CHANGES & CHANCES IN CHURCH USE
Shared Use of Churches as an Alternative to Redundancy and Total Conversion
Alexander Hobohm
A dissertation submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in Historic Conservation
Oxford Brookes University Department of Planning
and University of Oxford Department for Continuing Education
2008 Abstract
The Church of England (CofE) is facing a huge challenge in maintaining its stock of church buildings. With current funding patterns falling short of urgent requirements for upkeep and existing redundancy procedures often leading to unsatisfactory results, the dissertation investigates the shared use of churches as an alternative to church redundancies and total conversions of church buildings.
The research has been carried out in the light of recent changes in CofE legislation on the sharing of churches and in response to a number of publications and initiatives on the future of church use.
Case studies on sharing Anglican churches with the community and with commercial and residential partners, both in urban and rural areas, have been analysed with regards to the impact of shared use on the fabric of the building, on use and spaces, on funding and management and on the community.
The research has highlighted that sharing concepts can operate successfully and have a positive effect on concentrating resources and generating additional income for the maintenance of church buildings, while also returning churches to play - once again - a more central role for the community.
Small rural churches are likely to opt for flexible arrangements and multi-use of existing areas, while larger urban churches can more easily re-use vacant existing spaces or provide layered arrangements in new structures.
2 Close coordination between partners and careful planning of additional facilities is required to avoid the failure of sharing schemes, and programming, access and the appearance of spaces need to be resolved. Commercial schemes need to be carefully set up to be viable but not to degrade the church use.
Living accommodation in churches is more likely to be acceptable for the community and the CofE, if public access to the buildings is maintained and restricted as little possible.
Word Count
19,680 words
3 Contents
Abstract Page 02
Contents 04
Figures 06
Abbreviations 12
Preface 14
1. Introduction 15
Conservation Focus 17
The Significance of Church Buildings 19
Challenges to Church Buildings 21
Contextual Review 24
2. The Church in England 27
Relevant Legislation & Bodies 28
Church Statistics & Funding 32
Redundant Churches & Total Conversions 35
3. Research Methodology 40
Research Focus 41
Methodology & Questionnaire 42
4 4. Case Studies 45
Church of England & Community Use 47
Church of England & Commercial Use 59
Church of England & Residential Use 81
5. Analysis 102
Church of England & Community Use 104
Church of England & Commercial Use 110
Church of England & Residential Use 120
6. Conclusion & Recommendations 129
Conclusion & Recommendations 130
Further Reading 136
Bibliography 137
Appendices 151
5 Figures
Note: Figures listed with references have been adapted or taken directly from existing literature. Figures without references form part of the author’s primary research.
Fig. 01 Publications on Church Use and Conservation Page 26
Fig. 02 The destination of redundant church buildings 1969 – 2002 35 Source: Cooper, 2004: 64 (adapted)
Fig. 03 A nightclub in a church 37 Source:/www.mass-club.com/images/gallery/at6830.jpg
Fig. 04 A church used as an antiques centre 37 Source: www.property.org.uk/unique/chpix/ant
Fig. 05 Bathroom in a church converted for residential use 38 Source: Matzig, 1997: 07
Fig. 06 Subdivision of church spaces to form a number of flats 38 Source: Matzig, 1997: 17
Fig. 07 Conversion of a church to a museum 39 Source: Matzig, 1997: 59
Fig. 08 Example of a library in a converted church 39 Source: Matzig, 1997: 44
Fig. 09 Research Focus and Questions 41
Fig. 10 Questionnaire 43
Fig. 11 Case Studies 46
Fig. 12 Cambridge, St. Paul – External view 48
Fig. 13 Cambridge, St. Paul – Nave before re-ordering 48 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 14 Cambridge, St. Paul – Shortened nave after re-ordering 49
Fig. 15 Cambridge, St. Paul – Worship space at the East end 49 Source: www.centrestpauls.org.uk/Images/content/198/81806.JPG
6 Fig. 16 Cambridge, St. Paul – Church plan before re-ordering 50 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 17 Cambridge, St. Paul – Ground floor plan after re-ordering 50 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 18 Cambridge, St. Paul – First floor plan after re-ordering 50 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 19 Cambridge, St. Paul – Lower hall 51
