Memorandum submitted by Southwold Parochial
Church Council
We are aware of the response to the Committee
made by The Archdeacon of Suffolk and his colleagues from the
Diocesan Advisory Committee and feel that it may be of relevance
for the inquiry to hear of the effects of current attitudes on
a rural parish such as our own.
St Edmund's is a beautiful Perpendicular church
dating from the 15th century, listed Grade 1. It is rather unusual
for a mediaeval church in that it is the result of a single building
phase and completed in a single architectural style. It is treasured
by the Parish which lavishes a great deal of voluntary effort
and money (averaging £90,000 a year) on its upkeep. St Edmund's
is very fortunate to have very generous benefactors (living and
deceased) for the restoration and maintaining of the fabric. This
means that we have had no need, for over 25 years, to ask for
support in this task. We are indeed grateful for the recent relief
of VAT on our repairs.
The Church is visited by over 30,000 visitors
each year, many of whom may think of it as a museum. In fact there
is a vibrant approach to worship with traditional and contemporary
services. Of an adult population of 1,300 there is an average
church attendance of 250 each Sunday, some of whom are second
home owners or on holiday.
For nearly eight years the PCC has been trying
to find a way, acceptable to English Heritage, to build facilities
both to increase the suitability of the building for the wider
community, and to bring the environment for the younger members
of the church into the 21st century. This would include Toilet
and Kitchen facilities, a flexible meeting area for Sunday School
classes, small church meetings and coffee after services (not
interfering with following services) and storage facilities for
archives.
The Diocesan Advisory Committee has accepted
our statement of need with regard to these facilities but the
proposals advanced by the architects they themselves suggested
and by others proved impractical or aesthetically unacceptable.
Four separate schemes (inside, outside and underground) have been
turned down. By contrast, the approach, to build in the Churchyard,
which has seemed to many, including church authorities and the
Church architect to be most suitable on both practical and aesthetic
grounds has been rejected out of hand by the English Heritage
officer who has been unable to make any realistic alternative
proposals.
One reason for the English Heritage objection
is the fact that the church has a hall on the edge of the Churchyard
which in theory could provide all the facilities. The distance,
door to door, along present paths is 166 metres. For many septuagenarians
(and much older) as well as for young children needing to be accompanied,
it is just not acceptable to have to make such a journey in our
normal winter conditions. In addition we only have use of the
Hall for nine months of the year as the Southwold Theatre is in
residence from mid June to September.
In addition, if we do not make adequate toilet
provision within sensible reach of the Church, it is clear that
soon, because of regulations, it will no longer be possible to
use the Church building for concerts and other such public functions
(as it is used regularly at present), so defeating the aim which
we share of developing the community use of the building.
The "lack of confidence or expert knowledge
to deal with such bodies", in a PCC, referred to in the Archdeacon's
paper is absolutely relevant in our case. We are at a complete
loss when faced with absolutely no respect shown for the church
or local community needs in the 21st century. The "authority
which English Heritage and other agencies wield" is even
further out of proportion as we are not looking for any funding
from them and, as we have said, have not received any for at least
25 years.
We regard it as unacceptable that a body with
no concern whatever for the use of the building by the people
who care for it sacrificially and who have proved their care of
it over many years should be able to dictate conditions to us
in such a way that ultimately we shall not be able to sustain
the vibrancy of the very congregation on which the long-term care
and maintenance of the building depends. We echo the Archdeacon's
call for a balance to be struck with equal understanding on both
sides and agree that, in the long run, "making good use of
a building is the best way to guarantee conservation".
9 January 2006
| 
