators responsible for 'signing off' PRC personnel upon their demobilisation. Working alongside British Army staff and under the command of a British officer, he, like all Witley Camp administrators, was billeted there until the last few Polish soldiers became "civilianised" as documents of the era describe them. As civilians, ex-PRC personnel were obliged to abide by NAB rules that applied to all camps, hostels and establishments in which accommodation was provided for them. The same obligation applied to PRC dependants. A person who contravened or failed to comply with the rules was "liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and such imprisonment."However, since the WO announced to keep Tweedsmuir Camp open for army personnel, the NAB could enforce neither the rules nor the penalties for their contravention in the camp simply because Tweedsmuir was a WO responsibility. This stalemate between the military authorities and civilian authorities started a chain of events (best described as administrative 'ping-pong'), which lasted for more than a decade. Tweedsmuir Camp - Whose Responsibility? On 6 October 1947 Mr JE Protheroe, Ministry of Works (MoW), wrote to Mr GA Pepper, NAB, advising that camps Algonquin, Jasper, Laurentide, Ontario and Tweedsmuir had been taken over by the MoW with respect to maintenace and engineering services. Although he understood that the NAB were "not in a position to indicate adaptations which would be required prior to [...] the Board accepting responsibility for these camps", Protheroe requested to know when the NAB could approve proceedings. In his response to Protheroe, dated 8 October 1947, Pepper wrote, "This is the first intimation that I have received regarding Algonquin and Laurentide camps which your Department has taken over for maintenance services in accordance with the agreement centrally. As far as I am aware, the camps have not been allocated for the reception of family units and the Assistance Board will not therefore be interested in them.Despite using a civilised tone of phrase, Pepper made clear the Board's position by distancing it from the notion of Tweedsmuir being taken over by the NAB. To underline the matter, in the same month of the same year, October 1947, an administrator (name and office unknown) from the NAB wrote to the War Office contending that the Board wanted "nothing to do" with Tweedsmuir because the WO intended to take it upon itself to "civilianise" the camp. In 1948 two letters from the WO to the NAB cemented the Board's attitude towards Tweedsmuir Camp. The first, dated 22 January and addressed to a Mr Scanlan, brought out into the open an internal WO memorendum (BM/F1/1335 of 11 August 1947), stating that Tweedsmuir was not housing any civilian Polish people and that "no such cases had been reported to the
By the end of 1947 the NAB established a national procedure (RO 5A/47) for collecting maintenance fees from, and issuing "pocket money" (or an allowance for day-to-day spending) to, Polish civilians living in UK military camps. Having its roots in the Polish Resttlement Act, RO 5A/47 was an administrative policy which empowered the Board's Regional Officers to concern themselves with such financial matters. Notwithstanding the Assistance Board's precept that Tweedsmuir was a WO camp, by some quirky administrative omission the southern division's Regional Officer (RO) found himself assessing, for the whole of 1948, financial arrangements for the occupants of Tweedsmuir Camp. At about this time, the "slowness of the run-down of the PRC" had displeased both the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Labour. On 17 January 1949 they summoned Major-General McLeod (Head of the central advisory staff to the PRC) to a meeting "with the view to deciding what steps could be taken to accelerate the run-down." Four days later, in true tradition of an administrator, McLeod highlighted the matter in a letter to Administration Polish Forces at the War Office, outlining ways in which the problem was to be resloved. Meanwhile an internal NAB memorandum, dated 8 February 1949, from one Mr WJ Hartland to a Mr W Walton explained that Tweedsmuir was being used by family groups, comprising 166 people (72 males and 94 females). Hartland's memo disclosed that the family heads in the camp were "employed either by the WD or by outside (civilian) firms" and that the RO was dealing with "all of these cases under RO 5A/47 procedure. This procedure,wrote Hartland, seemed to fit the latter type of case but I asked Mr Bourn (London RO) why we were concerned with the collection of maintenance charges from WD employees. The reason given was that the WD only had authority to deduct 25 shillings (£1.25 sterling) in respect of maintenance charges from the wages of their employees. In the case of married employees it was therefore necessary for the requisite charges to be assessed under our normal procedure. We