MPCP(20)27 Church Commissioners Mission, Pastoral and Church Property Committee Closed Church of St Pinnock St Pinnock (Diocese of Truro) Representations Concerning a draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Note by Harvey Howlett
Summary
(i) The Committee is invited to consider 20 representations (six against, ten in favour and four letters of comment) concerning a draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme providing for the sale of the closed church building of St Pinnock St Pinnock and part of the annexed land for educational, cultural and community purposes.
(ii) The representors against question the viability and achievability of the proposal, in particular its reliance on grant funding. They question the suitability of the proposed use with only limited external space and limited access and parking. They also raise concerns about the inclusion buried churchyard in the land to be sold with the building.
(iii) The letters of comment recognise that a use has to be found for the building but also have concerns about the sustainability of the proposed use and concerns on the impact of the use on the village. Historic England, consider that the suggested use of the church as a Forest School is a reasonable proposal, but raise strong concerns that the required repairs required will be a financial burden and may make the proposed use unviable. They consider that it is the responsibility of the Church of England to carry out such repairs in advance of sale.
(iv) The representors in favour support the proposed use which they consider will be beneficial for the local community and of value for local schools. The prospective purchaser also sets out the background to his proposed use and how the project is to be achieved and something of the funding and grant sources for what is proposed.
(v) The Archdeacon of Bodmin, writing on behalf of the Bishop of Truro has confirmed that the Diocese wish the draft Scheme to proceed notwithstanding the representations. She addresses the concerns raised and outlines the main considerations leading to the recommended disposal of the building, for the proposed uses.
1 (vi) The case has been examined by the Committee’s case sifting representatives who agreed that the representations may be considered on the basis of the papers alone.
(vii) In considering the representations, the Committee will need to have regard to the legislative requirement as to the suitability of what is being proposed. If the Committee considers the proposed use to be suitable in principle, it is still possible that the use might be unsuitable in the particular circumstances of this building because of its location or other factors relating to the impact of the use. These could include the potential for disruption and disturbance to the neighbouring properties.
(viii) The main issues to be considered are therefore, as follows:
• Is the proposed use of the building for educational, cultural and community purposes a “suitable” use within the meaning of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011? • Are the concerns expressed in the representation against the draft Scheme of such substance and weight that the proposed use is to be considered unsuitable for the building in this location? • Will the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England?
Recommendation
The Committee is invited to consider the representations and the issues set out in this report and, in the light of these, whether the draft Scheme should proceed.
2
Introduction
1. The Committee is invited to consider 20 representations (six against, ten in favour and four letters of comment) concerning a draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme providing for the sale of the closed church building of St Pinnock St Pinnock in the Diocese of Truro and part of the annexed land for educational, cultural and community purposes
2. The hamlet of St Pinnock lies in an isolated location some two miles west of Liskeard in east Cornwall and consist of a few cottages and some farm buildings. The Grade I listed church building, also dedicated to St Pinnock, stands on the east side of "The Square" an open area used for parking in the centre of the hamlet . A lychgate provides entry into the churchyard. The building consists of a 14th century west tower, 15th century nave and north aisle and a 16th century porch. It was restored by Hine and Odgers of Plymouth in 1881-2. The building is in the Perpendicular style and constructed of rubble stone with granite dressings. The roofs are covered with slate and clay ridge tiles. Internally, there are timber waggon roofs to the nave and chancel and the fixtures and fittings date mainly from the 19th century restoration. There is no stained glass.
3. Declared closed for regular public worship in February 2017, the Church’s future had been under consideration for many years with closure being considered in the early 1990s and in 2005. However, local opposition to closure resulted in renewed efforts to sustain a congregation at those times. However, by 2016, the two remaining members of the parochial church council indicted they could no longer continue and in the absence of other volunteers, they petitioned for the church to close. Upon closure of the church in 2017, the parish was incorporated into Liskeard. The building was marketed from December 2018 to May 2019, resulting in the current proposal.
4. The proposed purchaser intends to use the property principally as a Forest School, being a Learning Outside the Classroom location. The proposed purchaser is "Support for Learning Cornwall CIC" (company registration number 12039939) whose aims are to encourage children to be close to nature and to support those who would benefit from community and environmental programmes. The building would be used to host workshops and events for school, college and university groups, home-school partnerships, members of the local community and other groups such as scouts and guides.
5. Attached are:
Annex A Background to the case;
Annex B The report on the church building by the Church Buildings Council
Annex C The advice of the Statutory Advisory Committee;
3 Annex D A copy of the draft Scheme and accompanying note which includes a site plan;
Annex E An amended plan excluding one grave and suggested as an editorial amendment to the scheme should the Commissioners agree that it may proceed.
Annex F A copy of the letter referring the representations to the Bishop together with a copy of his reply including the proposal document from the prospective purchaser;
Annex G A Confidential Annex of financial information (circulated to Members only);
Annex R A copy of the representations; and
Annex S Supplementary Comments.
Representations Received
6. Following the publication of the draft Scheme in February 2020 the Commissioners received 20 representations (six against, four letters of comment and ten letters in favour.
The Representations against come from: • Doug Mills • Clare Knapman • Debbie Smith & Steve Richards • Lucinda Curtis • Lorraine Webber • St Pinnock Parish Council
The Letters of Comment come from: • Angela Whitehead • J E Bance • Catherine Gaskain • Catherine Marlow, Historic England
The Representation in Favour come from: • Lucy Williamson • Robert Kelly • Mike heard • Giles Merrifield • Vanessa Greenaway • Yve Metcalf • Carline and John Harrison • Brian Jewell • Charlotte Hill
4
• Rob Stevenson
Copies of the representations are attached at Annex R.
Summary of the Representations Against
7. Doug Mills raises concerns at the proposed financing of the project and the lack of secured grant funding casting doubt on the achievability and viability of the project. He also questions the lack of outside green space and the notes the absence of parking facilities in the square.
8. He also expresses disappointment that the building is said not to be of a quality to consider vesting in the Churches Conservation Trust and argues that residential conversion should be considered as the next best option.
9. Clare Knapman questions the use of a Forrest School as the principal objective of the proposal, stating that the church and its environs are entirely unsuitable for Forest School activities. She also raises concerns about the location of the project and argues that this is wholly unsuited to the level of activity proposed given the isolated nature of the building the difficulty of access down narrow lanes and the lack of designated parking with the land available in the village already used at full capacity by residents
10. She further raises significant concerns about the financing of the proposals and the lack of financial evidence available and suggests that the Parish Council should have sight of any business plan evidencing the viability, in assessing the proposals.
11. She suggests that the proposed use would be better accommodated at a neighbouring village through a collaborative use of existing hall facilities and also argues that, if the building cannot be preserved, than marketing for residential conversion should be considered instead.
12. Debbie Smith and Steve Richards raise concerns about the impact of additional vehicles in the village, noting that parking can already often be problematic without factoring in more vehicles that visitors would block or impede required access by the farm adjacent to the church. They also raise a concern that additional vehicles will pose a safety hazard.
13. They remain unconvinced that grant funding required would be used to improve and maintain the building so as to deliver the project.
14. Overall they feel that the proposed scheme will have a significant negative impact on the local residents in this quite hamlet and will not deliver the promises made.
15. Lucinda Curtis raises concerns over increased parking and the protection of her neighbouring property due to the increased visitors to the church.
16. Lorraine Webber also raises concerns about funding and viability of the project and the impact on her property. In addition she explains that she lives
5
at a small working farm next to the lychgate and does not want her principal access blocked or impeded arguing that any additional transport and mini buses will add to the problem.
17. She also sets out concerns former generations of her family buried in the Churchyard and raises concerns about this area being disturbed or treated disrespectfully
18. St Pinnock Parish Council seeks assurance that the future and alternative use of the building is beneficial to the parish and does not, in any way, disrupt the lives of those living in the hamlet. They note that there is no evidence of a sound business plan and no financial forecasting indicating the project is likely to succeed and no evidence that grant funding for the project has been secured.
19. They raise a concern about burials within the churchyard and questions whether it is lawful for the land to be sold if it contains reserved burial plots.
20. They also note that the site has no specific parking area and ask how many vehicles are likely to be connected to the project that require parking spaces?
21. The Council states that the sale of St Pinnock Church should not proceed without confirmation of these points, and assurance these matters have been dealt with.
Summary of the Letters of Comment
22. Angela Whitehead writes out of her personal sentiment for the St Pinnock Church and from her longstanding family connections with the church and with generations of her family buried in the two churchyards, graves she attends regularly. She would like see the church kept maintained and used but has great concerns for what may happen in the future and the viability of the proposed use.
23. She states that she would in part prefer the building to be allowed to decay but recognises that as Grade I listed building this would not be allowed. She notes concerns of parishioners regarding the parking space required for the proposed activities, and the worry about the funding for educational establishments to be able to attend such out of classroom sessions.
24. J E Bance accepts that the proposals are broadly workable he is concerned that the proposed Forrest School and other activities should be limited so as to exclude night-time events and also that transport provision to the School should minimise the impact on parking for local residents. He wishes to ensure that no other commercial activities are permitted at the building now or into the future and if the business activities cease that the future of the building should be secured through residential conversion
25. Catherine Gaskain is also torn with the idea as she would like to see the Church looked after and saved but does not see how this can be viable without increased traffic and parking.
6
26. Catherine Marlow, for Historic England, in a substantial representation detailing the mitigations and caveats necessary to secure the use, consider that the suggested use of the church as a Forest School, with associated adaptation to its interior and the use of some land within the church yard is a reasonable proposal. They have strong concerns that the repairs required to improve the church's condition, and for it to be removed from the Heritage at Risk register, will be a financial burden to such an educational organisation and may make the proposed use unviable. They consider that it is the responsibility of the Church of England to carry out such repairs in advance of sale to de-risk the situation, as previously outlined in earlier correspondence.
Summary of the representations in favour
27. Robert Kelly supports the proposal and states that there are very few resources locally for children and teenagers to have access to 'out of the classroom' learning, and this would help bridge that gap.
28. Lucy Williamson, Mike Heard and Vanessa Greenaway all write from their knowledge of the work of the prospective purchaser and his team and support the proposals. Ms Williamson also states, having known the prospective purchaser for some years, that he has a proven track record of bringing creative and original initiatives to life with care, creativity and sensitivity and his reputation is well-deserved. She thinks he would successfully preserve the history and heritage of this site; make St Pinnock's accessible to children in a unique way and work closely with the community to garner their much-needed support and assistance.
29. Charlotte Hill writes as an education representative interested in collaborating on the project. She states that there are limited rural facilities available to support the community of Liskeard and surrounding area and writes that the proposed use of the church will make a positive contribution to the community and in particular children and their families for education and health and wellbeing purposes.
30. Giles Merrifield has lived in the village since 1987 and writes that this seems an entirely suitable alternative use whilst preserving the graveyard for visitors. He writes that the proposal for educational activity fits well with the wider purpose that the Church once played in the community and argues that it would be a shame if the site was to become a private residence.
31. He states that the issue of parking was never raised as a problem when the Church was in use and that under the current proposal the extra use of the car park will be minimal and will have no effect on residents.
32. Yve Metcalfe and Brian Jewell both write as local residents expressing support.
33. Caroline and John Harrison long term residents and members of the Church write to support the proposed sale and use but hope that the unmarked graves included in the land to be sold and the grave markers now standing against the Church building would be treated with respect.
7
34. Rob Stevenson, the prospective purchaser, writes to set out the background to the project and of his consultations in the local community. He states that many people liked the fact that the proposed use would require very minimal alterations to the building and that they would be able to use the building themselves and be able to be part of the new use for the church.
35. He recognizes the concerns about parking and explains that the day session of the church would normally be time limited and that they would be asking groups that visit the church to drop off and collect by minibus to restrict vehicle numbers and to not have large vehicles. He argues that the use of parking would be far less than a residential conversion, commercial use or should the church have opened again for services. He annexes photographs from his visits showing that parking is not an issue during the day (four cars remain in the car park).
36. He also writes that although he was not able to publicly disclose grant funding agreements but confirms that they have we have agreed to undertake the work. As for grants, he notes that every building of this nature that needs to have renovation works is reliant on grants to have this work done; but as a Grade 1 listing building on the Historic England “Heritage at Risk Register” and for the intended community involvement, he confirms that they have so far received the support of 22 grant funding organizations who have expressed their intention of support for the project. He confirms that, the proposed plan showed a small annual amount of £9,000 per year, which he states can be achieved through schools contribution and other revenue generating ideas.
37. He explains that Support For Learning Cornwall CIC has been created specifically for this project, but the other projects that we have been involved in over recent years have collectively raised £500k for similar community based / building projects.
Diocesan Response to the Representations
38. Following normal practice, a copy of the representations was sent to the Bishop of Truro to seek his comments and the Archdeacon of Bodmin replied on his behalf. A copy of the letter referring the representations to the Bishop together with a copy of the Archdeacon’s reply including the proposal document from the prospective purchaser is attached at Annex F.
39. The Archdeacon sets out background on the case and the considerations which led the Diocese to decide to recommend sale. She notes that following closure a market appraisal report was which advised that it was difficult to envisage a very strong demand for an alternative community use for the building but following pre-application advice on the overall principles for conversion of the church the Council required there to be a period of general marketing to establish if there was interest in other uses first. Historic England had also, indicated that to consider conversion to a residential property was ‘a premature conclusion’ and encouraged exploration of alternative options which would retain more of the interior features of the building. 8
40. Marketing was commenced at the beginning of 2019 but despite a large number of viewings, Mr Stevenson’s proposals were the only ones to be sustained. The Diocesan Uses Committee had noted that the impact on the building would be less than if converted to residential use, and noted how little interest there had been in residential conversation, and felt this proposal could be more realistic and viable.
