The Dioceses Commission
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Dioceses Commission Review Report No. 2: Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Sheffield and Wakefield November 2010 Contents Contents page List of Maps 1 Notes on Statistics 1 Foreword 2 1. The Dioceses Commission and its Yorkshire Review 3 2. Bishops and Dioceses in the Church of England 10 3. History of the Secular and Diocesan Boundaries in Yorkshire 27 4. Yorkshire as a Whole and South Yorkshire (The Diocese of Sheffield) 37 5. The Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds and Wakefield 41 6. Our Primary Recommendation 52 7. Bishops, Archdeacons and Episcopal Areas 64 8. Cathedrals 84 9. Boundaries between Dioceses 91 10. Implementation 111 11. Summary of Recommendations 114 12. Conclusion 119 Appendix Review Team Meetings and Evidence 121 Contents Maps Figure 1: The Ridings of Yorkshire 29 Figure 2: The Dioceses of Yorkshire 36 Figure 3: The Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Wakefield and Sheffield 40 Figure 4: Rail Network Map for West Yorkshire 43 Figure 5: Bradford and Wakefield Parishes in the City of Leeds 67 Figure 6: The Proposed New Diocese 79 Figure 7: Boundary with the Diocese of Blackburn 92 Figure 8: Boundary with the Diocese of Carlisle 94 Figure 9: Boundary with the Diocese of Durham 95 Figure 10: Boundary with the Mowbray Deanery 97 Figure 11: Eastern Boundary of the Leeds Archdeaconry 101 Figure 12: Parishes in the South of the Selby District 103 Figure 13: Boundary between the Dioceses of Sheffield and York 105 Figure 14: Boundary between the Diocese of Sheffield and the Diocese of Wakefield 107 Notes on Statistics 1. In calculating population figures, Output Areas (OA) were allocated to parishes based on the population centroid. The 2001 census population figure was then multiplied up such that OA populations summed to mid-2009 lower super output area (LSOA) populations. Whilst this figure will inevitably contain some errors at the parish level – since OAs are allocated as a single unit and not apportioned where they straddle parishes and population growth cannot be considered below the LSOA level – estimates can be considered as robust at the deanery level. 2. Data on clergy come from two sources. Stipendiary clergy data come from payroll information and non-stipendiary clergy data from Crockfords. Both sets of figures are correct as at 31 December 2009. 3. Data on parishes, benefices and the electoral roll come from annual parochial returns collected by the Research and Statistics Department of the Archbishops’ Council, as published in Church Statistics 2008/9 . 1 Foreword Foreword It has been a privilege to chair the new Dioceses Commission in this important review of the Yorkshire dioceses. In its work the Commission is required to ‘have regard to the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England’, 1 and it was for the sake of the Church of England’s mission to the people who live in the four dioceses concerned that the Commission embarked upon its task. The review and its conclusions are mission-led and not finance-driven (though mission needs to be financed, so financial considerations cannot be ignored). We have asked which structures will best enable the Church of England to relate to the communities of Yorkshire (not just in the parishes but also at city, borough, district and county levels), which will be most intelligible to non-churchgoers, which would eliminate wasteful duplication, and which are likely to prove resilient and sustainable into the medium term. I wish to express my thanks to all who have contributed to the report: the other members of the Review Team and of the Commission, each of whom has contributed important expertise; the Commission’s staff, in particular its able Secretary; and other staff in Church House – especially in the Legal Office, the Research and Statistics Department and the Church Commissioners’ Mapping Department. Our work has offered fascinating insights into the interface of church structures not only with history and ecclesiology but also with geography, sociology and local government issues. For the Review Team it has been a privilege to hold conversations with bishops and their senior staff, council leaders and chief executives, and leaders of other churches, and to meet many of the rural deans and deanery lay chairs of the dioceses concerned, as well as significant numbers of parish clergy and lay representatives – around 250 people in all. We are grateful for their time and their frankness, as well as to those who wrote to us with reflections and suggestions. Some of the aspirations that were expressed to us might at first sight appear to be in conflict – for a mix of urban and rural areas within a diocese and yet for focused attention to rural or urban issues, for example; or for episcopacy that is close to the parishes and yet for structures that offer economies of scale. We hope that in each case our recommendations will fulfil both aspirations. Our report plays back much that