are not charged centrally by the WD for the single men [...] (unless they are employed by bodies other than the WD) but we are charged for the majority of married civilians and their families irrespective of whether or not they are employed by the WD. The only exception to this rule is that if a man and his wife (without children) are both employed by the WD they are housed together in the single person's camp (Jasper) and are regarded for maintenance purposes as two single individuals (ie the cost of their maintenance is deducted from their individual wages).Hartland finished his memo by stating that "the foregoing information" was noted on three files one of which was dated as early as 25 October 1948. Having consulted his documents and after discussions with his staff, Walton wrote a courteous but resolute letter to Labouchere on 4 March 1949. "On 3 February 1948, you wrote us a letter telling us you would let us know when a decision had been taken about Tweedsmuir Camp, but as yet nothing has been heard.Four days later, on 8 March 1949, Lebouchere responded by writing, "I must apologise for our failure to let you know the decision about Tweedsmuir Camp. The failure to do so was probably due to an assumption by us that you became aware of the position when it was decided that neither your Board nor the NSHC would take over responsibility for the camp for the reason that some of the occupants were the families of serving PRC.At the bottom of Labouchere's letter Walton had written a hurried internal note to one of his subordinate administrators that revealed his displeasure with the WO stance. "Mr Jones,From his hand-written note, it is clear that Walton recognised the Board's responsibility for the civilians in Tweedsmuir but concerned that, as an NAB representative, his persistance in having nothing to do with the camp was propelling the Board towards an administrative abyss. But then the WO announcement in 1947 to keep Tweedsmuir open for its employees at the Pay and Record Office Witley left him with few, if any, other options. Jones went to work immediately, discussing the matter further with Bourn. In a hand-written note, filed on 17 March 1949, he explained that Bourn made two points additional to those Jones had already made on 8 February.
Having updated and recorded on paper the situation as it existed in Tweedsmuir, Jones made a study of the correspondence on file. When he discovered that it was Scanlan who back on 22 January 1948 filed a letter from one Mr Haines (WO) in which was stated that there were no civilians housed in Tweedsmuir, Jones wrote to him. "Mr Scanlan (NB: Neither the notes of the divisional meeting nor the PL96/2 file exist any longer.) Scanlan treated the matter with urgency. On 22 March 1949 he wrote to Haines, explaining the situation as it existed up to that date. He quoted Haines' letter of 22 January 1948, reminding him of his assertion that there were no civilians living in Tweedsmuir. Scanlan then proceeded to highlight cases which involved the RO dealing with nearly 100 civilians, "most of whom (were) either employed by the WD or (were) the sons or daughters of (Polish people) employed by the WD." Continuing his letter, Scanlan wrote, "Presumably, therefore, these cases have been reported to 'F1' under the terms of the War Office memorandum."Haines took nearly 3 months to reply to Scanlan's query, presumbaly because of his endeavour to ascertain the exact facts and how best to respond. On 17 June 1949, he declared that the NAB paid the War Office 23 shillings (£1.15 sterling) per week for each of the men and 21 shillings (£1.05 sterling) per week for the women and children, and the Board received back "a sum not exceeding" 25 shillings per week for each man, 21 shillings per week for each woman and 7shillings and 6 pence (37.5p sterling) per week for each child. In a note to Jones, dated 18 June 1949, Scanlan wrote, "Probably the Board lose slightly in view of the large number of children. Has Polish Division any comments on Haines' letter, please?"(The financial loss to the NAB amounted to 67.5p {sterling} per week, per child.) Although there is no existing record of Polish Division's response to Haines' letter, it is clear from the available evidence that the NAB were now trying to "bring matters to a head with the War Office." NAB administrators were seeking "to clear the position at Tweedsmuir before issuing a circular to resettlement corps personnel telling them that RO 5A/47 procedure" would close on 30 September 1949; the date by which the PRC would finally be demobilised. In theory, the disbandment of the PRC should have spelled out the closure of Tweedsmuir Camp by 1 October but, as will be discussed later, this proved more difficult than at first anticipated. In his letter of 17 June 1949, Haines also suggested that the Board and the WO ought to agree to "regularise the (financial) arrangements at Tweedsmuir Camp" and