41. The Archdeacon writes that in reaching this decision the Uses Committee was mindful that the evidences of funding for the proposal were not yet in place, but recognised that in order for Mr Stevenson to be able to attract offers of funding, he needed to evidence a commitment by the Church authorities to pass the building to him. The Uses Committee were also aware of Mr Stevenson’s Beach Guardians initiative and his track record in obtaining significant funding and community support for that. The Archdeacon also noted that the Scheme would not be implemented until consents and finance for the proposal was in place, condition cited in Schedule 4 of the draft Scheme.
42. The Archdeacon noted the suggestion that the Church of England should first restore the building and notes that the Diocese has a responsibility under Section 61(2)(a) of the Mission and Pastoral Measure is for the DBF to be responsible “for the care and maintenance of the building closed for regular public worship, so far as is reasonable in all the circumstances”. She explains that the last Quinquennial Inspection was undertaken in 2011, by the time the next one was due the decision had already been made to proceed with closure. The DBF inherited a building that was in poor condition and that since closure, works have been undertaken to address the key issues of water ingress. She points out that the Diocese does not have the resources to spend on repairs to buildings it no longer needs for the mission of the Church that are over and above its statutory obligations. It is also relevant here that the building is being sold for a nominal consideration, leaving the Buyer free to allocate money on the fabric of St Pinnock church that would otherwise be used to purchase a property.
43. The Archdeacon notes that representations have been received both for and against this proposal from immediate neighbours of the church and writes that his proposal will enable the church building to remain without significant changes to its integrity and will be a way of reintroducing the education and formation of young people locally. She recognises the concerns raised about the impact of traffic and parking in the village and on the narrow roads which lead to it. The church has not been used actively for some time and any new use proposed for the church will generate additional traffic and access and parking requirements. She notes that, Mr Stevenson envisages that the church would be used only during term time and then only during the school day for one or two days per week and that he is producing a Travel Plan detailing the anticipated number of traffic movements and policies that would mitigate the impact of the proposed use.
9
44. The Archdeacon also comments on the impact on the churchyard noting that it was closed for burials in 1978 and has since been maintained by Cornwall Council. She sets out information about the number of burials in the churchyard and the earlier treatment of headstones. She explains that the area of land highlighted by the Scheme plan encompasses a walking route around the church and an area in the south-east corner, which contains an area previous cleared of its headstones. This area was considered to have the least impact on the quiet enjoyment by visitors to the remainder of the churchyard, whilst retaining a degree of practicality to cater for changes of level for access/maintenance purposes. The purchaser proposes to use this as an area of outside space for visiting school groups, including potentially for the growing of plants in raised planters and learning about plants and wildlife. No disturbance of the tombstones or human remains is necessary or proposed by the purchaser and restrictive covenants imposed in the sale documents will prevent this taking place.
45. The Archdeacon concludes by explaining that whilst the unique mission of St Pinnock church as a place of worship has come to an end, it still holds the story the Christian faith within its structures. This proposal will allow the church building to continue to have a public presence within the community, and to bring young life back to the hamlet in a way which has not happened since the school closed.
The Further Views of the Representors
46. The Diocesan response has been shared with the representors. Copies of any further comments received will be circulated in due course as Annex S.
The Sifting Group’s decision
47. The case has been examined by the Committee’s case sifting representatives who considered that the issues raised in the written material were clear and limited in scope and they concluded that they had sufficient information in the written papers to fully understand the objectors’ concerns. Having considered the relevant guidance, they did not consider that questioning the representors or the Diocese was required in the interests of fairness or for the benefit of the representors or to ensure that the Commissioners receive all relevant information. The Sifting Panel, therefore, concluded that the case should be considered on the papers alone but recognised that if discussion of the case by the Committee brought up further points this might be revisited.
The Issues for the Committee
48. In considering the representations, the Committee will need to have regard to the legislative requirement as to the suitability of what is being proposed. The Mission and Pastoral Measure Code of Recommended Practice gives examples of alternative uses which have been found to be acceptable which includes both office and residential conversion. Section 17.4 of the Recommended Code states:
10 17.4 The most common alternative uses include:
• Worship by other Christian bodies • Civic, cultural or community purposes (includes community centre; lecture or concert hall; conference hall and exhibition centre; art gallery or heritage or tourist centre; county record office; urban study and architectural interpretation centre; youth work and night shelter; library; Scout and Guide headquarters; children’s nursery) • Monument (for preservation) • Residential • Storage (includes university book store; scenery and props; warehouse; diocesan furnishings store) • Arts and crafts, music or drama centre (includes arts centre; theatre and restaurant; orchestral or operatic rehearsal hall; Fine Art auctions; craft workshop) • Light industrial / office / retail (includes: pottery manufacture; studios and offices; antiques market; retail shops) • Private and school chapels • Educational purposes • Museums (includes: natural history; archaeological; regimental) • Adjuncts to adjoining estates • Sports use (includes: squash courts; gymnasium; indoor climbing centre)
49. If the Committee considers the proposed uses to be suitable in principle, it is still possible that the uses might be unsuitable in the particular circumstances of this building because of its location or other factors relating to the impact of the use. These could include the potential for disruption and disturbance to neighbouring properties.
50. Finally, the Committee must be satisfied under the general duty of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 that the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England.
51. The main issues to be considered are, therefore, as follows:
• is the proposed use of the building for educational, cultural and community purposes a “suitable” use within the meaning of the Mission and Pastoral Measure? • are the concerns expressed in the representation against the draft Scheme of such substance and weight that the proposed uses are to be considered unsuitable for the building in this location? • will the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England?
11
Recommendation
The Committee is invited to consider the representations and the issues set out in this report and, in the light of these, whether the draft Scheme should proceed.
(Signed) Harvey Howlett
Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ
15 July 2020
12
ANNEX A Closed Church of St Pinnock St Pinnock (Diocese of Truro) Representations against Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Background
The Building The hamlet of St Pinnock lies in an isolated location some two miles west of Liskeard in east Cornwall and consist of a few cottages and some farm buildings. The Grade I listed church building, also dedicated to St Pinnock, stands on the east side of "The Square". A lychgate provides entry into the churchyard. The building consists of a 14th century west tower, 15th century nave and north aisle and a 16th century porch. It was restored by Hine and Odgers of Plymouth in 1881-2. The building is in the Perpendicular style and constructed of rubble stone with granite dressings. The roofs are covered with slate and clay ridge tiles. Internally, there are timber waggon roofs to the nave and chancel and the fixtures and fittings date mainly from the 19th century restoration. There is no stained glass. The report of the Church Buildings Council is set out at Annex B. Closure and Use Seeking The church of St Pinnock was declared closed for regular public worship in February 2017. Its future had been under consideration for many years with closure being considered in the early 1990s and 2005. However, local opposition to closure resulted in renewed efforts to sustain a congregation at those times. However, by 2016, the two remaining members of the parochial church council indicted they could no longer continue and in the absence of other volunteers, they petitioned for the church to close. Upon closure of the church in 2017, the parish was incorporated into Liskeard. The building was marketed from December 2018 to May 2019, resulting in the current proposal. The proposed purchaser intends to use the property principally as a Forest School, being a Learning Outside the Classroom location. The proposed purchaser is "Support for Learning Cornwall CIC" (company registration number 12039939) whose aims are to encourage children to be close to nature and to support those who would benefit from community and environmental programmes. The building would be used to host workshops and events for school, college and university groups, home-school partnerships, members of the local community and other groups such as scouts and guides.
A1 The Views of the Statutory Advisory Committee The Commissioners statutory advisers, The Statutory Advisory Committee of the Church Buildings Council (SAC) have indicated that the building is of considerable historic and archaeological interest, of notable architectural quality and of notable value as a feature in the local landscape. However, the modest quality of the contents allowed scope for alteration and the SAC advised that the building be preserved by conversion to an alternative use. The SAC’s advice is attached at Annex C. Planning and Access In pre-application advice, Cornwall Council has indicated that a use was preferred that would minimise the need for internal subdivision and would offer new public benefits. The proposed use meets these criteria. The chancel furnishings will remain in place. Burials and the Churchyard The churchyard contains many historic burials. However, its closure for future burials was confirmed by an Order in Council dated 15 November 1978 and Cornwall Council now maintains the churchyard. Possible amendment to the Land Included in the Proposed Disposal Under the draft Scheme, the area of churchyard highlighted by hatching was proposed to be included in the sale. It was believed that none of the burials in that area took place within the last fifty years and no graves and tombstones will be disturbed. However, at the drop-in session following publication of the draft scheme it was stated there were two interments of ashes in the area to be sold that were less than 50 years old. This has been checked and one dated from 1968 and one from 2004. Following discussion with the protentional purchaser, if the Commissioners were minded to allow the draft scheme to proceed, an editorial amendment is proposed to reduce the area of land included within the disposal so as to exclude both of these burials from the land being sold. Some photographs of the area concerned and the proposed revised plan are attached at Annex E
A2 Annex B Council for the Care of Churches Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3NZ Pastoral Measure Report: St Pinnock, St Pinnock
Diocese: Truro Dedication: St Pinnock Listing: I NGR:SX 19 26 County: Cornwall Parish: St Pinnock PM: 2090 SMR: See below
Location and setting: A medieval church of grey stone and slate, with a commanding west tower which can be seen from other raised places, standing on a rise amongst the undulating hills and valleys that surround the West Looe River. The listing description states the church is built into a prehistoric tumulus, but it seems more likely to be a “llan” (Cornish/Welsh), generally an ancient curvilinear enclosure around a chapel or church, within which the ground level has built up with burials on this already raised site. The village is 2 miles west of Liskeard, takes its name from the dedication and consists of nothing more than a few cottages and the old village school next to the churchyard at a minor crossroads.
The churchyard is laid to grass, with trees around the periphery within a curving dry stone wall. There are finely carved grave markers from the 18th century in the Cornish style, many of slate. Gravel paths lead from a rather blocky modern stone lych-gate on the west side with a gabled roof and a central stone bench, the paths deeply cut through the mound.
The church seen from the north
Building history: The dedication to St Pinnock seems to be unique. It is probably a corruption, perhaps of St Winnoc, traditionally considered a 7th/8th-century British saint, with a few churches in the South-West, Wales, and Scotland dedicated after
1 B1
him, the nearest being Lostwithiel St Winnoc. The church building was a Norman foundation, originally a cruciform building. Given the rounded shape of the enclosure it is not impossible that there was a pre-conquest chapel here, a “llan” as described above.
The west tower was rebuilt in the late 14th century, the nave in the 15th century. In the latter half of the 15th century the north transept was demolished and the south aisle with 4-bay arcade erected. The porch was added in the 16th century. The church is in the immediate area of the Battle of Bradoc Down in 1643, a Royalist victory, the main part of the site being in the care of English Heritage.
The church was heavily restored in 1881-2 by Hine and Odgers of Plymouth, whereby the south transept and parts of the east end were rebuilt. Almost all the furnishings and fittings were replaced including screens and pulpit by Hems of Exeter. Chancel panelled in 1943-4.
The building and site are of very high archaeological significance, and the Cornwall Historic Environment Record (previously the Sites and Monument Record) should be consulted before any development or works are considered.
Ground Plan: West tower, 4-bay nave and north aisle and 2-bay chancel, south- west porch.
Dimensions: Nave approx 10m (35 ft) x 6m (19’6ft).
Building materials: Rubble stone with granite dressings. Snecked stone in tower and 19th-century snecked ashlar used in rebuilding of south transept chancel. Timber roofs covered with slates, clay ridge tiles.
General Description: The architectural style is Perpendicular throughout, followed in the 19th-century restoration. In general the church has a strong Victorian rather than medieval feel. It provides the focus of a nice ensemble with the old school nearby, and the raised churchyard within its weathered curving walls is undeniably atmospheric.
The battlemented west tower is of three stages with corner pinnacles with crocketted finials surmounted by iron crosses. Angle buttresses set back on north and south faces. West door with wide 2-centred arch, partly recarved with chamfered jambs and a pyramid stop to the right-hand jamb, a hoodmould and plain drips. The projecting staircase turret on the north face is a major feature, with three canted sides. 3-light belfry openings on all four faces with cusped heads beneath rectangular hood moulds and drips under pointed relieving arches. The tower has a moulded plinth, with a simple plinth to the north aisle and nave interrupted by the rebuilt south transept. It dies out to the east of the priest’s door where the chancel was apparently rebuilt.
The nave and chancel are under one continuous roof, the 4-bay north aisle has its own gable and is not quite the full length of the nave. There are cross finials to most gables, several fallen ones are piled in the tower space.
2 B2 The west window of north aisle has 19th-century tracery of three lights under a 4- centred arch. To nave, to east of porch, is a 3-light 19th-century Perpendicular window with hoods in original opening. 19th-century lancet in west window of south transept. 19th-century 4-light Perpendicular window under 4-centred arch with some reused tracery to south and 19th-century 3-light window to east of south transept. South aisle with four 3-light Perpendicular windows with hoods and plain drips under wide 2- centred arches, the tracery partly restored.
The south porch is gabled with a rounded arched opening with cavetto-moulded jambs, beneath Victorian barge-boards. External iron gate and bird screen. The doorway within has a granite basket arch with voussoirs and a Cavetto-moulded frame with plain stops. The roof has a similar profile with carved wall-plates and bosses, with floral and leaf motifs. Stone benches.
There is a 3-light 19th-century window under a 4-centred arch in the south wall of the chancel, adjacent to an apparently reset priest’s door with 2-centred chamfered arch. The north wall is pierced by a 4-light Perpendicular window in a wide 2-centred arch with hood and carved drips. The east window is a 4-light with Perpendicular 19th- century tracery and reused jambs, under a 4-centred arch with hoods and 19th-century carved drips.