was said to us – sometimes, perhaps, things that many have been thinking but which may not always have been articulated in local discussions. It is the fruit of a year’s work. We hope that it will be read, digested, reflected upon prayerfully, and debated thoroughly. We look forward to considered responses in the light of prayer, reflection and debate – continuing a two-way conversation between the Commission and the people of the dioceses concerned. PRISCILLA CHADWICK Dr Priscilla Chadwick Chair of the Dioceses Commission 18 November 2010 1 Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007, s. 1: General Duty. 2 1: Commission and Review 1 The Dioceses Commission and its Yorkshire Review 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 The Dioceses Commission is an independent statutory body established in September 2008 under the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007. One of its principal duties is ‘to keep under review... the size, boundaries and number of dioceses and their distribution between the provinces’. 1.1.2 During 2010 the Commission’s membership and staff have been as follows: Chair: Dr Priscilla Chadwick Vice-Chair: The Ven. Richard Seed, Archdeacon of York (to October 2010) Canon Professor Michael Clarke (from Nov. 2010) Elected members: The Revd Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford The Revd Paul Benfield Canon Professor Michael Clarke (to November 2010) Mr Michael Streeter (to October 2010) Appointed members: Mrs Lucinda Herklots The Revd Sarah Mullally, DBE Canon Professor Hilary Russell The Rt Revd Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Secretary: Dr Colin Podmore Assistant Secretary: Mrs Jo Winn-Smith (to September 2010) Mr Sion Hughes Carew (from September 2010) The Archdeacon of York did not participate in deliberations leading to recommendations regarding the Diocese of York. 1.1.3 Further information about the Commission and its work may be found at www.diocom.org 1.1.4 At its first meeting the Commission received from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York a paper offering some reflections on how it might undertake its duty to review the size, boundaries and number of dioceses. It agreed with them that it would be best to begin exploring specifically what will best serve the future mission of the Church in one or more areas where boundaries appeared to be problematic, rather than seeking to arrive at a theoretical view of the optimum size and distribution of dioceses and then attempting to apply that to the country as a whole. 1.1.5 The Commission’s work therefore began with an analysis of diocesan boundaries which compared them with the local government regions and the boundaries of ceremonial counties and unitary authorities and identified anomalies which might merit closer investigation. 3 1: Commission and Review 1.1.6 The Commission sent its paper on boundary anomalies to all diocesan bishops and invited them to comment on which region of the country should be priority for the Commission’s first review. The largest number of bishops suggested that the Commission should begin by reviewing the dioceses of Yorkshire, but it was also suggested that the boundary between the Diocese of Peterborough and the Diocese of Ely merited examination. 1.1.7 On 29 January 2009 the Commission announced that it would begin by examining the Peterborough-Ely boundary and then commence a review of the boundaries of the five Yorkshire dioceses. During 2009 it worked on its initial report on the Dioceses of Peterborough and Ely and also undertook preparatory work for its review of the Yorkshire dioceses. The review then began in the first week of January 2010. 1.1.8 So that this report could be published before the end of 2010, the Commission decided to limit its scope to the Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Sheffield and Wakefield. Consideration of the western and southern boundaries of the Diocese of York is included, but substantive examination of the Diocese of York (including its northern boundary) has been reserved for a subsequent report, which is expected to be published during 2011. 1.2 Aim of the Review 1.2.1 In the initial announcement of the Commission’s review programme, its aim was stated as follows: ‘The aim will be to establish whether the shape and boundaries of the existing dioceses tend to facilitate the Church’s mission to the people and communities of Yorkshire or whether different boundaries would enable the Church to relate to them more effectively. The Commission has no agenda to reduce or increase the number of dioceses, but rather to ensure the best configuration to the communities that the dioceses serve, which could involve merging existing dioceses and/or creating new ones.’ A note added: ‘In identifying the local communities to which the Church needs to relate, the Commission will look at how diocesan boundaries correlate with the boundaries of counties and unitary/metropolitan authorities and which configurations might best further the Church’s mission.