Memorandum submitted by the Churches Conservation
Trust
(A) THE
TRUST
The Churches Conservation Trust is the leading
charity conserving England's most beautiful and historic churches
which are no longer needed for regular worship. It promotes public
enjoyment of these churches, and encourages their use as an educational
and community resource.
The Trust cares for 335 Grade 1 or 2* listed
buildings in rural and urban areas across England. These are located
in 148 constituencies including two represented by members of
the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Trust maintains this
portfolio, comprising the largest collection of such buildings
in the country, with a total budget of only £5 million a
year.
Grant in aid from DCMS of just over £3
million and from the Church Commissioners of just over £1
million provides a welcome 80% of this amount, but a freeze since
2001 has resulted in a real terms budget cut every year. Our settlement
is expected to remain flat until at least 2008.
At the same time the Trust continues to take
on two or three additional churches each year. These churches
are only vested when all other options have been exhausted and
for buildings which are of such architectural, historic or archaeological
importance that they must be conserved for future generations.
The Trust has seven Trustees chaired by Frank
Field MP. They are Jenny Baker, Richard Butt, Matthew Girt, Robert
Gage, Richard Griffiths and Robert Reiss.
(B) REFOCUSING
THE TRUST'S
WORK
The Trust has changed dramatically in recent
years, from a body which purely conserved the ever-growing number
of historic buildings in its care, keeping them as they were on
the day they came to the Trust, to one which actively involves
local people and volunteers in the running of its churches and
seeks new, community uses to sustain them where appropriate. Its
organisation has also been substantially devolved to the regions.
Examples of the Trust's recent work range from
community regeneration projects in large urban buildings to tiny
rural churches beautifully conserved. The best example of the
first is the Grade 1 St Paul's Bristol—a wonderful Georgian
church which came to the Trust almost derelict and is now a thriving
community circus school and a focus for the regeneration of the
urban area in which it is situated. But there are also many small
town and rural churches, where the Trust has turned around years
of decline through its expert repair work and bringing together
of local volunteers and organisations to make new uses work. Examples
include St Leonard's Bridgnorth, which is fully booked for music
and arts events all year round, St Peter's Sudbury where locals
run a farmers' market and other events, and Becconsall All Saints
(Lancs) which provides a community centre for rural groups.
(C) THE
WIDER PROBLEM
The problem we face in the historic churches
sector is that there are significant numbers of historic churches
of national importance, still in use as parish churches, which
cost more in terms of money, volunteer effort (capacity) and expertise
than the local congregation or community can sustain alone. The
problem is growing steadily. About 30 redundancies take place
each year, the majority of which are found alternative uses by
dioceses. However more than 10% lack a straightforward alternative
use and are of sufficient national importance to merit consideration
for vesting in the Trust. Many more teeter on the brink of redundancy
with small and ageing congregations supporting growing repair
bills. Details of the situation are best described in Trevor Cooper's
"How do we keep our Parish Churches", published by the
Ecclesiological Society in 2004.
Clearly, with flat funding from Government and
Church, the situation is unsustainable in the long term. Two key
points about the problem:
1. It cannot be tackled purely from
the "top down". The sheer number of historic churches
in need of support, with their unique nature and history as community
buildings, means that the national bodies cannot solve everything
from the centre as they have tried to do in the past. Solutions
must also come through supporting and enabling grassroots community
involvement.
2. It cannot be tackled by one body
alone. The national bodies all have different roles in relation
to historic churches and have in the past ploughed their own furrow
to a great extent. There is now a much greater sense of working
together, with a number of joint fora looking at the problem and
some partnership projects emerging. But more change is needed
to forge a truly joint approach.
In answer to some of the Committee's specific
questions:
(D) PRIORITIES
FOR THE
HERITAGE WHITE
PAPER
With respect to historic churches, we believe
the key priority is to make a clear statement about the importance
of the contribution of Ecclesiastical heritage to the total heritage
of this country and the consequent beneficial effects that has
on regeneration, community cohesion, the landscape and local economic
activity.