intimated that "matters (collection of mantenance charges and issue of pocket money) should be left as they are since, in view of the impending disbandment of the Polish Resettlement Corps, it did not seem advisable to alter the system at that late date." On 6 July 1949 the NAB agreed to Haines' proposals. Despite their understanding that the WO were negotiating with HRDC for them to take over Tweedsmuir as a housing estate, Walton, Jones and Scanlan, on behalf of the NAB, were keen to draw up a plan that would assist the Board in relinquishing responsibility for Tweedsmuir. They decided in the first instance to write to the WO, explaining that the "a gency arrangements", which existed between the WO and the NAB, should cease as from 1 October 1949 (one day after the disbandment of the PRC). They also agreed that if the WO were successful in their negotiations with HRDC, the NAB "could transfer [...] some civilians" to hostels but only "if they wished to come." But the most important detail they agreed on was not to make any reference in their letter to the removal of the camp's inhabitants. Instead Walton, Jones and Scanlan decided to "let them (the War Office) raise the question of disposal of civilians." So, on 17 August 1949 Scanlan again wrote to Haines. In the second paragraph of his letter he said, "We [...] understand [...] that Tweedsmuir is the only military camp likely to be housing civilian (Polish people) after 30 September 1949 (when we anticipated War Office agency functions for the Board would cease). In order that we may wind up this section of the work, we would be glad if the War Office could make their own arrangements for housing their own civilian staff and their dependants, if necessary, from 1 Ocotober 1949. This would mean that the War Office would have no further claim on the Board for the maintenance of civilian (Polish people) in any Department camps after 30 September 1949. We hope you will be able to agree that after 30 September 1949, War Office agency arrangements on behalf of the Board should cease."On the afternoon of 7 September 1949 Haines telephoned Scanlan, saying that the WO was prepared to agree to Scanlan's suggestion and proposed to charge Tweedsmuir personnel the Board's rate of charges with effect from Saturday, 17 September. This cleared the way for WO 'agency' functions with the NAB to terminate completely after 30 September 1949. When Walton heard the news, he wrote in a memo, "this is a very satisfactory conclusion." Two days later, on 9 September, Haines confirmed the arrangement in writing.
"a widow with children under 16 years of age would be charged as at (d), and a widow without any children under 16 years of age will be charged as at (b)." (Since there is no record of the NAB agreeing these figures, and because the totals in Haines' letter are higher than those issued by the Board, one can only assume that the charges had been raised.) Having settled the financial situation at Tweedsmuir, on 21 September Haines wrote a subsequent letter to Jones in which he pointed out that, "the War Department (were) continuing to keep Tweedsmuir Camp open to accommodate Polish personnel who (were) employed at the PRC Pay and Record Office at Witley, together with the families of such personnel."He also made clear that the WD, "would prefer, therefore, that all personnel who become unemployed (discharged from the PRC) should be moved to other accommodation as early as possible and (that the WO were) looking into the question of removal, not only of those at present unemployed but also of those who will become unemployed as the staff as Witley runs down."Haines finished his letter by writing, "However, in the meantime we agreed that these personnel should remain at Tweedsmuir, and that your office at Guildford would provide individuals with sufficient funds to enable them to meet the War Office charges for their maintenance. We also agreed that the War Department would not make any issues of pocket money after 30 September 1949, and instructions to this effect will shortly be issued.In a brief note to Mr Hartland, Jones wrote the following at the bottom of Haines' letter. "This confirms conversation I had with Mr Haines. The WO will press the Ministry of Labour to find work and accommodation for their future 'discharges' and also the ex-PRC cases."Sixteen days after Haines sent his letter to Jones, 
Lieutenant Colonel Harborne OBE at the Aftermath Liaison Section, PRC/PLF Affairs, completed a lengthy, somewhat churlish letter to Walton at the NAB. Having summerised the situation at Tweedsmuir, Harborne continued by explaining that WO efforts to both place the heads of families in alternative employment and to have the camp taken over by the local authority had proved unsuccessful. He also pointed out that the WO was seeking an early closing date for Tweedsmuir Camp and requested assistance from the NAB to "solve the problem."