It has to be said that the interior is rather disappointing, with a somewhat characterless restoration. The outer walls are plastered, the aisle arcade bare stone. Looking west first, there is a tall tower arch, 2-centred with chamfered jambs, with a glazed wooden screen. The west doorway is blocked up, and there is a narrow pointed-arched doorway to the tower stair in the north wall. The old west doors are stacked against the wall adjacent to this.
Looking east, the 4-bay arcade is carried on granite piers with carved caps of Pentewan stone; some of these have green mould growing on them, especially at the west end, which spreads down the wall and across the font, clearly indicative of a serious damp problem here. The pews are of pine, carved square ends with blind tracery.
There are fine waggon roofs to the nave and chancel (no chancel arch or other partition) and the north aisle with moulded ribs and moulded stone wall plate. They are clearly partly restored with new bosses, apparently carved by Mr Moutrie of Tavistock. The roofs would appear to date originally to the 16th century.
The broad south transept arch is plastered over, a glazed wooden screen separates it from the nave. Above the screen a grille for the heating unit behind is clearly visible, and the latter is very obvious when one enters the transept, a huge metal contraption. There is a piscina with ogee head in the east end of the south wall. There is another at the east end of the north aisle with a basket head.
The floors are paved with Maw and Co tiles, increasing in ornamentation towards the east end. Chancel step of marble. The chancel is panelled with tracery in the cornice, but otherwise quite plain, with two rows of choir stalls with tracery fronts and nicely carved ends with poppyheads, probably by Hems. An open tracery oak screen delineates the organ chamber north of the chancel.
3 B3 The church looking east
Furnishings and Fittings: (Of c 1885 unless noted otherwise)
Altar: Oak table.
Reredos: Carved oak panelling, 1943.
Pulpit: Oak, hexagonal with blind tracery panels on a stone base by Harry Hems.
Lectern: Oak angel lectern by Hems.
Font: Unusual Norman font of granite, circular bowl with carved heads and arms on corbelled corners. Octagonal shaft.
Stained glass: Roundels in the east window with fleur-de-lys and other designs.
Bells: An important ring of 4 bells apparently by Pannell, recast in 1803 and inscribed William Harding and CW I.P. In an unringable condition, but worthy of preservation, certainly of being kept together.
Treble 26" I. P. 1803 2nd 27 1/2" I. P. 1803 3rd 29" I. P. 1803 Tenor 32 1/2" I. P. 1803 approx 6-cwt
4 B4 Organ: Single manual pipe organ by Hele of Portsmouth, built 1879 and installed 1936. Pine case.
Communion plate: Not inspected, communion cup and paten of 1575.
Registers: The registers date from 1566 and are held in the County Record Office, they were not inspected.
Monuments:
• Behind the organ in east end of north aisle, long slate memorial with heraldic arms to Ames Coplestone, died 1629 and Jane, daughter of Emmanuel Ganbe died 1629.
• Adjacent, small slate tablet to John Collier gent and family, early 18th-century with heraldic arms below and winged cherub above.
• Slate memorial, cracked, smudged and difficult to read, John Rundell(?) 1733. North wall of tower space.
• On exterior chancel wall, slate tablet with heraldic arms in roundels to Thomas Hockin who died in 1767.
• List of incumbents from 1269.
• Various plain 20th-century memorials.
Communion Rails: Oak rails in chancel and aisle with carved open tracery.
War memorials:Framed World War I Roll of Honour, north aisle.
Miscellanea: Framed certificate of thanks from the Admiralty to the parish for supporting HMS Rhododendron for Battleship Week, 1941.
Bibliography: Pevsner, N, Radcliffe E (1970): The Buildings of England: Cornwall. C Henderson (1925) The Cornish Church Guide. Kelly’s Directory of Cornwall, 1889. De St Paer-Gotch, B E A (1983): History of St Pinnock Church and Parish
State of repair: Summarised from the latest interim report by Scott & co, Chartered Surveyors of Truro dated October 2000. The fabric of the church is generally in good condition but there are serious problems with damp. Repair to the windows, repointing and repairs to the roof and rainwater goods are recommended. A recent offer of £150,000 from English Heritage towards repairing the roof was turned down.
Other churches in the area:
5 B5 Bradoc St Mary: Grade I medieval church. The church comprises chancel, nave, south aisle and a north transept. The present building is mainly of the 12th, 13th and 15th century, restored in mid 19th century and 1926. 5-bay 15th-century arcade of 4-centred arches of granite with monolith columns of the same material. The transept contains the vestry. The tower is plain and in two stages with stump pinnacles. 15th-century gabled south porch with sundial dated 1660. Norman font with four corner faces and large tree of life. In the south wall windows with 18th-century heraldic glass. Elizabethan pulpit and bench ends. Base of medieval rood screen, and possibly 18th- century tower screen with intricate carving. Large churchyard with village stocks, possibly a Llan. 1½ miles north-west. Herodsfoot All Saints: Small Victorian church built of local stone in 1849 by John Hayward, then Diocesan Architect of Exeter Diocese. Nave and chancel, Early English style, pointed lancet windows, high chancel arch and buttresses. Interior rendered in pale cream, fully pewed. Overlooks the village from a hill. 1 mile south- east.
Comments: A handsome building of significant value as a local landmark. The roofs and bells are of high significance and interest in their own right. The furnishings and fittings are of moderate interest. The building and site are of very high archaeological significance and potential, particularly for the early medieval period.
Compiled 20th July 2005 by Joseph Elders, the Archaeology Officer of the Council for the Care of Churches after a visit to the site on 15th May 2005.
6 B6 STATUTORY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Annex C
on closed and closing churches advising the Church Commissioners and the Churches Conservation Trust on behalf of the
Church Buildings Council
Adrian Browning Our Ref: ABRC/2/774 & Historic Buildings Specialist, Pastoral & Closed Churches CARE/39/321 Salisbury Diocesan Office Your Ref: RC39/30B Church House Crane Street 14 October 2016 Salisbury SP1 2QB [email protected] (by email)
Dear Adrian
St Pinnock, St Pinnock (Diocese of Truro)
Your request for the Council’s further advice on St Pinnock, St Pinnock was considered by the Statutory Advisory Committee at a meeting held on Wednesday 28 September 2016.
A Pastoral Measure Report was produced for St Pinnock’s church in July 2005 by my colleague Dr Joseph Elders, who advised that the church is a handsome building, of significant value as a local landmark, with a medieval roof structure and bells of high significance and interest in their own right, and furnishings and fittings of moderate interest; Dr Elders further advised that the building and its site are of very high archaeological significance and potential, particularly for the early medieval period. Dr Elders revisited the church last month and confirmed that, read in combination with the latest Quinquennial Inspection Report on the building’s condition, his 2005 report continues to provide an accurate description of the church and its significance.
Early Advice was previously given by the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, in April 2006. In line with the 2005 PM Report, the ABRC advised that the Grade I-listed church is a building of considerable historic and archaeological interest, of very notable architectural quality, of notable value as a feature in the local landscape, and of some regional and national interest and importance. The Board noted that the modest quality of the church’s contents admitted the possibility of alteration and advised that the building be preserved by conversion to alternative use, or vested in the Churches Conservation Trust in the last resort. The Statutory Advisory Committee endorsed the early advice offered by the ABRC and reiterated its recommendation that the building be preserved by conversion to suitable new use or vested in the CCT in the last resort. The SAC was content that the Critical Information Summary and briefing note on Constraints and Opportunities for
Cathedral and Church Buildings Division, Archbishops’ Council, Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct line: 020 7898 1871 [email protected] www.churchcare.co.uk
C1 Alternative Use produced by the ABRC in 2005 should continue to stand as its advice, with the following additional remarks: • In this instance, a suitable use would be confined to worship or community purposes, allowing the retention in situ of at least the Norman font, and preferably also the ring of bells and the ensemble of chancel furnishings (choir stalls, lectern, screens and pulpit) by Harry Hems, which should otherwise be preserved by relocation; • The building could accommodate a degree of vertical subdivision to support wider use (for instance of the north aisle or at the chancel arch), in addition to the removal of the nave seating if necessary; • That the exterior of the building should be preserved unaltered. In particular, owing to the high significance of the roof structure the installation of roof-lights would not be considered acceptable. The Committee suggested that the church might be suited to the installation of an accommodation “pod” of the type being trialled at the church of St Michael at Dulas in Herefordshire.
Yours sincerely
Tom Ashley Church Buildings Officer
cc Jeremy Tipping, Closed Churches Team Manager
Supporting over 16,000 cathedral and church buildings of The Church of England
Cathedral and Church Buildings Division, Archbishops’ Council, Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct line: 020 7898 1871 [email protected] C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 Annex D
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Annex E Church Commissioners
Closed Church of St Pinnock St Pinnock (Diocese of Truro)
Proposed Editorial Amendment to reduce the extent of Land included in the draft Scheme
Under the draft Scheme, the area of churchyard highlighted by hatching on the scheme plan in Annex C was proposed to be included in the sale. It was believed that none of the burials in that area took place within the last fifty years and no graves and tombstones would be disturbed. However, at the drop-in session following publication of the draft scheme it was stated there were two interments of ashes in the area to be sold that were less than 50 years old. This has been checked and one dated from 1968 and one from 2004.
If the Commissioners were minded to allow the draft scheme to proceed, and following discussion with the potentional purchaser, an editorial amendment is proposed to reduce the area of land included within the disposal to avoid these burials. In this Annex are some photographs of the churchyard and the burials referred to above. The prospective purchaser also submitted a plan suggesting an area of land to be excluded but the suggestion before the Committee draws the proposed boundary line a further 2 meters away from the burials concerned so that there is some space between them and land being appropriated to the new use.
Image of the North of the Churchyard showing the open pace and cleared headstones
E1 Photographs of the more recent Burial locations
The two burials of cremated remains lie in the same row of graves – the older 1968 marker on a small slab as an addition to the existing burial plot and the 2004 memorial marked between two existing graves.
The prospective purchaser suggested moving the boundary of land included in the sale to exclude these graves - his proposed plan is shown marked on the left. However if the Committee were to agree that the draft Scheme should proceed the suggested revised boundary is shown on the plan here on the right which excludes a further couple of meters of land so as to place the boundary clearly away from the burials concerned. The proposed amended Scheme plan is shown in full on the next page.
E2 E3 Annex F
The Right Reverend the Bishop of Truro Harvey Howlett Lis Escop Casework Support Manager Feock Pastoral and Closed Churches Truro TR3 6QQ
Your ref: Our ref: RC39/30B 9 June 2020
Dear Bishop
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Closed Church Building of St Pinnock St Pinnock Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme
Following the publication of the draft scheme providing for providing for the sale of the closed church building of St Pinnock St Pinnock and part of the churchyard for use for educational, cultural and community purposes, we received 20 representations (6 against, 10 in favour and 4 letters of comment also raising concerns about the proposal). I enclose copies of all of the representations and summarize them below.
The Representations against come from Doug Mills Clare Knapman Debbie Smith & Steve Richards Lucinda Curtis Lorraine Webber St Pinnock Parish Council
The Letters of Comment come from Angela Whitehead J E Bance Catherine Gaskain Catherine Marlow, Historic England
The Representation in Favour come from Lucy Williamson Robert Kelly Mike Heard Giles Merrifield Vanessa Greenaway Yve Metcalf Carline and John Harrison Brian Jewell Charlotte Hill Rob Stevenson Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct Line: 020 7898 1782 London Switchboard: 020 7898 1000 Email: [email protected] DX: 148403 Westminster 5 Website: www.ccpastoral.org The Church Commissioners are a registered charity (number 1140097). F1 Summary of Representations Against
Doug Mills raises concerns at the proposed financing of the project and the lack of secured grant funding casting doubt on the achievability and viability of the project. He also questions the lack of outside green space and the notes the absence of parking facilities in the square. He also expresses disappointment that the building is said not to be of a quality to consider vesting in the Churches Conservation Trust and argues that residential conversion should be considered as the next best option.
Clare Knapman questions the use of a Forrest School as the principal objective of the proposal, stating that the church and its environs are entirely unsuitable for Forest School activities. She also raises concerns about the location of the project and argues that this is wholly unsuited to the level of activity proposed given the isolated nature of the building the difficulty of access down narrow lanes and the lack of designated parking with the land available in the village already used at full capacity by residents
She further raises significant concerns about the financing of the proposals and the lack of financial evidence available and suggests that the Parish Council should have sight of any business plan evidencing the viability, in assessing the proposals.
She suggests that the proposed use would be better accommodated at a neighbouring village through a collaborative use of existing hall facilities and also argues that, if the building cannot be preserved, than marketing for residential conversion should be considered instead.
Debbie Smith and Steve Richards raise concerns about the impact of additional vehicles in the village, noting that parking can already often be problematic without factoring in more vehicles that visitors would block or impede required access by the farm adjacent to the church. They also raise a concern that additional vehicles will pose a safety hazard.
They remain unconvinced that grant funding required would be used to improve and maintain the building so as to deliver the project.
Overall they feel that the proposed scheme will have a significant negative impact on the local residents in this quite hamlet and will not deliver the promises made.
Lucinda Curtis raises concerns over increased parking and the protection of her neighbouring property due to the increased visitors to the church.
Lorraine Webber also raises concerns about funding and viability of the project and the impact on her property. In addition she explains that she lives at a small working farm next to the lychgate and does not want her principal access blocked or impeded arguing that any additional transport and mini buses will add to the problem. She also sets out concerns former generations of her family buried in the Churchyard and raises concerns about this area being disturbed or treated disrespectfully
St Pinnock Parish Council seeks assurance that the future and alternative use of the building is beneficial to the parish and does not, in any way, disrupt the lives of those living in the hamlet. They note that there is no evidence of a sound business plan and no financial forecasting indicating the project is likely to succeed and no evidence that grant funding for the project has been secured.