Fig. 20 Cambridge, St. Paul – Upper hall 51
Fig. 21 Cambridge, St. Paul – Long section 51 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 22 Cambridge, St. Paul – Early first floor plan with flat 53 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 23 Cambridge, St. Paul – Early ground floor plan with flat 53 Source: Freeland Rees Roberts Architects, Cambridge
Fig. 24 Wentworth, St. Peter – External view from South-East 54
Fig. 25 Wentworth, St. Peter – View from chancel towards new screen 54
Fig. 26 Wentworth, St. Peter – New screen between nave and chancel 55
Fig. 27 Wentworth, St. Peter – West end of nave with vestry and kitchen 55
Fig. 28 Kneesall, St. Bartholomew – New screen between nave and chancel 57 Source: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/ srs/practicalissues.pdf
Fig. 29 Kneesall, St. Bartholomew – The nave as village hall 57 Source: Lewis, p. 22 (see also reference for fig. 26 above)
Fig. 30 Much Wenlock, Holy Trinity – New entrance and information desk 58 Source: www.members.aol.com/btquinn/MWPC/Brookes.htm
Fig. 31 Much Wenlock, Holy Trinity – New meeting room 58 Source: www.members.aol.com/btquinn/MWPC/Brookes.htm
Fig. 32 Cambridge, St. Michael – External view from Trinity Street 60
Fig. 33 Cambridge, St. Michael – Circular access ramp to church and cafe 60
7 Fig. 34 Cambridge, St. Michael – Cafe with serving counter and gallery 61
Fig. 35 Cambridge, St. Michael - New gallery 61
Fig. 36 Cambridge, St. Michael - View from cafe, glazed screen to chancel 61
Fig. 37 Cambridge, St. Michael - First Floor Plan (1960s alterations) 62 Source: Shona McKay (Church Architect), adapted plan
Fig. 38 Cambridge, St. Michael - Ground Floor Plan before latest alterations 62 Source: Shona McKay (Church Architect), adapted plan
Fig. 39 Cambridge, St. Michael - Current First Floor Plan 63 Source: Shona McKay (Church Architect), adapted plan
Fig. 40 Cambridge, St. Michael - Current Ground Floor Plan 63 Source: Shona McKay (Church Architect), adapted plan
Fig. 41 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Old plan of church 65 Source: www.churchplansonline.org/show_full_image.asp?resource_id=0815.tif
Fig. 42 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – External view of church 65
Fig. 43 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Current plan of church 66 Source: www.churchbuilding.co.uk/archive/issue88/St_Paul_St_Mark.pdf
Fig. 44 Paul’s Old Ford – Worship space with the “Ark” above 67
Fig. 45 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – East end of church with the “Ark” above 67
Fig. 46 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Café & servery in the foyer 68
Fig. 47 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Sliding walls to form community room 68
Fig. 48 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Gallery in the “Ark” 69
Fig. 49 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Gallery entrance with control desk 69
Fig. 50 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – Gym in the attic 69
Fig. 51 London, St. Paul’s Old Ford – New structure set back 69
Fig. 52 Walsall, St. Paul – External view 72
Fig. 53 Walsall, St. Paul – New mezzanine and first floor 72
8 Fig. 54 Walsall, St. Paul – Shops on the ground floor 72 Source: Lewis, p.12 (see also reference for fig. 26 above)
Fig. 55 Walsall, St. Paul – Worship space on the first floor 73 Source: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/ srs/practicalissues.pdf
Fig. 56 Walsall, St. Paul – Meeting Room in the chancel 73
Fig. 57 Walsall, St. Paul – First Floor Plan 74 Source: Michael Reardon & Associates, adapted plan
Fig. 58 Walsall, St. Paul – Mezzanine Plan 74 Source: Michael Reardon & Associates, adapted plan
Fig. 59 Walsall, St. Paul – Ground Floor Plan 74 Source: Michael Reardon & Associates, adapted plan
Fig. 60 Hereford, All Saints – Cafe seating in the nave 75 Source: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/ srs/practicalissues.pdf
Fig. 61 Hereford, All Saints – Staircase to gallery with vestry below 75 Source www.theplacebelow.co.uk/images/Bill-P-allSaints.JPG
Fig. 62 London, St. Martin in the Field – Schematic layout of re-ordering 76 Source: www2.stmartin-in-the-fields.org/page/campaign/images/overhead- plan.jpg
Fig. 63 London, St. Martin in the Field – The new cafe in the crypt 76
Fig. 64 Eskdale, St. Bega – External view 78 Source: www.eskdalebenefice.org.uk (link to images)
Fig. 65 Eskdale, St. Bega – Post office sign 78 Source: www.eskdalebenefice.org.uk