(Click the image to the right for an enlarged version of Harborne's letter.)
The NAB, however, would not be moved on their position regarding Tweedsmuir Camp. On the afternoon of 17 October 1949, Mr Ottley (NAB) responded to Harborne by writing, "We discussed your letter of the 7 October about the people in Tweedsmuir and perhaps you would like to have confirmation of what I then said.The WO responded in no uncertain manner. In what was arguably the most influential communique that determined Tweedsmuir Camp's future, on 14 November 1949 the Officer Commanding (no name available) Laurentide Camp, Witley, informed the Board's Regional Controller in London that the WO had issued instructions to close Tweedsmuir by 31 December 1949. The letter, which eventually stimulated interested parties into action, was brief and to the point. "Dear Sir,The NAB Regional Controller in London copied the communique to a Mr Campbell (position and office unknown) who penned a memorundum, which anticipated possible applications from Tweedsmuir's residents for alternative accommodation in other hostels administered by the Board. Campbell wrote, "The attached copy of a letter received from the Officer Commanding Laurentide Camp, Witley, has been received at this office via the Regional Controller, London (Outer). This copy is forwarded to Headquarters for information. The policy outlined by Mr Ottley in his recent letter to Lt. Col. Harborne has been noted at this office and appropriate action will be taken in connection with applications which may be received from residents at Tweedsmuir for admission to Board's Hostels."However, when Jones (NAB) read Campbell's memorandum he immediately wrote a note to Ottley, stating, "Please see Mr Campbell's minutes of the 18 Nov and enclosure."I agree - await developments", replied Ottley. The notice to quit their quarters was an enormous psychological blow to, and a pivotal moment for, the Polish families living in Tweedsmuir. Individuals reached out to others like never before, drawing strength to act as one communal group.
When Ottley read the letter from the PCA, he wrote to Mr Stewart at the MoL. "The only solution to this problem would appear to be the setting up of a Housing Estate and in this connection I should like to refer to Walton's letter to you of the 31 May 1949, enclosing a copy of a letter from the Town Clerk, Godalming, in which he asked whether it would be possible for camps in the Witley group to be used as temporary housing accomodation. Bailey (MoL) replied on the 19 June 1949, stating that the employment opportunities in the area did not warrant the setting up of Housing Estates.Since Stewart's response no longer exists, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how the situation as outlined in Ottley's letter was resolved. What is clear, however, is that by mid 1950 Tweedsmuir was taken over by HRDC. The documents available in the National Archives, Kew, provide an insight into the bureaucratic mechanism that permitted the council to become involved in a site that the NAB saw as a military camp. By this time the Board's "main line of attack" had "been to persuade local housing authorities to accept Polish families [...] as candidates for council houses and to persuade eligible families to apply for a place on the waiting lists."It was within this context that HRDC was prevailed upon to both act as a reconciliatory body and to change Tweedsmuir's designation from a military camp to a temporary, civilian housing estate. One of the conditions that each family head had to satisfy before registering with HRDC as a potential council tenant was to show that he "worked in the local area." On 25 May 1950 the MoL and NS appointed Mrs Mackay as Welfare Officer with the responsibility of looking after the well-being of those individuals who continued to call Tweedsmuir Camp 'home'. After more than two years of toe-to-toe argument and counter argument the question of just who was going to accept responsibility for Tweedsmuir Camp seemed to have been settled. Progressing Towards Closure Like other county councils HRDC relied heavily on the work managed by various committees, and the dissolution of Tweedsmuir was no different in that it was overseen by a housing committee. Captain G Davies was its Chairman and Major-General W Cave-Browne Vice Chairman. Intriguingly, Cave-Browne was present at the meeting held on 19 March 1941 when