F2 They raise a concern about burials within the churchyard and questions whether it is lawful for the land to be sold if it contains reserved burial plots.
They also note that the site has no specific parking area and ask how many vehicles are likely to be connected to the project that require parking spaces?
The Council states that the sale of St Pinnock Church should not proceed without confirmation of these points, and assurance these matters have been dealt with.
Summary of the Letters of Comment
Angela Whitehead writes out of her personal sentiment for the St Pinnock Church and from her longstanding family connections with the church and with generations of her family buried in the two churchyards, graves she attends regularly. She would like see the church kept maintained and used but has great concerns for what may happen in the future and the viability of the proposed use.
She states that she would in part prefer the building to be allowed to decay but recognises that as Grade I listed building this would not be allowed. She notes concerns of parishioners regarding the parking space required for the proposed activities, and the worry about the funding for educational establishments to be able to attend such out of classroom sessions.
J E Bance accepts that the proposals are broadly workable he is concerned that the proposed Forrest School and other activities should be limited so as to exclude night-time events and also that transport provision to the School should minimise the impact on parking for local residents. He wishes to ensure that no other commercial activities are permitted at the building now or into the future and if the business activities cease that the future of the building should be secured through residential conversion
Catherine Gaskain is also torn with the idea as she would like to see the Church looked after and saved but does not see how this can be viable without increased traffic and parking.
Catherine Marlow, for Historic England, in a substantial representation detailing the mitigations and caveats necessary to secure the use, consider that the suggested use of the church as a Forest School, with associated adaptation to its interior and the use of some land within the church yard is a reasonable proposal. They have strong concerns that the repairs required to improve the church's condition, and for it to be removed from the Heritage at Risk register, will be a financial burden to such an educational organisation and may make the proposed use unviable. They consider that it is the responsibility of the Church of England to carry out such repairs in advance of sale to de-risk the situation, as previously outlined in earlier correspondence.
Summary of the representations in favour
Robert Kelly supports the proposal and states that there are very few resources locally for children and teenagers to have access to 'out of the classroom' learning, and this would help bridge that gap.
Lucy Williamson, Mike Heard and Vanessa Greenaway all write from their knowledge of the work of the prospective purchaser and his team and support the proposals. Ms Williamson also states, having known the prospective purchaser for some years, that he has a proven track record of bringing creative and original initiatives to life with care, creativity and sensitivity and his reputation is well-deserved. She thinks he would successfully
F3 preserve the history and heritage of this site; make St Pinnock's accessible to children in a unique way and work closely with the community to garner their much-needed support and assistance.
Charlotte Hill writes as an education representative interested in collaborating on the project. She states that there are limited rural facilities available to support the community of Liskeard and surrounding area and writes that the proposed use of the church will make a positive contribution to the community and in particular children and their families for education and health and wellbeing purposes. Giles Merrifield has lived in the village since 1987 and writes that this seems an entirely suitable alternative use whilst preserving the graveyard for visitors. He writes that the proposal for educational activity fits well with the wider purpose that the Church once played in the community and argues that it would be a shame if the site was to become a private residence.
He states that issue of parking was never raised as a problem when the Church was in use and that under the current proposal the extra use of the car park will be minimal and will have no effect on residents.
Yve Metcalfe and Brian Jewell both write as local residents expressing support.
Caroline and John Harrison long term residents and members of the Church write to support the proposed sale and use but hope that the unmarked graves included in the land to be sold and the grave markers now standing against the Church building would be treated with respect.
Rob Stevenson, the prospective purchaser, writes to set out the background to the project and of his consultations in the local community. He states that many people liked the fact that the proposed use would require very minimal alterations to the building and that they would be able to use the building themselves and be able to be part of the new use for the church.
He recognizes the concerns about parking and explains that the day session of the church would normally be time limited and that they would be asking groups that visit the church to drop off and collect by minibus to restrict vehicle numbers and to not have large vehicles. He argues that the use of parking would be far less than a residential conversion, commercial use or should the church have opened again for services. He annexes photographs from his visits showing that parking is not an issue during the day (four cars remain in the car park).
He also writes that although he was not able to publicly disclose grant funding agreements but confirms that they have we have agreed to undertake the work. As for grants, he notes that every building of this nature that needs to have renovation works is reliant on grants to have this work done; but as a Grade 1 listing building on the Historic England “Heritage at Risk Register” and for the intended community involvement, he confirms that they have so far received the support of 22 grant funding organizations who have expressed their intention of support for the project. He confirms that, the proposed plan showed a small annual amount of £9,000 per year, which he states can be achieved through schools contribution and other revenue generating ideas.
He explains that Support For Learning Cornwall CIC has been created specifically for this project, but the other projects that we have been involved in over recent years have collectively raised £500k for similar community based / building projects.
F4 It will be necessary for our Mission Pastoral and Church Property Committee to consider the matter and I should be grateful for your comments on the representations in general and on the following, more specific points:-
1. What were the main considerations that led to the proposal to recommend the sale of this closed church for educational, cultural and community purposes?
2. What assessment has been made of the achievability and viability of the proposal?
3. Would you comment on the current condition of the building and the suggestion that the Church of England should restore it prior to any disposal?
4. Would you comment on the questions raised about the impact of the proposed use on the village and the neighbouring properties especially in relation to parking and access?
5. Would you comment on the potential impact of traffic and questions of safety from the proposed use?
6. Would you comment on the concerns raised about the impact on the Churchyard?
7. How do you believe the proposals will impact on the mission of the Church of England in this community?
7. Are there any other factors which the Commissioners should be aware of in their consideration of these representations?
In considering what information to include in your reply, I should be grateful if you would bear in mind that the Commissioners are now required to consider the representation under the quasi-judicial process laid down by the 2011 Measure. A legal challenge may arise from the Commissioners’ decision if, among other things, it is based materially on incorrect information. In some cases, this might necessitate the withdrawal of the Scheme. Of necessity, the Commissioners rely on others to provide the information to assist their deliberations and to this end I should be grateful for your help.
I am hoping that this matter can be discussed at the 22nd July 2020 meeting of our Mission, Pastoral and Church Property Committee. If the matter is to be discussed at that meeting, we will need to receive your response by 30 June please. This is to allow time for this letter and your reply to be considered by our Sifting Panel, to determine whether the representors and diocesan representatives should be offered an opportunity to make oral representations to the Committee, and for them to be sent to the representors, for them to make any further comments and, if necessary, for you to respond. As you know we also ask representors if they wish to speak to their representations to the Committee.
If oral representations were to be heard, there would also be an opportunity for you or a diocesan representative to speak in favour of the proposals. The diocesan representative may be any appropriate person (e.g. the Chairman or a member or the Secretary of the Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee or an Archdeacon) but should not be the Diocesan Registrar or other legal representative. We do not wish the Mission and Pastoral Measure process to take on the characteristics of an adversarial tribunal and have advised the representors that they too should not be legally represented.
Our normal practice is, as you probably know, is for oral representations to be made at a public hearing. In the present circumstances that is, of course, not possible but it may be possible for representors and diocesan representatives to make presentations and answer
F5 questions by video conferencing. That would depend in each case on the practicability of whether all those concerned were contactable on line and able to participate in a video conference. It would be helpful therefore if you would confirm whether you or your representative(s) would be able to participate in this way. Otherwise, if a hearing is not to be held, the case will be considered in private and you will be informed accordingly.
Please note that while the Committee is able to discuss cases by video conference it is not able to take decisions remotely. Decisions would have to be made by a subsequent correspondence procedure and there would therefore be a further two or three weeks after the July meeting date before they could be announced.
We would normally expect the representations to be considered at the earliest opportunity but please let me know if you are unable to meet the timetable for the 22nd July meeting or wish to give the matter further consideration or undertake further local consultations before replying. Once we have informed the representors of the meeting date (which we will do when sending them a copy of your reply) we would hope not to have to defer it. However, all parties will have the right to ask us to defer the matter to a subsequent meeting if justifiable reasons arise. The following meeting dates for the Committee are in September and October.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the Revd Canon Simon Cade and to Katie Wright in your Diocesan Office and to Adrian Browning, the Commissioners Case Officer, for information.
Yours sincerely
Harvey Howlett
F6 Mr Harvey Howlett Casework Support Manager Pastoral and Closed Churches Your ref: RC39/30B
June 2020
Dear Harvey
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Closed Church Building of St Pinnock St Pinnock Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme
I reply on behalf of Bishop Philip to your letter of 9th June requesting comments on the representations made against (and for) the scheme proposed for the disposal of St Pinnock church.
1. What were the main considerations that led to the proposal to recommend the sale of this closed church for educational, cultural and community purposes?
Following closure of the church on 5 February 2017, a market appraisal report was obtained from a local surveyors and estate agency. Their report dated 5 June 2017, in addition to advising on value, advised that it was difficult to envisage a very strong demand for a D1 (community and non-residential institutional) use given the building’s isolated location and recommended that the best way forward would be to obtain planning permission for residential conversion prior to marketing.
The Commissioners’ regional case officer offered to take the process forward of obtaining fee quotes from selected architects for undertaking a feasibility study, designing a conversion and taking this through planning. Our Churches Uses Committee (CUC) meeting in October 2017 agreed this approach. I understand quotes were obtained and it was also agreed that pre-application advice on the overall principles for conversion of the church should be sought from Cornwall Council and Historic England (given its Grade I listing and presence on the Heritage At Risk register). It was not possible to convene the site meeting until 28 August 2018 and the Council required there to be a period of general marketing to establish if there was interest in other uses first. Although listed Grade I, it was felt that the quality of the interior and its fittings did not rule out some relocation and subdivision of the interior. Historic England however, indicated that to consider conversion to a
Archdeacon of Bodmin
The Truro Diocesan Board of Finance Email [email protected] Limited is a company limited by Website www.truro.anglican.org guarantee. Registered in England No 49825. The Board is a Charity (No 248330) F7 residential property was ‘a premature conclusion’ and encouraged exploration of alternative options which would retain more of the interior features of the building.
The church was placed on the market on 2 January 2019. By the time of the CUC meeting in February 2019, it had received Mr Stevenson’s proposal. The committee was supportive in principle, but sought further details whilst continuing to market the property. At the May 2019 meeting, the CUC had a report from the agent indicating that although a large number of enquiries and viewings had taken place, no further sustained expressions of interest had been received, citing the building’s poor state of repair, relatively large size, isolated location and high listing as factors. An updated Proposal document from Mr Stevenson was also received, and this is attached. In the light of the outcome of the marketing, the CUC was invited to consider reverting to pursuing a residential planning application or to proceed with Mr Stevenson’s proposal and agreed to pursue the latter. The building was taken off the market. The CUC considered the proposed use. It noted that the impact on the building would be less than if converted to residential use, it would retain the community and educational purpose of the church, and would be a valuable facility for local schools. The committee noted how little interest there had been in residential conversation, and felt this proposal could be more realistic and viable. It also noted that the proposed means of water and drainage provision in his Proposal would not involve the need to excavate the churchyard to lay pipes and a septic tank.
2. What assessment has been made of the achievability and viability of the proposal?
In reaching this decision, the CUC was mindful that the evidences of funding for the proposal were not yet in place. From experience with another case, it recognised the importance of this, but also that in order for Mr Stevenson to be able to attract offers of funding, he needed to evidence a commitment by the Church authorities to pass the building to him. The CUC was also aware of Mr Stevenson’s Beach Guardians initiative and his track record in obtaining significant funding and community support for that. The CUC was therefore content to recommend the proposal to the Commissioners on the basis that satisfactory evidences of funding would be received (by the CUC and the Commissioners) before any disposal (exchange of contracts) took place. He would also at the same time need to secure listed building consent for the proposed alterations to the building prior to disposal. We would not, therefore, be passing the building for a use incapable of implementation on these grounds – these conditions are cited in Schedule 4 of the draft Scheme.
3. Would you comment on the current condition of the building and the suggestion that the Church of England should restore it prior to any disposal?
The Diocese of Truro takes seriously its responsibility for maintaining closed churches during the use-seeking period as the Commissioners will know from our claims on the Closed Church Buildings Support Account for various cases. We are conscious that the responsibility under Section 61(2)(a) of the Mission and Pastoral Measure is for the DBF to be responsible “for the care and maintenance of the building closed for regular public worship, so far as is reasonable in all the circumstances”.
F8 The last Quinquennial Inspection was undertaken in 2011, by the time the next one was due the decision had already been made to proceed with closure. Although some immediate and maintenance works were undertaken in the period prior to closure, the DBF inherited a building that was in poor condition (it having been added to the Heritage At Risk register in 2014). These problems stem principally from the deteriorating condition of the roof and water ingress through the walls of the tower. Since closure, under the supervision of one of our Inspecting Architects, works have been undertaken to address these issues. This has entailed: unblocking roof valleys, drains and hoppers (on more than one occasion), repairing leadwork, repairing gutter and chute, fixing missing/slipped slates, preventing forced entry to tower, other works which prevent or repair water ingress. These works have cost the DBF £3,462, of which we have claimed 70% from the Commissioners. I should also point out that this Diocese does not have the resources to spend on repairs to buildings it no longer needs for the mission of the Church that are over and above its statutory obligations. It is also relevant here that the building is being sold for a nominal consideration, leaving the Buyer free to allocate money on the fabric of St Pinnock church that would otherwise be used to purchase a property.
4. Would you comment on the questions raised about the impact of the proposed use on the village and the neighbouring properties especially in relation to parking and access?
St Pinnock itself is a tiny hamlet of about 8-10 residential dwellings (although the civil parish of St Pinnock also includes other settlements including East Taphouse and Trevelmond). We note that representations have been received both for and against this proposal from immediate neighbours of the church. The concerns relate primarily to traffic, which are addressed below. Historically the heart of St Pinnock has revolved around both the church and the C of E primary school (which is now a residential property). This proposal will enable the church building to remain without significant changes to its integrity, and will be a way of reintroducing the education and formation of young people locally.