Fig. 66 Eskdale, St. Bega – Visitor information 78 Source: www.eskdalebenefice.org.uk
Fig. 67 Eskdale, St. Bega – Post office equipment in mobile cupboard 78 Source: www.eskdalebenefice.org.uk
Fig. 68 Moggerhanger, St. John – Community shop in the vestry 80
Fig. 69 Moggerhanger, St. John – sign at the church entrance 80
Fig. 70 Moggerhanger, St. John – internal view of community shop 80
9 Fig. 71 Moggerhanger, St. John – Community cafe/meeting place in the nave 80
Fig. 72 St. Mary, Chipping Norton - Room over porch 81 Source: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/723918
Fig. 73 Terrington St. John – Priest’s room next to tower 81
Fig. 74 Terrington St. John – Internal view of priest’s room 81
Fig. 75 All Saints, Snodland – External view 82 Source: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/723918
Fig. 76 Willingham Church – Anchorhold 82 Source: http://www.willinghamchurch.org/Lander/Lander.htm
Fig. 77 St. Lawrence Jewry – External view 83
Fig. 78 St. Lawrence Jewry – Internal view with vicarage 83
Fig. 79 St. Lawrence Jewry – Isometric view of vicarage 84 Source: Binney/Burman, 1977:179
Fig. 80 St. Lawrence Jewry – Roof garden 84
Fig. 81 St. Mary le Bow – External view 86
Fig. 82 St. Mary le Bow – War damage 86 Source: Photograph of existing photograph (untitled) displayed in the foyer of the church of St. Mary le Bow
Fig. 83 St. Mary le Bow – Roof garden next to tower 86
Fig. 84 St. Mary le Bow – Vicarage set back to minimize visibility 86
Fig. 85 St. Mary le Bow – Sketch plan and section of vicarage 87
Fig. 86 St. Mary le Bow – Roof garden with church roof beyond 88
Fig. 87 St. Mary le Bow – Living room with roof garden beyond 88
Fig. 88 St. Mary le Bow – Café in the crypt 88 Source: www.theplacebelow.co.uk/images/pillar.jpg
Fig. 89 Blueprint for a private dwelling in a church 90 Source: Binney/Burman, 1977:180 (drawing by Peter Cleverly)
10 Fig. 90 Blueprint for Pilgrim Churches for East Anglia 92 Source: Harrod, 1972:28 (drawing and text by Peter Codling)
Fig. 91 Marrick Priory – External view 94
Fig. 92 Marrick Priory – Isometric view 94 Source: Binney/Burman, 1977:181
Fig. 93 Marrick Priory – Entrance hall and dormer window 95
Fig. 94 Marrick Priory – Chapel, looking west 95
Fig. 95 Marrick Priory – Refectory with dormitory above 95
Fig. 96 Marrick Priory – Dormitory on gallery 95
Fig. 97 Marrick Priory – Access to dormitory and fire-glazing 95
Fig. 98 Marrick Priory – Meeting room between chapel and refectory 96
Fig. 99 Marrick Priory – First floor structure set back from old windows 96
Fig. 100 Mickfield, St. Andrew – External view 97
Fig. 101 Mickfield, St. Andrew – View of the nave 97
Fig. 102 Mickfield, St. Andrew – View of the nave and the chancel 97
Fig. 103 Mickfield, St. Andrew – Corridor under new gallery 98
Fig. 104 Mickfield, St. Andrew – Kitchen in porch 98
Fig. 105 Mickfield, St. Andrew – New gallery 98
Fig. 106 Mickfield, St. Andrew – Bedroom in the Tower 99
Fig. 107 Mickfield, St. Andrew – Bathroom at the West end of the nave 99
Fig. 108 Mickfield, St. Andrew – gallery above the bedroom in the tower 99
Fig. 109 Walworth, St. Andrew – Access diagram for crypt facilities 116 Source: http://www.in-spire.org.uk/images/building/planbig.gif
Fig. 110 Cambridge, St. Andrew the Great – Isometric view of alterations 124 Source: PCC of the Holy Sepulchre, 1994: 8
11 Abbreviations
ABRC Advisory Board for Redundant Churches CBF Central Board of Finance CC Church Commissioner CCC Council for the Care of Churches CCLA Charity Commission and Local Authority Association CCT Churches Conservation Trust CofE Church of England CHF Church Heritage Forum DAC Diocesan Advisory Committee DBF Diocesan Board of Finance DCMS Department for Culture, Media & Sport DDA Disabled Discrimination Act 1995 DPC Diocesan Pastoral Committee DRCUC Diocesan Redundant Churches Uses Committee EH English Heritage FFC Friends of Friendless Churches HCPT Historic Churches Preservation Trust HLF Heritage Lottery Fund H&S Health and Safety ICBS Incorporated Church Building Society LPA Local Planning Authority LPW Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme HCT Historic Chapels Trust NAS National Amenity Societies NAVCA National Association for Voluntary and Community Action ViRSA Village Retail Services Association PCC Parochial Church Council RCF Redundant Churches Fund SPAB Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings VAT Value added Tax
12 Other abbreviations used throughout the dissertation: approx. approximately e.g. for example fig. figure incl. including p. page
13 Preface
The author, Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Hobohm, was born and grew up in Germany.