the construction of Tweedsmuir was being discussed with Canadian Corps Commanders (see 'Construction of Tweedsmuir Camp' section of this website). Other members of the committee included such dignitaries as Commander R Slayter, Lady Midleton, Brigadier G Portman, The Honourable Mrs B Loyd and The Reverend Stanley Hide. They met at the Council Offices in Bury Fields, Guildford, Surrey. Having taken over Tweedsmuir as a housing estate, HRDC started by dismantling unoccupied huts and rehousing some of the families in private accommodation as they could. In truth the process of dismantling the camp had several effects. First, it sent a message to those who remained that the camp's life expectancy was short-lived. Secondly, it prompted the Tweedsmuir community to gain confidence in seeking a life outside the camp. And thirdly, it demonstrated to the WO that the matter was finally being resolved and that it was only a question of time until the whole site was demolished. Nonetheless in May 1950 Major Green (WO) telephoned Jones (NAB), saying that "he had been talking to the (demolition) contractors who stated that we could not dismantle all the huts for twelve months!" Although there are no reasons given as to why, the housing committee's minutes for 1951 provide a tantalising insight into a possible explanation. At about the time when demolition of Tweedsmuir's barracks was tem porarily suspended, the housing committee received two letters from the MoH and LG. The first, from the housing minister himself, referred to the council's housing programme for 1952 and 1953. It urged "the use of bricks, particularly local bricks, in the construciton of houses." The second letter was sent by the the Principal Regional Officer of the MoH and LG, "asking whether the council proposed to include Cornish Unit houses (from precast concrete) in the 1953 or 1954" building programme. The housing committee appointed a sub-committee to investigate, and report back their findings on, the use of Cornish Units. Towards the end of 1952, on 8 December, the sub-committee tabled its findings, saying "that in their opinion there was nothing to recommend the erection of these houses in preference to traditionally built houses apart from the speed of erection."As a consequence the housing committee "resolved that such houses be not built in the Hambledon Rural District."But building houses from traditional materials would have required more careful planning over a longer period of time. Thus for HRDC to have dismantled the barracks in Tweedsmuir with no suitable, alternative accomodation for the Polish families to move into would have caused further chaos. In addition, since Tweedsmuir was one of four such sites in the Hambledon Rural District (Laurentide Camp, Witley and Dunsfold Aerodrome also housed Polish families at the time), the problem of providing suitable accommodation would have become unmanageable. So despite the War Office desiring to close Tweedsmuir by the 31 December 1949, when the issue of rehousing Polish families was "becoming one of urgency", it wasn't until the end of 1952 and the start of 1953 that HRDC sought a solution to the problem in earnest. In the meantime the housing committee was resolving a number of issues concerning accommodation generally. For example,
The housing committee considered many sites upon which to erect houses. Clappers Meadow in Alfold, Portsmouth Road in Milford and Roke Lane in Witley were three such locations. Two other sites comprised the "Nursery site, Elstead" (as referred to by the housing committee) postioned between Ham Lane and the B3001 Milford Road, and the Springfield Estate situated directly opposite the junction of Ham Lane and Milford Road. Understandably, several owners were at first "unwilling [...] to sell to the council, by agreement, land in the vicinity of the Nursery site" and an adjoining estate called Elstead House. In these cases the council consented to issue compulsory purchase orders as required and, in one case, to serve a notice to treat. After reviewing the issue, Messrs Smallpeice and Merriman (solicitors) advised the committee "to take no further action in the matter" and the Engineer and Surveyor was "asked to report to the next meeting of the general purpose committee in order that a date might be agreed upon for taking possession of (the) land." Ultimately, in 1953 HRDC purchased the site "at a negotiated price thus