5. Would you comment on the potential impact of traffic and questions of safety from the proposed use?
The Representors are correct about the narrow lanes leading to the hamlet of St Pinnock from each direction. The church and churchyard are located alongside an area known as “The Square”, an open area of hardstanding affording access to Glebe Farm and other residential properties and is also used by these residents for parking. This has been used for access and parking by worshippers and visitors to the church and churchyard for generations, alongside the other properties, one of which is the former school. I understand this land is not registered in any ownership and is not maintained by the Council as public highway. I have heard it referred to as the playground for the school. The Diocese recognises that given the church has not been used actively for some time, any new use proposed for the church will generate additional traffic and access and parking requirements. For example, a residential use would likely involve the continual presence of one or two cars on The Square. With that in mind, in the pre-application
F9 process, the Council and Historic England were asked to consider removal of the coffin rest within the lychgate to enable (admittedly limited) vehicular access into the churchyard. Both parties indicated the change would be unacceptable. Representors against the Scheme have mentioned the impact of additional vehicles on The Square. In his representation in favour, Mr Stevenson envisages that the church would be used only during term time and then only during the school day for one or two days per week. As children would be using the building as an organised group they would travel by minibus, rather than arriving ad hoc by car or on foot. I am informed by colleagues who attended the Commissioners’ drop-in session on 18 February that Mr Stevenson indicated he would produce a Travel Plan detailing the anticipated number of traffic movements and policies that would mitigate the impact of the proposed use. This would be made available to the Parish Council and residents. I understand this plan is still being produced.
6. Would you comment on the concerns raised about the impact on the Churchyard?
The churchyard was closed for future burial by Order in Council in November 1978 and has since been maintained by Cornwall Council. It contains many burials throughout and a survey undertaken in 1989 identified some 223 tombstones, monuments and memorials. At some point in the past, a number of these were removed from the south-east corner and lined up along the walls of the church, leaving a cleared area, albeit the burials remain in place. The area of land highlighted by the Scheme plan encompasses a walking route around the church and an area in the south-east corner, which contains the cleared area and some tombstones, the latest of which contains a burial dating from November 1968 and there is a commemorative stone for the interment of ashes dating from 2004. This area was determined by a meeting on site and was considered to have the least impact on the quiet enjoyment by visitors to the remainder of the churchyard, whilst retaining a degree of practicality to cater for changes of level for access/maintenance purposes. The purchaser proposes to use this as an area of outside space for visiting school groups, including potentially for the growing of plants in raised planters and learning about plants and wildlife. No disturbance of the tombstones or human remains is necessary or proposed by the purchaser and restrictive covenants imposed in the sale documents will prevent this taking place. As mentioned in his Proposal document, there is no need to excavate to introduce water or a drainage supply or septic tank into the churchyard as he proposes to install compostable toilets and a Skywell machine within the building. I am advised that the provisions of the Local Authorities’ Cemeteries Order 1977 do not apply, as consecrated churchyards owned by the Church of England do not fall within the definition of “cemetery” within that Order. The provisions regarding the treatment of human remains that are set out in the Mission and Pastoral Measure as part of the disposal process of closed church buildings apply instead.
7. How do you believe the proposals will impact on the mission of the Church of England in this community?
The unique mission of St Pinnock church as a place of worship has come to an end. However, it still holds the story the Christian faith within its structures. In being
F10 accessible to visitors and in being essentially in the form of a church, its structures will continue to bear witness to the faith which has influenced people’s lives in the past, and the God whose existence continues to influence people’s lives today. As a place of education, it will allow children and young people to ask questions about life and death that perhaps they will not ask elsewhere. Learning in the areas of history, RE and personal development can be enabled by the visual impact of the building. Learning in environmental matters will be enabled by the essential facilities introduced into the building, and the green spaces of the churchyard outside. This proposal will allow the church building to continue to have a public presence within the community, and to bring young life back to the hamlet in a way which has not happened since the school closed.
If there is any further information which will help the Mission Pastoral and Church Property Committee to come to a decision, please do not hesitate to let me know.
With best wishes,
att. R Stephenson proposal cc. Bishop Philip, Katie Wright, Adrian Browning
F11 Church of St Pynnochus, St. Pinnock - Cornwall
Brief background to where we are now:
“Small parish church. Norman cruciform origins with C15 north aisle and nave rebuilds, the tower of C14, C16 south porch. Coursed rubble with granite dressings. Cornish slated roofs with some slates slipped. Damp tower with much vegetation growth and problem downpipe on the north side.” (https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at- risk/search-register/list-entry/16857)
“Rev. Tony Ingleby said that the Diocese had mooted in the past that the church could probably be bought for a nominal £1 by a community/charitable body.” (Parochial Church Meeting on Wednesday 6th April 2016)
“Are there any other suggestions for a community use of this magnificent Grade 1 listed building with over 700 years of history and after which the Parish is named?”
Outline of our suggestion:
I am Rob Stevenson and I have several passions; preserving Cornish Heritage, Education through Engagement and Building stronger Communities. I am involved in the St Day Old Church which has done a similar thing there and I believe that something could be done to save, preserve and ensure that St Pinnock Church is properly used.
In recent years, I have co-founded Beach Guardian Community Interest Company who have engaged with the community in Cornwall and have developed and delivered educational workshops into schools and other community groups.
F12 The intention is to turn the building into a “forest school” which means a “LOtC” – Learning Outside the Classroom location. We would host workshops and events for school, college and university groups, home-school partnerships, members of the community and other groups such as scouts and guides.
We would be able to provide history, art, literacy, science and maths through new inspiration with our learning workshops. The building is magnificent and has the wow factor and needs to be used for the local and wider community and to preserve our heritage and the heritage of the church.
We have formed a new “Not for profit Social Enterprise” called Support for Learning Cornwall CIC in order to manage this new project.
Who is Rob Stevenson:
My other background is that I am co-founder of Beach Guardian CIC who deliver community events and workshops – I have been successful in promoting and expanding this project and securing grant and other sustainable sources of funding. We have developed a marine environment education programme which, when presented to schools, receives a positive reaction and ongoing engagement with repeat bookings. In the first year of running this CIC we would have received grants and donations for (mainly) revenue funding of circa £30,000.
I have previously saved Trevone’s natural swimming pool, created a skate park for Padstow and run several youth work projects.
I have a commercial background for 30 years having worked for Dixons Stores Group and was Managing Director of a commercial business which I sold in 2016. I now work part time in several roles and want to increase my involvement in community and education-based projects; such as this one.
Support For Learning Cornwall CIC:
This is a new Community Interest Company which has been formed to create educational packs which will be available to schools and other community groups to use. Together with the church building and some external space, these workshops immediately provide a “Learning Outside the Classroom” experience for schools and other groups as it will be many years before the Government and the Department of Education will have people trained to do this.
The other Directors of this CIC are experienced content creators, blog writers, photographers and film makers who will be able to produce quality educational resources. We have also spoken to local nature experts, church historians, teachers, media managers etc who are all excited by this project and who wish to provide content and assist with the organisation’s goals.
I have met with Adrian Browning, Katie Wright and Audrey Elkington at the church to talk about our plans, show the various aspects of the building and outside spaces to highlight the educational possibilities and community guided walks and events which will be created and made available to enhance the reach and opportunities that this new phase of the church’s history can enter into.
Immediate plans for the building:
The building needs the power restored as quickly as possible, have some maintenance done to it, have the heating on to remove and keep the damp at bay. This would be our immediate priority.
It is fully appreciated that this building is Grade 1 Listing and therefore no internal or external changes are proposed or required. We can start immediately with not even a screw hole being drilled into the walls.
We would not need to do much inside except sort out water and toilets. This will be done as follows:
Water will be provided with “The Skywell” which takes in and filters the surrounding air, removing dust, airborne particles, and bacteria. The Skywell 5 can make up to five gallons in a day. The Skywell eliminates the need for pumping, piping, or shipping water which is a process that heavily impacts our environment.
F13 We will also utilise rainwater for washing and cleaning therefore no immediate requirement for water pipes exists. Toilets will be two “Compost Toilets”. They will be natural composting toilets which are low maintenance, easy to use, easy to move and needs no plumbing. The loo saves 50,000 litres of water per year. Hand-built in the UK from renewable, reclaimed and recycled materials. The loo has a unique dry waste separation system meaning no foul smells or nasty build-up like conventional outside loos. The loo comes with a 25-litre solid waste container and 5 litre liquid waste container. The 25 litre solids container can last up to two months for one person before emptying.
F14 The space can easily be adapted for the intended use as follows:
- Remove the existing pews. I understand that the Diocese may want to remove these and possibly sell them. This gives two opportunities, either a source of funds for the Diocese in lieu of handing over the building for a pound; the pews could raise between £5,000 and £10,000 or as a source of immediate funds for capital expenditure for the items required (detailed below): - Location of two Compost toilets in the room labelled Vestry. Sinks for handwashing with rain water and soap bars will also be located along with storage cupboards for toilet rolls, sawdust and spare containers. - Installation of kitchen units, a fridge, microwave, kettle and toaster and a work surface as indicated on the plan below. These will all be under the existing windows and the water dispenser. - Storage units along one wall as indicated on the plan below. Again, these will be below existing windows so that there is no alteration to any of the structure of the building. - Rugs, foldaway tables and stacking chairs so that any configuration of workshop or performance can be easily arranged - It would be good to have a designated outside area for a small garden and maybe a greenhouse to grow vegetables and flowers, to utilise the compost from the toilets as part of one of the education subjects - Wi-Fi will be provided by a 4G dongle so that no cables need to be connected to the building - The organ can be sold by the Diocese if required but it could also be retained and used for music workshops - Quotes for any work identified or still outstanding will be sought to ensure priority is given to dealing with any issues and leaks as quickly as possible - Lighting and heating will be upgraded to make these as efficient and more energy saving - As parking is limited, visiting groups will be encouraged to travel in via minibus. Visitors will also be asked to bring water in re-usable water bottles and hot drinks in re-usable coffee cups to encourage visitors to be environmentally aware and to reduce the impact on the resources inside the building
-
F15 Workshops:
Full use of the building’s history, location and features to provide the most engaging and inspiring sessions. These include:
Art, Science, English, Drama, Music, History, Geography, Maths, EPR (Ethics, Philosophy and Religion), Environment, Yoga, Health and Mental Wellbeing, Photography, Nature, Gardening and Pollinators.
The building is situated in an area which provides incredible opportunities for workshops around the following topics:
Church History: Parish church with Norman cruciform origins.
Memorials: Ames Coplestone, Jane daughter of Emmanuel Ganbe, John Collier, Thomas Hockin
4 bells which were recast in 1803
Battle of Braddock Down
The group of round barrows South East of Middle Taphouse
The old Cornwall Railway Signal box at Westwood Quarry which was used as a ‘gangsters hut’ and disappeared in the early 1960s
Minerals safeguarding area at Westwood Quarry for Building Stone
Common Land & Village Greens - The Recreation Allotment in St. Pinnock
Historic Landscape Characterisation including: Modern Enclosed Land Settled areas from larger farming settlements upwards. Post-medieval Enclosed Land Farmland: Medieval Traditionally managed Woodlands Upland Rough Ground Ornamental gardens
F16 County Wildlife Sites: Gratton & Cliver Woods - English Woodland Herodsfoot Woods - Forestry Commission Liggars Wood – Ancient Woodland
With the compost toilets and “The Skywell” there are also ideal opportunities for discussing and demonstrating the science associated with both.
The outdoor space is also a great asset that can be utilised in any weather. It would be beneficial, but not dependant, to have an allocated area (which we have discussed) to enable many of the subjects and topics.
Grant funding opportunities:
I have had a meeting with the Regional Funding Officer for the National Lottery. The Big Lottery Fund gives grants to organisations in the UK to help improve their communities. An initial grant for £10,000 has been applied for which usually takes 3-4 months to be approved. They have also confirmed access to their other funds, such as Reaching Communities England and a new £100 million Environmental Fund which will be available this September. Their Heritage Lottery Fund is the main fund which we will be applying for as we will deliver a project with a strong heritage focus, connecting communities. This grant can especially help with repair and conservation, so as soon as we know what work needs to be done to secure the building structurally, we will apply for this grant.
I have also had a meeting with Oxford Innovation Ltd in Cornwall who work with organisations in Cornwall under a European Regional Development Fund. They have confirmed that they will provide 12 hours of support at no charge to assist in grant funding research and applications.
Landfill grants. The building is halfway between two historic landfill sites so funding could be available because of this.
Cornwall Community Foundation – numerous, smaller, grants that enable bringing together people who want to help Cornish communities with projects that make a real difference.
Supermarkets have a Community Manager and a “bags of help” scheme which provides grant opportunities for between £1,000 and £4,000 per supermarket. Nearby are Morrisons, Aldi, Tesco, Asda and Co-Op. Grant applications will be submitted to all of these.
Benefactors: Wills & Legacies can also be explored by setting up a website and social media to reach out to those people who have a link to the church.
Donations will be made easy for people to make through PayPal Donations, one-off and monthly direct debits.
Fund raising events.
The Community Regeneration team in Cornwall Council deals with Regeneration and Grants Advice issues across Cornwall and discussions and meetings will take place with this team.
Each Cornwall Councillor has an annual £2,000 Community Grant to award. Liskeard & Looe has 8 councillors, St Blazey, Fowey and Lostwithiel has 5 and Bodmin has 4. All these councillors will be approached.
People's Postcode Lottery.
Businesses in the area would also be approached about Team Building, Environmental and Mental Health projects and also for funding as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility requirements.