It is also now a matter of urgency that the
current short-term and unsustainable approach to funding the repair
and use of historic churches is replaced by a long-term financial
settlement for the sector which ensures that:
(1) repairs to England's most important
historic churches are properly funded and
(2) government and Church funds work
together creatively to attract the maximum possible financial
support from private donors and other funding sources.
(E) FUNDING
Grant-in-aid for the Churches Conservation Trust
was frozen in 2001 and has been renewed on a three-yearly basis
at the same level ever since. The Trust is working energetically
to develop new sources of revenue and its current strategic plan
envisages these increasing by 20% over the next three years. But
the latest survey of the condition of our churches shows that
there is £5.5 million of necessary repair works which we
now cannot afford to fund. Clearly a continued freeze in Grant-in-aid
alongside growth in the number of churches in need of the Trust's
attention is not sustainable in the long term. The Trust needs
its sponsors to take a more strategic look at the levels of grant-in-aid
and agree with us a long-term formula which will ensure the Trust's
work can continue in the future.
One option might be for any future increases
in funding to be tied specifically to Trust projects which aid
the wider regeneration and community development goals of Government.
For example, the Trust spent £1 million of its own core funds
on the rebuilding of the Grade 1 Georgian church of St Paul's
Bristol and its conversion into a successful community circus
school. This complemented the £2.5 million coming from the
HLF to ensure that the project became a reality. St Paul's is
now the focus of a significant regeneration of this important
but seriously disadvantaged part of Bristol City Centre.
Could the Government refund the £1 million
of the Trust's funds on the understanding that it would be reinvested
in an equivalent project? Examples of new projects which would
benefit from this approach are:
— St James' Toxteth, at the centre
of the part of Liverpool which was torn apart by riots in the
'80s, a new partnership with Novas Regeneration and Liverpool
Community Spirit aims to convert the Trust's church into a multifaith
centre.
— All Souls Bolton, is a huge, inner
urban Victorian church which is unused and suffers regular vandalism.
It is the subject of a proposal by the Trust together with the
local Asian community to carry out major works to create a new
community centre and young people's facility at the heart of this
inner city community.
— St Mary's Ipswich is an empty mediaeval
church at the centre of the docks area regeneration. It is used
regularly for contemporary art exhibitions but lacks the basic
facilities such as heating, toilets and office space which local
arts and museum services need.
The Trust's greatest achievements in recent
years, such as St Paul's Bristol, Waterloo Christ Church (Liverpool)
and the stunning restoration of St Martin's Colchester, have come
about because of funding available from Heritage Lottery Fund.
HLF funding has provided the catalyst for those of our projects
which have most benefit for local communities and the economic
regeneration of the areas in which our churches are situated.
Our core funding alone allows us to keep churches wind and watertight,
but it's the help of HLF and other grant funders which allows
us to reopen them to local people. Our plans for achieving sustainability
and public use for several of our inner urban churches rely upon
such support being available at the initial stages.
We are concerned at the possible impact of the
Lotteries Bill currently going through Parliament, and of other
changes, on the amount of funding likely to be available from
HLF in the future.
(F) ROLES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
One way of looking at how Government, Church
and the charitable sector nationally might work together in the
future, is to look at what we have in the historic church sector,
and where the gaps are.
1. What have we got?
Iconic, underused public buildings
Over 11,000 historic places of worship, across
rural and urban communities, often at the geographical centre
of local life. Beautiful landmarks which define the English landscape,
intense vaults of history, archaeology, architecture and social
existence. Much loved, iconic, centres of quiet and of activity
which most people in the country want to keep and have access
too.
National infrastructure
We are also rich in national organisations with
a concern for the future of historic churches.[21]
This now includes bodies not traditionally concerned with historic
buildings, such as the Development Trust movement, who see heritage
as a key part of building community capacity. Out of this upsurge
of joint working has grown a common consensus on the way forward,
at least for the parish church, that we can sustain church buildings
best through enhanced and mixed use bringing in new support and
resources through a wider constituency of users.
Local good practice
Examples of where local communities and congregations,
sometimes aided by the national bodies, have sustained vulnerable
historic churches, have already been highlighted. There are many
more examples of once abandoned, historic churches which have
been brought back to life in this way. Lots of local organisations
and volunteers are successfully turning vulnerable churches around
and have developed tried and tested solutions, but examples are
localised and may not coincide with the most disadvantaged parts
of the country. There are also ideas and energy which remain to
be focused and social, community, regeneration, economic needs
which historic churches are well placed to meet.