saving the need of a compulsory purchase order." A similar situation arose at Roke Lane, Wiltley where the acquisition of land came to a temporary halt because of an objection from the authorities "of St. George's College Preparatory School", which called for the housing committee to recommend that "a compulsory purchase order be made in respect of the reduced area of land now required." According to council minutes, the MoH and LG authorised the demolition of Elstead House "in the interest of economy and increased housing accommodation." And on 6 June 1954 the housing committee minuted that "on receipt of this authority, the work had been commenced." Other transactions regarding land in the locality of the Niursery site were less fretful. For instance, a successful meeting was held "between the Engineer and Surveyor, Mr Gocher, his solicitor and the Clerk upon the acquisition of the piece of land next to Elstead House Cottage and the suggested settlement by the District Valuer was accepted."Notwithstanding the difficulties of aquiring land for redevelopment, preliminary plans were being pressed forward as rapidly as possible. On 9 February 1953, for example, the housing committee received a letter "from Mr JB Proper upon sundry details relating to the development of the Nursery site at Elstead and it was resolved to hand a copy of the letter to the Engineer and Surveyor for his attention."By the following month, on 9 March, a tentative layout plan "was submitted by the Engineer and Surveyor for the Nursery site, Elstead which was agreed in principle subject to the aquistion of further land and to the access road being made under the 'Private Street Works Act' to ensure that half the cost (was) borne by the owners of the private properties benefitting thereby."Just as HRDC was getting to grips with the whole question of rehousing the Polish families, it received a letter from the MoH and LG, stating that "no further expenditure would be allowed upon the huts at Dunsfold Camp and the huts at Tweedsmuir Camp." This threw into disarray the council's plans for the use of non-traditional houses, expenditure and locating appropriate sites whereon houses could be constructed. "After considerable discussion (the council) agreed that the letter be accepted and it was resolved to recommend that the occupants of the huts at Dunsfold Camp be rehoused in accordance with the policy already laid down and that the huts, as vacated, be demolished and that when the camp has been cleared, the same policy be applied to Laurentide Camp and to Tweedsmuir Camp. It was felt that to expedite this policy, some sites should be found whereon some non-traditional houses could be erected."The absence of financial support for Tweedsmuir brought with it a range of problems. Having lived in the camp as children of parents who were ex-PRC personnel, we witnessed the camp's infrastructure deteriorate over the last few years of its existance. For example, drains became blocked, lavatories failed to flush and barracks awaiting demolition fell into irreversible disrepair. The building programme undertaken by HRDC was now more urgent than ever before. In an endeavour to move the schedule forward, on the same date as it received authorisation for demolishing Elstead House (6 June 1954), the housing committee agreed names for the roads that were to be constructed on the Nursery site. The minute reads, "Upon consideration of recommendations from Elstead Parish Council it was resolved that the principal road to be construc ted [...] be known as 'Broomfield', and that the cul-de-sac be known as 'Hazelwood'.The housing programme at Elstead was now moving at a brisk pace. In 1954, for example, the housing committee agreed,"in principle", revised layout plans for the Nursery site which included,
When, on 10 May, the above layout plans for the Nursery site and Clappers Meadow had been accepted by the housing committee, the Engineer and Surveyor tabled a draft design for a proposed one bed roomed bungalow "for erection in pairs", which again the committee adopted in principle. The accommodation plans that were being prepared by HRDC had to fall in line with central government policy. On 24 August 1954 the housing committee discussed a memorandum it received from the MoH and LG, which asked for particulars that related to "the number of houses to be erected by the District Council during 1955 for the specific purpose of,