Grow Nature Seed Fund is a Cornwall initiative to support Environmental improvements to a community centre through installation of bee bricks, bug hotels, swift boxes, nest boxes, tree planting. Environmental aspects of a
F17 heritage restoration scheme. Initiatives to help local people to connect with their environment. Activities which encourage people to grow nature and increase the public understanding and enjoyment of wildlife and heritage
Community Groups. We would aim to make the building free to use for any community groups that set up in the Parish of St Pinnock because of the new opportunities that this project brings.
Schools. There are 50 schools all within a reasonable, 30-minute, journey time. Options for the schools to use the building, at a charge, will be offered, such as:
- Own use of the building at £50 per half day - Half day facilitated workshops (outlined above) at £250 per day - Full day facilitated workshops (outlined above) at £500 per day
There are 36 weeks in a school year and the target will be to have one session per week, bringing in an annual income of £9,000 which will cover the salary of myself and all over overheads, such as insurance, utility bills and administration expenses. We will also look to offer overnight indoor camping for schools and groups.
To expand upon this. The plan will be to utilise Lottery Funding to offer schools the use of the building to experience the workshops and other opportunities at no cost for the first 12 months. This will mean that classes of children in Cornwall can visit the church, use the resources and experience “Learning Outside the Classroom” first hand at no expense. This builds up a portfolio of testimonials, best practice and media opportunities to demonstrate the potential of this project and to then be able to have ongoing and sustainable use and income.
We know that there is a demand from schools as, in January 2018, the government set out it’s 25-year plan:
The new 25-year plan from DEFRA looks to have far reaching and positive effects on learning outside the classroom (LOtC). The 25 Year Environment Plan sets out the government’s comprehensive and long-term approach to protecting and enhancing our natural habitats and the environment. The paper states that connecting more people with the environment will promote greater well-being. A major part of this is by encouraging children to be closer to nature, in and out of school. “Playing and learning outside is a fundamental part of childhood, and helps children grow up healthy. Some children are lucky enough to have a family garden; others will not, and it is important that we find other ways to give them better access to the great outdoors. We know that regular contact with green spaces, such as the local park, lake, or playground, can have a beneficial impact on children’s physical and mental health.” New initiatives have been designed to encourage and support outdoor activities, particularly where a child has no access to a family garden.
There is currently a very limited provision for this type of learning environment in Cornwall:
F18 We also have Bodmin College, Callywith College and Universities within the catchment too
This proposal will provide the opportunity for children to learn outside their traditional school classroom, in a stunning building, in an amazing location steeped in history and heritage. As outlined above, there are numerous workshops, topics and subjects that can all be provided.
The building will be used, repaired, preserved and cared for. It will have hundreds of children visit each year and many others from the local and surrounding community will visit it and work in it.
This church can truly grow, and this will provide a quick and beneficial solution to the fate of the building and willl be a very positive news story for the Diocese to have handed the building over to the community; for the local and Cornish community.
Since Version 1 of this document, I have met with people in the local community when I have visited the church with architects who are currently working on professional plans for the inside of the church. These architects are providing their services at no charge. The discussions that I had with those local residents were robust but very beneficial; they want to see the building’s future secured, they want it to be used, they don’t want to be inconvenienced by lots of extra vehicles, they believe that an educational use for the building for the benefit of the local and wider community will be an ideal and much needed immediate and ongoing use for the building.
I have also spoken to Stephen’s Scown Solicitors who are excited and supportive of this project and have confirmed that they would be willing to assist with any legal work that will be required, much of this will be pro-bono.
As soon as plans from the architects are available these will be forwarded.
Rob Stevenson
F19 Annex R
Closed Church of St Pinnock St Pinnock Representations Received Following publication of the draft scheme 20 representations were received (6 against, 4 letters of comment raising concerns about the proposal, and 10 in favour). The Representations against come from Doug Mills Clare Knapman Debbie Smith & Steve Richards Lucinda Curtis Lorraine Webber St Pinnock Parish Council The Letters of Comment come from Angela Whitehead J E Bance Catherine Gaskain Catherine Marlow, Historic England The Representation in Favour come from Lucy Williamson Robert Kelly Mike Heard Giles Merrifield Vanessa Greenaway Yve Metcalf Carline and John Harrison Brian Jewell Charlotte Hill Rob Stevenson
R1 Representations Against
From Doug Mills Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Closed church building of St Pinnock St Pinnock Diocese of Truro Your ref. RC39/30B Having attended the drop-in session on Monday 17 February at Trevelmond Methodist Chapel regarding the above, I would record that I am emphatically against the sale of the Church to "Support for Learning Cornwall CIC" However commendable their objectives might be, it is difficult to see how they might be realised. I have serious concerns regarding the financing of this project which seems to be entirely based on continually obtaining a succession of grant funding – both for the purchase and maintenance of the 700-year-old Grade 1 listed Church and to run the project. None of these grants appear to have been secured as yet and no schools (of which apparently there are 50 in the ‘catchment area’) have committed to using the facility – indeed, members of the audience said how under-funded schools are, to which Mr Stevenson responded that use during the first year would be free. That would of course put even more strain on the fragile resources of the project. Even if grant funding is initially gained, I fear that in the event of future grants drying up or not materialising – and none are guaranteed, the first to suffer would be the maintenance of the building which, if not attended to, could lead to irreparable damage. The limited access to ‘green spaces’ that the hatched area in the plan shows does not accord with the stated objectives of the CIC and the total absence of any parking facilities in the square – for a minibus and a car – were also raised as significant problems to people living close by! It is a disappointment that the Church Conservation Trust considers that our 700- year-old St. Pinnock Church ‘did not have enough merit to be considered’, so the suggestion by your Adrian Browning, put forward at the meeting, that the commissioners may consider seeking planning consent for residential use and marketing the Church with the consent would, in my estimation, be the next best option. It is a more sound approach than the present proposal as keeping one’s home ‘windproof and watertight’ takes a much higher priority than I suspect it would in the challenging budgetary pressures that might face this CIC. Regards, Doug Mills
R2 From Clare E Knapman Dear Church Commissioners I would like to register that I OPPOSE the proposed Draft Scheme for St Pinnock Church, Liskeard, PL14 4NA due to its inappropriateness as a building and site for the intended use after attending the meeting on 17/02/20. My comments have been considered within the context of the meeting and as a resident of St Pinnock for the past 17 years with the addition of living in the parish from birth until 17 years. The text within “The Current Proposals” under the Explanatory Note, states “... to encourage children to be close to nature” and that “the proposed purchaser intends to use the property principally as a Forest School. As the principal objective of the proposal, the church and its environs are entirely unsuitable for Forest School activities. The church and its site fall outside the classification of the Forest School term. “Forest School is an inspirational process, that offers ALL learners regular opportunities to achieve and develop confidence and self-esteem through hands-on learning experiences in a woodland or natural environment with trees.” https://www.forestschoolassociation.org/what-is-forest-school/ Additionally, the outside space is very limited (potentially further limited by a septic tank and drainage), the health & safety and risk assessment will be very difficult to apply and the site is too close to residences to be appropriate for Forest School activities. Furthermore, the vagueness of what constitutes the activities of this proposal in the meeting certainly did not indicate Forest School activities as the primary purpose. Secondly, “The church would be used to host workshops and events for school, college and university groups, home-school partnerships, members of the local community and other groups such as scouts and guides.” The church and the site is just not adequate in supporting this due to its size, dilapidation and lack of facilities to accommodate such grand thinking. The church is isolated and located down a network of narrow, single lane, hedge-lined, heavily potholed, agriculturally used roads with a sharp corner on one road, and steep hills on another. There is no designated church parking and the land that is outside the church walls is already at full capacity. It is also unowned and the residents have historic usage rights. It is not acceptable to think that if there are going to be visits that one can see the residents so they can move their cars. There are no facilities – toilets, water, kitchen, septic tank and drainage. The current heating and electrics are inadequate for the proposal. The access in front of the church gate heavily floods in wet weather and it will be difficult to identify who is responsible for that repair work and the ongoing maintenance. There is also the concern about the presence of the directors/workers during the visits. It was suggested that there be a key holder on the wall. However, what happens in an emergency? This appears to be too casual and nonchalant. There is an alternative community hall at East Taphouse which has a large room suitable for workshop(s) with a smaller room/bar. The facilities are commensurate with a community venue - very new kitchen facilities, heating, toilets, good parking,
R3 separate grass areas ( probably larger than the land hatched for proposed purchase) and accessible to the countryside without having to use main roads. This facility is easily accessible (A390) with room for manoeuvre for coaches as the school coach already uses it to collect the school children from East Taphouse. This facility is not used to full capacity and would be much more appropriate if the proposed purchaser anticipates using the venue for maybe x80 per year as stated in the meeting. During the meeting there were no sample proposals for activities which would explain in detail how the church will be used within the educational, cultural and community remit. Although, the question was raised of what constituted a typical day the response was vague. This is unsatisfactory and indicates that broad terminology is being used to mitigate the lack of detail and indicates a lack of substance. It is evident that there will be substantial investment required for remedial works at a basic level and inputting the essential facilities that are required and expected to enable this proposal to move forward. There was no financial data available and unfortunately the questions raised about the finance and funding of this proposal were answered with vagueness and avoidance. There was refusal to enter into any disclosure about figures regarding the request for funding; both for the capital expenditure of the site/building and for the costs associated with the actual project. Through this lack of transparency, confidence is not inspired and raises questions about the integrity of the purchase. To address this concern in a small way, I would hope that the Parish Council were invited to look at the Business Plan which would enable the councillors to make an informed decision on behalf of their parishioners (the immediate community) of the appropriateness of this project. Due to the lack of information and substance, it is difficult to see how the proposed purchaser will expect funders to provide money for such little return. They require value for money and time framed impact and unfortunately this does not appear to be the case. There is also the question of schools and funding for extracurricular engagement. The schools are absolutely struggling to maintain what they already have. In particular, agencies who provide core provision, particularly in the mental health arena for young people, are losing their funding after several rounds of receipt in prior years. This proposal has to be of substantial benefit to the young people for the schools to engage within and again it appears that this project does not fulfil this criteria. It is impossible to see how, with the little detail that has been provided, that momentum can be maintained or increased to engage further funds in years to come. If in the case that this proposal dwindles what will become of the church? Presumably recourse to the residential market will be primary consideration, with the additional bonus of having remedial works paid for already by the funders which boosts its price. It was raised within the meeting that the church be kept as is and maintained by the church or one of the trusts that specialise in the maintenance of churches. The Explanatory Note refers to the church “...(SAC) have indicated that the building is of considerable historic and archaeological interest, of notable architectural quality and of notable value as a feature in the local landscape.” Surely, this qualifies the church
R4 to be maintained within this mode of protection. Alternatively, perhaps it would be more beneficial for the church to be placed on the open market again for residential use with proposed planning permission? Once in residential placement, the church's future is more assured as it is in the best interest of the owner(s) to keep it maintained. Perhaps this would be the best move forward and maybe it is inevitable even with forestalling from the above. Yours faithfully Clare E Knapman
From Debbie Smith & Steve Richards We are extremely concerned about the impact this proposal will have on the local residents and community. There is not enough parking to accommodate the number of people who will attend these sessions for a start. The church square currently accommodates up to 10 cars on a daily basis which are owned by the immediate residents. This in itself can often be problematic without factoring in even more vehicles. The local farmer requires 24 hour access to the driveway which is located outside the church (as does the owner of Glebe Farm Bungalow). It is inevitable that visitors to the church classroom will block or impede this access. St Pinnock is currently a quiet hamlet with very low levels of traffic and pollution. The additional vehicles which will be using the church will increase both noise and pollution for local residents. The local roads are single track and are currently used by walkers, dog walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The additional vehicles will pose a safety hazard as they will inevitably drive too fast and will not be mindful of the other users they share the roads with. The idea of an "open classroom/forest school" in theory could offer a positive use of the existing building. However the building does not provide the infrastructure required to deliver this proposal. The outside space is limited and is currently (and will always be) a graveyard, so we cannot understand how the proposed buyer will accommodate the "outside experience" he desires for the users of the school, without impacting on the very old gravestones. The proposed purchaser advised that he has educational and community grants in place in order to deliver this project. However we are unconvinced that he will commit to using these funds in order to improve and maintain the existing building, which will require considerable refurbishment initially and also ongoing maintenance. Having attended the recent drop in session, despite these and many other issues being raised, we feel that the proposed scheme will have a significant negative impact on the local residents and will not deliver the promises made. We are totally opposed to this proposal.
R5 From Lucinda Curtis I have concerns over the proposed use of the Church. I live in [ … ] next to the Church and would like to raise concerns over increased parking for the proposed use of the building and also the protection of my property due to the increased visitors to the church.
From: Miss Lorraine Webber I attended the meeting at Trevelmond Chapel on Monday 17th Feb where I met the proposed Buyer Mr. Stevenson. I have a number of concerns as listed below. 1. I live at [ … ] which is a small working farm and my principle access is Contiguous to the lychgate. Obviously I do not want my access blocked or impeded. Currently what has always been called the playground is used by local residents For car parking, any additional transport and mini buses will add to the problem. There is no Public transport available in St.Pinnock. Some form of delineation may be prudent so that no one Parks where I take entry across to my property.
2. My family have resided in this Parish for generations and my great grand parents grave Is all but adjacent to the north / east boundary of the ground highlighted by the hatching. I also think That area which is included may not have grave stones standing but burial sites are still beneath. I would be upset if this area was disturbed or not dealt with in a respectful manner. I noted that it has been stated that the cemetery had been closed for fifty years but I believe ashes Have been interned during this time. I do not believe that the small amount of green space (hatching) Around the church would be of benefit to children’s physical needs.
3. Of a lesser importance but of concern is that the project appears to dependent upon a Continual stream of grant funding. In this economic climate how would this be guaranteed? I am therefore concerned on the future upkeep and maintenance of the building which is of historic Interest and grade 1 Listed. I nevertheless appreciate that some form of occupation would be of some benefit for the building.