Following studies of interior architecture in Wiesbaden and historic conservation in
Trier (both Germany), the author has worked in England since 2003 – mainly on
Churches and College conservation projects – for Freeland Rees Roberts Architects in
Cambridge.
Through a partnering agreement between Trier Polytechnic and Oxford Brookes
University the author was offered the opportunity to further his studies of historic conservation with a postgraduate thesis at Oxford Brookes.
The author wishes to specially thank Dr. Maren Lüpnitz for all her efforts setting up the partnership with Oxford Brookes, as well as Dr. Michelle Thomas and Paul Barnwell for their support and advice during all stages of the research module and the dissertation.
Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Hobohm Cambridge, August 2008
14 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
15 The Church of England (CofE) is facing a huge challenge in maintaining about 16200 church buildings – ranging from huge Victorian city churches in London and other cities to medieval two-cell structures in the most remote villages of the country. With current funding patterns falling short of urgent requirements for repair and upkeep, and existing redundancy procedures often leading to results not in keeping with the purposes churches were built for by the community, this dissertation investigates the possibility of the shared use of churches as an alternative to church redundancies or total conversions of church buildings to other uses.
The research has been carried out in the light of recent changes in Church of England legislation on the sharing of churches1 and a large number of publications from the
CofE and other bodies and individuals on the future of church use.
Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the significance of church buildings in England in history and today and to challenges churches are facing with regards to maintenance, funding and their place in the community. The conservation focus of the dissertation is explained and a contextual review informs the reader about other relevant literature on the topic of church use and conservation.
Chapter 2 gives an overview of the legislation and bodies involved in church use and conservation and of church funding in England. Statistics concerning church buildings are included, and a summary of the CofE’s experience with churches redundancies and total conversions is presented.
1 the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006; see chapter 2 for details
16 Chapter 3 defines the research focus and explains the methodology used for data collection and its subsequent evaluation. A copy of the questionnaire employed for case studies and for semi-structured interviews has been included for reference.
In chapter 4 a number of case studies on sharing CofE churches with the community and with commercial and residential partners are discussed. Findings from the fieldwork are analysed in chapter 5, and chapter 6 draws conclusions and gives recommendations based on the research analysis and areas of further reading are suggested.
The Conservation Focus
Under the Church of England’s Pastoral Measures2 1968 and 1983 the vesting of redundant churches in a trust, conversion to alternative use or demolition were three possible solutions for dealing with church buildings no longer used for worship.
Procedures for sharing church buildings with outside partners were possible, but only by declaring parts of a church redundant - a long and complicated process - or by granting a license under faculty for an additional use - with the disadvantage of limited contractual security for the tenant (CCs, 2006). The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure
20063 has introduced a new way of sharing church buildings with other users by allowing the lease of parts of a church to non-church partners under faculty. This provides greater security of tenure, and the leased part of the church can more easily revert back to worship use (LONI, 2007).
2 Measure: Secondary Legislation with the effect of an Act of Parliament (CCs, 2006) 3 The “2006 Measure”, with effect from January 2007 (LONI, 2007)
17 Problems that have arisen from vesting churches in the Churches Conservation Trust
(CCT) or allowing total conversions for alternative uses4 are discussed in the introductory chapters of the dissertation. In the light of the 2006 Measure and with churches needing to find new ways of funding operation and upkeep (CHF, 2004), the author then investigates the impact of shared use of churches on the fabric of the building, on use and spaces, on funding and management and on the community, by analyzing a number of case studies in urban and rural areas in England.
Terminology
Throughout the dissertation the word “church” is used to describe Anglican parochial church buildings5. A list of abbreviations concerning church bodies and other institutions is included on page 12.
Restrictions
The extent of the dissertation is limited to Anglican church buildings in England - reflecting the ambit of the 1983 and 2006 Measure. Detached ancillary buildings are excluded - as are cathedrals, abbeys and places of worship of other denominations.