2. What do we need?
The answer is to create more active, practical
partnership between the national bodies to support, advise and
replicate local, community-led solutions. The energy and the resources
lie at local and regional level. More so for churches than any
other heritage building—these are community buildings and
in many cases have been so for 1,000 years. What is sometimes
lacking locally is:
— Specialist expertise on conservation
of historic fabric.
— Knowledge about what is valuable
and why.
— Expert help on quality repairs and
adaptations.
— Entrepreneurial skills around fundraising,
identification of needs, new use seeking.
— Project management skills.
— Champions within key agencies, a
place on the agendas of the spending bodies: those concerned with
economic development, regeneration, community (RDAs etc).
— Pump-priming monies—sometimes
small, sometimes larger amounts to stimulate local fundraising
and help the poorer communities meet repair bills.
These are the things the national bodies should
provide, flexibly and in a way which supports, focuses and sometimes
energises local solutions. The national bodies of the future can
best care for historic churches this way, by being cross-sectoral
partners, trainers, advisers, hands-on helpers and quality assurers,
filling the gaps which exist locally.
(G) CONSERVATION
SKILLS AND
EXPERTISE
It is widely accepted that there is a dearth
of suitably qualified professionals with the skills to deal with
historic buildings. Many of the Trust's own professional building
consultants are in the latter half of their careers, and there
are few younger architects and surveyors coming through to take
their place. Conservation is not a popular specialism in the relevant
fields—architectural schools for example tend to produce
people who want to be the next Richard Rogers or Norman Foster,
and think that working with historic buildings is not creative.
We would argue to the contrary. The creativity needed to insert
new 21st century additions and make adaptations to a Georgian
church for a new use is immense. The heritage sector needs to
get this message across early on in the careers of potential building
professionals.
English Heritage, as the Government's sponsored
body on heritage matters and conservation, is, through its regional
offices, the most appropriate organisation to take on the role
of making conservation expertise and knowledge accessible to planning
officers, councillors and the wider community. We support the
Heritage Review's aims to provide sub-regional groups to share
expertise and best practice, and would hope that this can be extended
to informing those who have little or no expertise (see Protecting
the Historic Environment—Making the system work better).
We would urge caution in devolving this role to local conservation
officers given the inconsistency in skill and experience at that
level. The priority placed by local authorities on conservation
varies considerably. To take on this central role, and indeed
the other roles being proposed by the Heritage Review, increased
funding needs to be made available to English Heritage.
(H) CONCLUSION
When talking about government funding for historic
parish churches, the Bishop of London refers to the Church of
England as, ironically, "the most disestablished church in
Europe". Certainly the reliance which is placed on unsupported
local congregations to maintain such a significant proportion
of our heritage is considerable in comparison with our European
neighbours and, very probably, unsustainable.
What we hope to have demonstrated in our submission
is that the answer lies in improving support to those volunteers,
including carefully focused additional funding for repairs and
project management. It also lies in widening the constituency
of support at local and regional level to the community beyond
regular churchgoers and to the public bodies which are concerned
with regeneration and capacity-building.
In order to do that, we and the other historic
church bodies need help. With a relatively small amount of resources,
recognition from wider Government and a greater degree of certainty,
we could do so much more. Through promoting and supporting community
use and involvement in historic churches, we will not only ensure
their conservation for the future, but get more out of them for
all of us in the present.
17 January 2006
21 English Heritage, Heritage Lottery Fund, the building
departments of the Church of England and other denominations and
faiths, the Churches Conservation Trust, Historic Chapels Trust,
Historic Churches Preservation Trust, Friends of Friendless Churches,
County Historic Churches Trusts liaison group and many more voluntary
and community groups: a wealth of bodies across heritage, regeneration
and community sectors which are now working together in groups
including the Church Heritage Forum, the "Hoare's Bank Group"
of all bodies, the EH Places of Worship Panel and the All-Party
Parliamentary Group on Historic Churches and Chapels. Back
| 