4. Finally I would like any future use of the Church to respect my privacy and quiet enjoyment Of my property.
Yours faithfully,
Miss. Lorraine Webber
R6 ST PINNOCK PARISH COUNCIL
Parish Clerk: Mrs Jenny Hoskin Chairman: Cllr Carol Spear Telephone: Telephone:
20th February 2020
Mr A M G Browning and Representations Closed Churches Division Church Commissioners Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ
Dear Mr Browning and Closed Churches Division
Ref: RC39/30B The Closed church building of St Pinnock (Diocese of Truro) in Cornwall
Further to your letter dated the 3rd February 2020 and the attached explanatory note, our Chairman and Vice Chairman attended the drop-in session at Trevelmond Methodist Church on the 17th February 2020.
The matter was discussed at a meeting of the Parish Council that evening and the Parish Council wish to make the following comments-
1. Although there is scope for an alternative use for the building there is no evidence in your documentation to show that the potential purchaser has a sound business plan in place for the proposed educational, cultural and community venture; and there is no financial forecast indicating the project is likely to succeed.
2. The proposals for the scheme do not show that grant funding has been secured.
3. The Burials and Churchyard section state that none of the burials in the hatched area took place within the last fifty years and this needs to be confirmed via the burial records, checking that a second burial or interment of cremated remains has not taken place within that time. It also raises the point that efforts should be made to contact the owners of the graves in this area. The Local Authorities Cemeteries Act 1977 (exclusive right of burial) states that a purchased plot (used or unused) remains in the ownership of the purchaser for 100 years and therefore cannot be sold to, or used by, anyone else without the owners permission. The question is asked – can this hatched area be sold if it contains plots that remain in the ownership of the purchaser?
4. The site has no specific parking area and parking is very limited outside the church grounds. The small space available needs to be shared with residents of the neighbouring properties and their visitors. How many vehicles are likely to be connected to the project that require parking spaces?
R7 The sale of St Pinnock Church should not proceed without confirmation of the above points, and assurance to the Parish Council (and the parishioners of St Pinnock) that these matters have been dealt with, and the future and alternative use of the building is beneficial to the parish and does not, in any way, disrupt the lives of those living in the hamlet.
I look forward to hearing from you before any further steps are taken by the Church Commissioners to proceed with the sale of this church.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Hoskin Clerk to St Pinnock Parish Council
R8 Letters of Comment
From Mrs Angela Whitehead past parishioner and worshipper, family generations association with St Pinnock
I attended the recent meeting at Trevelmond, regarding the proposals for St Pinnock, although I now live in a neighbouring parish. I have mixed feelings. Although to see the church kept maintained and used, albeit infrequently, is a welcome idea, I have great concerns for what may happen in the future. How viable will the proposal be once the various funds he hopes to procure have expired? Perhaps the gentleman concerned will want to move on to other things, possibly leaving St Pinnock open to any manner of projects. My father was Churchwarden there for 40 years before his death in 1982 and my mother took over after his death for over 30 years almost until the church closed....and she passed away in 2017. Generations of my family are buried in the two churchyards, with many family weddings and Christenings there. I feel that the church authorities are hoping to be relinquished of their responsibility for St Pinnock. Part of me would almost prefer to see St Pinnock allowed to decay, and become a relic to visit, but of course I understand the Grade 1 listing wouldn't allow this. I realise my thoughts will have no real bearing on what decision is made, but I will feel easier knowing I have at least shared my thoughts, rather than continue with the upsetting, tearful and anxious moments I have had. I attend the family graves quite regularly and will watch any developments with interest. Some parishioners at the meeting raised concerns regarding parking space required for the proposed activities, which I understand and sympathise with. I also agree with the comment made at the meeting that educational establishments often really do lack the funding to be able to attend these out of classroom sessions, especially when Cornwall has so many, more local to each school, opportunities in their own parishes and localities. The reasons for my views, and sending this to you, are my personal sentiment for the St Pinnock Church I knew... and a sincere hope that you will consider long and hard so that you make the right decisions for all current parishioners and those who have gone before. Thank you.
R9 From J E Bance Sirs,
With reference to the proposals for the disposal of St Pinnock Church
Whilst I accept the proposals put forward are broadly workable I wish to make the following comments for consideration to ensure the building and surrounding land is maintained and preserved as a former church and church yard, and to minimise the impact upon the local community
1 That the use of the building for the proposed Forrest School should be limited to school hours, and that any use by other regulated youth organisations or by the Trevelmond and St Pinnock local community shall exclude use between 10 pm and 8 am
2 That the use of the building by any other commercial organisations or business at any time in the future is excluded.
3 That the transportation of persons to the Forrest school be by mini buses so as to minimise the impact on the parking for local residents. Should there be a need for the use of a coach that the vehicle drops off and picks up only, and does not remain parked on the square or adjacent roads.
4 That there should be a covenant so that In the event of the proposed project failing in the future, the building cannot be used for any further business or commercial activity and must be reserved for private residential use in line with maintaining the building and grounds as a former church and listed building.
Yours Sincerely
J E Bance
From Catherine Gaskain
Local resident
I am really torn with this idea. On the one hand it would be good to see the Church looked after and saved before it falls into total disrepair. On the other, I really don’t see how this can be viable without heap of traffic and this setting does not have sufficient parking.
R10 Mr Adrian Browning Closed Churches Division Church Commissioners Our ref: PA00866291 Church House, Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ 5 March 2020
Dear Mr Browning
ST PINNOCK CHURCH, ST PINNOCK, PL14 4NA
Thank you for your letter of 3 February 2020. Having considered the information provided, we submit our representation in detail below.
Summary Historic England consider that the suggested use of the church as a Forest School, with associated adaptation to its interior and the use of some land within the church yard is a reasonable proposal, subject to various caveats identified below. We have strong concerns that the repairs required to improve the church's condition, and for it to be removed from the Heritage at Risk register, will be a financial burden to such an educational organisation and may make the proposed use unviable. We consider that it is the responsibility of the Church of England to carry out such repairs in advance of sale to derisk the situation, as previously outlined in earlier correspondence.
Advice Historic England provided advice on the future of the Church of St Pinnock during its use seeking period, in October 2018 (our ref. PA00866291), after a joint site visit with representatives from the Church Commissioners, Cornwall Council, and the DAC. I attach that letter to this correspondence for ease of reference. In our letter we outlined the significance of the grade I listed church, which has Norman origins and is located within an enclosure that strongly implies a much earlier date and a high potential for archaeological remains (in addition to those burials that have subsequently been added during the use of the church).
Our letter emphasised our concern about the condition of the church as reflected in its inclusion on the Historic England Heritage At Risk Register in the 'at risk' category. We recommended that relatively straightforward repairs to the rainwater goods, leadwork, slates and to the door at the base of the tower should be undertaken by the Church in advance of sale:
"Historic England believe that available funding should be utilised for immediate repairs to the roof, guttering, lead work and tower door frame at the minimum, in order
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R11 to prevent continued deterioration of the fabric. Whatever the eventual decision about new uses for the church may be, presenting the building in a sound condition with no major problems or expensive repairs to be carried out will only increase the interest in the property, and the likelihood of a person or group coming forward to take on its guardianship. Section 61 of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 identifies the duties for maintaining a listed building during its use seeking period. This is especially pertinent as we know that in many instances the use seeking period can extend beyond the defined two year period."
We remain very concerned that the condition of the church has not been addressed by the local Diocese or the Church Commissioners and that the cost of the repairs is likely to be prohibitively expensive for an educational Community Interest Company (CIC). We note that the CIC in question has been running for less than a year and therefore there are no accounts that might indicate its ability to fund (in part or in combination with other grant sources) the necessary repairs. Certainly the lack of record or expertise in this area is concerning.
Whilst the proposed use of the church in educational, cultural and community use is positive in principle, it may well not be financially viable so as to sustain the building in a good state of repair. We consider it incumbent upon the Church of England to pass the building onto any new owners in a good condition, especially as we understand that at the time of its closure a not insignificant sum of money was passed to other parts of the Church. This will enable less profitable but more beneficial uses to be housed successfully in the building. The risk of a cycle of short term ownership and uses, and declining condition of fabric is a very real one without appropriate intervention at this stage.
The draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) scheme currently under consideration The proposal is to sell the closed church and part of its annexed land for educational, cultural and community use and for purposes ancillary thereto. The principal use will be as a Forest School. The adaptations to allow this use will be the removal of the pews from the nave and north aisle and the introduction of compostable toilets and kitchen and storage facilities. The chancel furnishings will remain in place. An area of church yard will be sold alongside the church and this includes a larger area of the church yard to the south east.
As identified within our first letter of advice, we find that given the spacious interior of the church and the window positions and heights, open plan use would be most appropriate. This will enable the character of the space and its original functional role to remain dominant. The proposal to remove all of the Victorian pews but leave the chancel furniture intact would be harmful to the church, but would enable a more flexible use of the building. We find that, on balance, the proposal would be acceptable in this regard, subject to a suitable recording exercise and appropriately detailed information on reinstatement of the floor (see below). However, we would encourage
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R12 consideration of the retention of some fixed pews in discreet areas, or the creation of moveable pews on castors, or indeed the reorientation of some of the pews to create seating around enclosed smaller work areas which may be useful within the functions of the Forest School.
The pews currently sit on raised wooden platforms and should they be proposed for removal, what lies beneath this would need to be confirmed within a listed building consent application, along with a methodology for their replacement and identification of what materials would be used. There is no indication within the documentation about the future of the organ, bells or Norman font, and we therefore presume that they would remain in situ.
From the information provided by the Church of England on submitted mapping, and also from its historic use, we presume that the land to the west of the church yard is in the ownership of the church, or is communally used with no ownership. This area is currently used for informal parking for neighbouring properties, and access to those farms and houses off it. We presume that parking for the proposed use would be within this area, and that no access for vehicles would be provided into the church yard, which we could not support.
We have some concerns about the use of areas of the church yard for the Forest School. There will be burials and very likely, other archaeological remains in this area and any clearance, digging or burning of fires would cause harm to those below ground deposits and our ability to interpret them in the future. We recommend that any sale is accompanied by strict control over activities within the church yard to avoid harm.
The location of the toilets and the kitchen is not made clear in the information submitted. Again, below ground archaeology could be affected by the creation of these facilities depending on how they are achieved, either through trenching for water pipes, or the clearing of outside areas for a concrete base. The location of the WC should be carefully considered so as to avoid harming key views within the church yard and to the church itself. Kitchen facilities inside the church may be relatively discreet and unharmful, but the details of these and their specific location would be required as part of any consent process. In principle, and subject to their location and further details being provided, we have no objection to these facilities being provided.
We recommend that you consult Cornwall Council's historic environment and planning teams in relation to this proposal given their previous involvement in discussions and their position as the Local Planning Authority who would determine any subsequent applications.
Yours sincerely
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R13 Catherine Marlow Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas
ST PINNOCK CHURCH, ST PINNOCK, PL14 4NA Pre-application Advice
List of information on which the above advice is based Covering letter Draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme document with accompanying map and schedules Explanatory Note in relation to the Church of St Pinnock 'How representations are considered' document
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R14 SOUTH WEST OFFICE
Mr Adrian Browning Closed Churches Division Church Commissioners Our ref: PA00866291 Church House, Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ 13 October 2018
Dear Mr Browning
Pre-application Advice
ST PINNOCK CHURCH, ST PINNOCK, PL14 4NA
Thank you for engaging with Historic England in discussions about the future of St Pinnock Church. We are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss options for the church at this early stage in Church processes.
We attended a joint site visit on 28 August to consider options and look at the church, its location, condition, church yard and general setting. The church is currently in its use seeking period, after closure for formal worship in February 2017. We hope that continued collective consideration of the issues by the Parish, DAC, Cornwall Council and ourselves can lead to a satisfactory long term solution for the building.
The significance of the heritage asset The Church of St Pinnock, or St Pynnochus, is a grade I listed building lying in the hamlet of St Pinnock, two miles to the west of Liskeard. The church has Norman foundations and the earliest remaining fabric includes the Norman font, which has been relocated to the base of the tower. The three stage buttressed tower is 14th century, the nave and north aisle are 15th century, and the south porch is 16th century. The south transept and part of the east end were rebuilt during the 19th century restoration. Within the nave are granite arches supporting a wagon roof which extends into the chancel. The decoration of the wall plate is an attractive piece of carving. The church was heavily restored in 1881-2 and contains a full set of pews, a screen and pulpit of that period. The glass of the perpendicular windows is rather plain and there are only two monuments of note; both 17th century. The tower has four bells, recast in 1803.
The church yard is densely populated by burials on all sides and also contains one grade II listed 19th century memorial, to the north west. To the north east of the church yard is a medieval cross which is not listed but is referred to in the Cornwall Historic Environment Record (HER) and we therefore consider it to be a non-designated heritage asset. To the west of the church is the lychgate and only access point to the
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R15 SOUTH WEST OFFICE church. Within this is a coffin rest made of granite. This is of unknown date but is likely to be contemporary with the lychgate itself.
The church yard is surrounded by small trees, shrubs and unlaid hedging which has blocked the spectacular views of the landscape to the north and east. The appointment of the church on this spur of land combined with the curvilinear shape of the church yard indicates strongly that the site has very early origins and the potential of the site to preserve archaeological remains is therefore considered to be high. The whole site is set in an Area of Great Landscape Value. The church is a local landmark and, despite the tree screening, the tower is seen from a number of vantage points in the surrounding landscape.
Immediately to the south of the tower and porch is a small area of level ground which is free of burial markers (although this should not be interpreted as an indication of the potential for burials). This is the only part of the church yard (beside a narrow path immediately surrounding the church walls) that is not raised above path height. A modern oil tank has been situated to the east of the porch and this serves the heating system.