"let contracts for 90 houses; a figure having been arrived at after bearing in mindDespite the Regional Officer (MoH and LG) mentioning that he regarded these figures as "provisional and tentative", the council recommended that the best way to apportion the 90 properties would be to use 25 of them "for housing hut dwellers, 20 for rehousing the occupiers of Category '5' houses and 45 for ordinary housing applicants." Thus only 28% of the houses built on the Nursery site in Elstead were allocated to families from Tweedsmuir Camp. There were three reasons why the percentage of houses assigned to Tweedsmuir families was so low. First, most family heads decided by this time to relocate to other parts of the UK; London being the preferred choice. Second, HRDC's policy towards rehousing these families focused on the fact that "the occupants should be dispersed throughout the district so that each parish takes its share of the occupants from the hutments. The Clerk was instructed to discuss the problem with the Engineer to ascertain the estimated flow of completions of council houses so that a broad policy of dispersal be based upon his report."The third reason for offering such a small percentage of houses in Elstead to Tweedsmuir families stemmed from the council's 'dispersal policy' in which the core statement in the housing committee minutes, dated 7 May 1956, reads, "where existing houses are vacated by tenants who purchase houses or plots at Elstead, such existing houses should be allocated to Polish families."
The Agreement and Schedule of Conditions of Building Contract for constructing the final phase of Hazelwood (the cul-de-sac on the Nursery site in Elstead) and erecting houses thereon was signed on 29 April 1959 between HRDC and Benjamin George Merriman of Churt, Surrey. Later that year, and towards the middle of 1960, houses in Hazelwood were nearing completion and prepared for sale. Although the exact number of Tweedsmuir families who moved to Hazelwood has proved difficult to trace, the fact that a few had shows that Tweedsmuir Camp existed as a post war Polish family housing estate beyond 30 September 1957; the date by which HRDC announced Tweedsmuir would close. Despite these last few gasps of Tweedsmuir's existance, one or two families continued to live in the barracks. As agreed by the council in 1955, these families were eventually relocated to other parishes in the district, Thursley being one. Concluding Comments From public records the issue of rehousing the families who lived in Tweedsmuir Camp immediately after World War Two by HRDC was part of a much larger scheme, which included a range of proposals and actions. Although most families' lifestyle changed for the better after leaving Tweedsmuir, many who once lived there still regard the camp as a special place. On a visit to the site in 2006, for example, we met a family who were picnicking on the edge of the parade ground. In conversation, the family head informed us that as an infant he lived in the camp for a short spell with his parents. Soon after he was born his family moved out of Tweedsmuir to live in Hammersmith, London, returning most years to spend their summer vacations with Mr and Mrs Keler who occupied the first barracks on the left of Tweedsmuir's southern entrance and who have since emigrated to Australia. In a recent telephone conversation, Mr and Mrs Keler's daughter admitted that on visits to the UK she still feels Tweedsmuir's magnetic influence, having to go there for no other than nostalgic reasons. We k now of other second generation off-spring who also visit the remains of Tweedsmuir Camp. They may simply take a casual walk through the area, pick wild, edible mushrooms, or take a detour to drive past the camp's entrances and glance at the now deserted place they once lived in. Like us, for some bizarre reason, they continue to have an affection for the piece of land that was once Tweedsmuir Camp. |
 |
Copyright © 2007: Zen and Wies Rogalski Last Revised on 3 November 2007 |
War Office 'F1' Section." In the second letter, dated 3 February, Colonel Labouchere OBE, Deputy Administrator, Polish Forces, War Office affirmed that as soon as the WO made a decision about what they proposed to do with Tweedsmuir Camp they would let the NAB know. For the moment then, as far as the NAB were concerned, the camp was housing army personnel for which the Board had no responsibility.