The condition of the heritage asset The church is currently on the Historic England Heritage At Risk Register in the 'at risk' category. This status is the result of its lack of current use as a place of worship, the extremely damp condition of the tower and the deteriorating condition of the roof covering. It was clear from our site visit that much of the tower's damp problems stem from the failure of the rainwater goods on its north elevation, although there may be other associated problems with penetrating damp or failure of high level lead work. Some slipped slates were also evident on the main roof of the church. The access door to the base of the tower is fixed into a failing frame which has rotted out. In other areas the church appears to be in a reasonably sound condition.
Historic England believe that available funding should be utilised for immediate repairs to the roof, guttering, lead work and tower door frame at the minimum, in order to prevent continued deterioration of the fabric. Whatever the eventual decision about new uses for the church may be, presenting the building in a sound condition with no major problems or expensive repairs to be carried out will only increase the interest in the property, and the likelihood of a person or group coming forward to take on its guardianship. Section 61 of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 identifies the duties for maintaining a listed building during its use seeking period. This is especially pertinent as we know that in many instances the use seeking period can extend beyond the defined two year period.
Impact of potential alternative uses on the significance of the heritage asset Historic England think that the specifics of adaptations should be held in abeyance until the new function of the church is agreed in principle. However, there are some
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R16 SOUTH WEST OFFICE broad principles of potential change that we are able to outline.
Given the spacious interior of the church and the window positions and heights, we believe that more open plan use with very limited internal vertical or horizontal subdivision would be most appropriate. This will enable the character of the space and its original functional role to remain dominant. In many successful conversions, pods or free standing partitioning adequately delineate spaces without impacting on character or physical fabric. Historic England believe that such an approach (whatever the use of the church) would be most successful at St Pinnock.
The pre-application document made available to us indicates that a residential use is the preferred option for the church, having considered various factors (these including planning, heritage, pastoral, financial and sustainability/viability of the use). However, we believe that this is a premature conclusion given the early stage of engagement with both Historic England and Cornwall Council. It may be that alternative options become apparent during that process, or indeed a marketing exercise. A remaining option is also the vesting of the church to the Churches Conservation Trust.
The Cornwall Council conservation officer suggested that an alternative use of the church could be as holiday accommodation. This might take the form of a single unit, ‘bunk house’, or other facility. Holiday use tends to put less pressure on a building to conform to normal standards for accommodation. Unusually scaled or shaped rooms, very open plan living, lower standards of sound and heat insulation, reduced levels of storage both internally and externally, and less amenity space are accepted by holiday makers and are often considered characterful and interesting, whereas for normal domestic use these could be considered unacceptable. This potential use would put less pressure on external space also and thereby protect both burials and archaeology alike.
Whilst the proximity to Liskeard and various other community facilities makes finding a community need less likely, we would nonetheless encourage you to formally investigate if a community function is required locally. This information could support subsequent statutory applications. It might also be appropriate to investigate if small office, studio, live/work unit, or other non-domestic functions are sought after in the local community. These could also be potential solutions which require less subdivision and physical changes.
From the information provided by the Church of England on submitted mapping, and also from its historic use, we presume that the land to the west of the church yard is in the ownership of the church, or is communally used with no ownership. Clarity on this point would be helpful as it has associated implications when considering alternative uses. This area is currently used for informal parking for neighbouring properties, and access to those farms and houses off it.
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R17 SOUTH WEST OFFICE
Access into the churchyard for parking has been suggested as one possible element of change. This would involve the removal of the coffin rest and the introduction of vehicles within the boundary of the church yard. In our opinion this would cause unnecessary harm to the church's significance and setting. Not only would the coffin rest (an important historic and ecclesiastical feature) be removed, but the experience of the approach to the south porch would be harmed. In our opinion, the use of the only flat area of space for parking would be limiting rather than helpful, and we believe that there is sufficient parking outside of the church yard in the small square without introducing off street parking.
The 19th century pews, screen and pulpit form a cohesive group within the church, but are quite plain. They contribute character generally to the church and identify the importance of seating and orientation within places of worship. However, we believe that the fittings are not of such high significance that some change would be unacceptable, should a clear and convincing justification accompany a proposal for a viable long term solution for the building. The nature and extent of that change would require clarification, but in order to find a long term use for the building we accept that in this instance, some pew clearance may be appropriate.
We also find that the organ and heating systems fall into a similar category and could be removed without causing harm to the significance of the church, if appropriately justified within an holistic scheme for reuse.
Also suggested is the insertion of a mezzanine floor in a part of the church (not yet defined in location or extent), and alterations such as the insertion of roof lights for additional light and ventilation. Such alterations could be acceptable depending on scale, detailing, fixing methods and the age of any fabric affected by their insertion.
Historic England’s position Through this process of discussion, Historic England aims to find agreement with partners for a long term viable new use for St Pinnoch that comfortably sits alongside its significance as a grade I listed building, and also as a former place of worship. Where a proposal suggests loss of historic fabric to an unjustified degree, over- subdivision of the site or building, unnecessary clearance of internal fixtures and fittings, or harm to the significance of the church through damage to its setting, our position would be one of objection.
Next Steps We are encouraged by the discussions that took place on site with other interested parties and would welcome continuing dialogue about the church’s future. In the short term we would strongly recommend that the necessary repairs to the building are commissioned and that a local assessment of need is carried out to inform the decision making process.
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R18 SOUTH WEST OFFICE
Our pre-application advice is confidential so we will send this letter only to you. However, we encourage you to share this letter with other interested parties so that ideas and positions are shared. Because the church is on our register of places of worship ‘at risk’ we will not charge for ongoing pre-application advice. It might be beneficial to meet on site again once further work has been carried out (repairs, assessment of need etc.) and when very early draft proposals for the alternative use, with a schedule of required works or drawings, are available. We look forward to hearing from you again
Yours sincerely
Catherine Marlow Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas cc: Eve Van Der Steen, Assistant Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas, Historic England Chris Miners, Heritage at Risk architect, Historic England
ST PINNOCK CHURCH, ST PINNOCK, PL14 4NA Pre-application Advice
Information Provided Pre-application enquiry document Site visit discussions
29 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL BS1 4ND Telephone 0117 975 1308 HistoricEngland.org.uk
Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation. We respect your privacy and the use of your information. Please read our full privacy policy for more information https://www.historicengland.org.uk/terms/privacy-cookies/ R19 Representations In Favour
From Lucy Williamson By way of background, I am a teacher with a theology degree, and a parent of three. I created a Visitors' Guide to Fletching Church (E Sussex) which was praised by the Archdeacon as 'exemplary'. I am keen to see more churches making plans to continue to welcome visitors, beyond their closure. I think church architecture has so much to teach and Rob's plans look set to incorporate this and wider learning opportunities. I am keen to see these St Pinnock being used to keep the original spirit alive, albeit in a new and creative way. The church would enjoy a new lease of life and purpose under the careful stewardship of Rob Stevenson and the Support for Learning team, Rob being both a visionary and an implementor with a proven track record of bringing creative and original initiatives to life with care, creativity and sensitivity. I have known Rob for several years and his reputation is well-deserved. I think he would successfully preserve the history and heritage of this site; make St Pinnock's accessible to children in a unique way and work closely with the community to garner their much-needed support and assistance. I have chatted with him about his ideas and I think he will make necessary repairs/restorations/renovations with respect for the history of the building and an eye on sustainability. I feel that the original builders of St Pinnock and the congregation throughout its history would endorse the use of this lovely church for teaching the next generations about God's beautiful creation. I hope the plans will be approved so that children and educational communities can start to benefit from the plans Rob is hoping to put in place. In summary, think Rob's idea is excellent for a closed building.
From Robert Kelly Dear Sir/Madam I think this is a great use of what is currently a derelict/unused church. The proposal put forward would make very good use of the Church and help get the church looking beautiful again - as it did when it was still being used. There are very few resources locally for children and teenagers to have access to 'out of the classroom' learning, and this would help bridge that gap. It's a breath of fresh air that a concerned local wants to turn this derelict building into a flourishing learning space for people. I heartily recommend it.
R20 From Mike Heard
Dear Sir/Madam,
Last year, our school had the pleasure of welcoming Rob Stevenson and Emily, who gave an educational assembly and workshop to raise awareness of the damage we are doing to our ecosystems through the misuse of plastics. They were engaging, and passionate about the message they delivered. I'd like to give my support for their proposal for the future of the Church of St. Pinnock.
From Giles Merrifield I would like to make a formal representation in support of the draft scheme for St. Pinnock church. I have lived in St. Pinnock since 1987 [ ] . The draft scheme seems an entirely suitable alternative use whilst preserving the graveyard for those visitors, many of whom come from overseas, wanting to see where family members are buried. The proposal for educational activity fits well with the wider purpose that the Church once played in the community. It would be a shame if the site was to become a private residence as has already happened to the old school building which used to be used for a whole host of activities. The issue of parking was never raised as a problem when the Church was holding weddings, christenings or funerals or when St Pinnock silver band or the youth club or the Parish council were using the old school. The "Square" has always been for anyone to park residents or visitors alike. Under the current proposal the extra use of the car park will be minimal and will have no effect on residents. I was glad to hear that St. Pinnock Parish Council were in favour of the proposal at their meeting on the evening of the 17th Feb following the drop in session earlier that day. I look forward to a positive outcome and welcoming Mr. Stevenson to St. Pinnock.
From Vanessa Greenaway We have worked with Beach Guardian as a educational establishment and were so impressed with their professionalism, dedication and ethos. They worked really hard to develop the education for children and we feel that this would be a wonderful resource for us to access as a school.
From Yve Metcalfe Local Resident Excellent opportunity to use a wonderful building for a fantastic use.
R21 From Caroline and John Harrison Dear Mr. Browning, I am writing to you as a resident of St. Pinnock Village of 68 years and a member of St. Pinnock Church for most of that time. Being baptised and married at the church. I was also the final Church Warden.
I would like to say that my husband and I fully support the proposed sale and use of the church as an education centre. We feel this will preserve a Grade 1 listed building and give it a new purpose for the future.
Our only reservation is the sale of part of the churchyard which is covered in graves. Though these are now unmarked the stones were moved in the 1960’s and now stand against the church building. We would hope that these would be treated with the respect that they deserve.
Yours sincerely Caroline and John Harrison
From Brian Jewell
Trevelmond resident
Here is a man with a laudable plan I say ,, give him all the help you can ! The encouragement of our younger generation to take an interest In their environment and their heritage .
From Charlotte Hill education representative interested in collaborating with the applicants on the project
The proposed use of the church will make a positive contribution to the community and in particular children and their families for education and health and wellbeing purposes. There are limited rural facilities available to support the community of Liskeard and surrounding area and the proposals will enhance access and choice to education and wellbeing activities for children and families.
R22 From Mr Rob Stevenson
Dear Sir or Madam,
As the prospective purchaser, I would like to write in and express that I am “For” this proposal. Having spent many months on this project I have met with neighbours of the church, local schools and various other people who would like to be part of the project for the future and bring their expertise and assistance.
It was very beneficial to be at the recent public “drop-in” session where just over 30 local residents were in attendance and hearing about the proposals for the first time. I was very pleased that the vast majority were very pleased to hear that a suitable purchaser had been found and that the uncertain future for the church could shortly be turned into a positive future for it.
Many people liked the fact that the proposed use would require very minimal alterations to the building and that they would be able to use the building themselves and be able to be part of the new use for the church. Many residents were proud to share their stories and association with the church over the years and wanted to share these with new visitors to the church and would be happy to capture their memories with future workshops, events and recordings.
A couple of people expressed concerns about parking but these were not from immediate residents who did not see parking as an issue. A number of those immediate neighbours said that as the church would be used during the day for sessions normally 9.30am – 12 or 1 – 3 then many of the residents who park their squares would be out at work during the day.
We have given the transport and parking a great deal of thought and we know that the children in the village who go to school get picked up and dropped off in a mini bus so we would be asking groups that visit the church to do the same to restrict vehicle numbers and to not have large vehicles. We would generally be using the church building for sessions on the 40 school weeks each year and for 1 or 2 days in those weeks, so this means that vehicles will be parking around 100 days per year. This is far less than a residential conversion, commercial use or should the church have opened again for services.
I am very willing to have further meetings and discussions with the local community and the building will be available to use for the community after many ongoing discussions have occurred and any issues resolved. The first year of use is planned to be a very slow approach for these very reasons.
On Friday 6th March I attended the village coffee afternoon and met with 9 residents; most of whom were at the drop in session and said they were supportive of the proposal. I have also looked at parking on a number of occasions during the day and attach pictures showing that parking is not an issue during the day (four cars remain in the car park) and neighbours to the church have said to me that they do not have concerns.
R23 With regard to the financial stability of the business plan, a question was raised about grant funding for the purchase of the building and it was not right to disclose the agreement for the sum involved but clearly that is not an issue when we have agreed to do this for the offered amount so that concern is not really relevant.
As for grants, every building of this nature that needs to have renovation works is reliant on grants to have this work done; but as a Grade 1 listing building on the Historic England “Heritage at Risk Register” and for the intended community involvement, we have so far received the support of 22 grant funding organisations who have expressed their intention of support for the project.
As for ongoing costs, the proposed plan showed a small annual amount of £9,000 per year which can be achieved through schools contribution (Cornwall Council have confirmed that funding for this type of education is available and part of the Government’s 25 year plan) and other revenue generating ideas. Support For Learning Cornwall CIC has been created specifically for this project, but the other projects that we have been involved in over recent years (outlined in the introduction of the proposal) have collectively raised £500k for similar community based / building projects. We know what we are doing and we have the support from many organisations and experienced individuals.
Yours faithfully
Rob Stevenson Support For Learning Cornwall CIC
R24