4 e.g. commercial or residential 5 with the exception of the case study of Marrick Priory
18 The Significance of Church Buildings
The significance church buildings have played in history exceeds by far the sole function of a church as a place of Christian worship. With a number of services per day and religion of greater importance to daily life in former times, the church was the focus of many events in the life of the people and an important meeting place for the community (CHF, 2004).
Churches were used for shelter and storage, fetes were held in the churchyard, and the nave of a church – often the largest indoor space in the village – was commonly used for trade fairs and other community events. This only changed when in the 19th century fixed pews were installed in many churches and the church was regarded as a sacred place and to be exclusively reserved for worship (Brown, 2005).
Churches often give evidence of local traditions in the community, and they are an important place of family history with memories of funerals and weddings, and plaques on walls and gravestones around the church telling stories about family and village life
(CHF, 2004).
Churches are important for the settlement, often being the oldest building and central to many villages and towns, frequently marking historic crossroads or giving record of past times of prosperity6. Church towers act as landmarks and focal points in the land- and townscape and many churches are buildings of high quality architecture and
6 e.g. Saffron Walden, a former centre of trade for wool and saffron
19 craftsmanship7 with local building techniques and skills reflected in church decorations and detailing (Kelleher, 2003).
Churches speak about the history of buildings and communities. Built mostly from brick and stone, churches survived more easily through the centuries than other structures – such as timber-framed buildings. Only few churches had fireplaces, thereby reducing the risk of fire damage, and upkeep of the chancel of a church building was usually supported by the rector8. Items stored and left in churches, plaques of events and signs of alterations to the building fabric give valuable evidence of the way of life, of the structure of society and of changing patterns in architectural styles and building techniques (CHF, 2004).
“Taken together ...[churches] form a priceless yet widely accessible record for local and family historians and reflect the social, economic, demographic and cultural development of the nation” (Kelleher, 2003: 6).
7 12000 out of 16200 churches in England are listed (AC, 2002) 8 (www.stpetersnottingham.org/misc/rector.htm)
20 Challenges to Church Buildings
Maintenance of the Fabric
Originally partly funded by the patron, the cost for maintenance and upkeep of church buildings nowadays fully rests with the community. However, with the number of people on the CofE electoral roll declining, it is not parishioners generally but the congregation that carries the main burden of church funding and maintenance (Diocese of
Chelmsford, 2003).
The property boom of the last decade and tighter regulations on Health and Safety and
Building Regulations have pushed up the cost of building works and fewer people are trained in traditional building skills, thereby making repairs to historic buildings a specialist and costly trade. To ensure a high standard of workmanship, grants from
English Heritage (EH) and other conservation bodies are often tied to using certain materials and construction methods, which can increase the cost of work to churches further (Kelleher, 2003). Most people now also expect a certain level of comfort and the provision of convenience facilities in churches - such as heating, lavatories and kitchens9 - and many churches have (had) to carry out works to comply with recent changes in DDA legislation10 (Kelleher, 2003). In addition, with the cost of metals significantly increased in recent years, vandalism to churches11 has become a serious problem. The ecclesiastical
Insurance Group has reported over 2500 claims and damage of almost £9.4 million for
2007 (EIG, 2008 ).
9 this also enables fuller use of many church building (e.g. for after-service coffee) 10 see also The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) on p.23 and p.31 11 e.g. the theft of lead from roofs and copper lightning conductors
21 Social Context
The status of religion in society in England has changed significantly over the past decades. This is reflected in general attendance figures for services, as well as in the number of baptisms and people registered on the church electoral rolls (Cooper, 2004).
With congregations aging and declining in size, the cost for maintenance and operation of churches rests with fewer people and church activities as well as funding for repairs and alterations – especially from tax-funded government sources12 – are in danger of receiving less support and acceptance in the community.
Village halls, although often of unwelcoming appearance and atmosphere, and shopping centres on the outskirts of towns have taken over as places where people meet, while many churches are locked for most of the week and sometimes only attract a handful of people on a Sunday morning.
Increased mobility of people has an impact on the use of village facilities, and – especially in areas that are conveniently located for commuters – people often have fewer ties with the local community and - if at all, might attend church in a different place from where they live. Demographic and economic changes have also led to a situation where the size of many churches does not suit the current size of a village or town anymore (Ipswich DAC, 2005). The population of many villages has been shrinking and some Victorian churches have always been larger than required, even at the stage of their construction (Strong, 2007).
12 e.g. the government contribution to the CCT and the LPW scheme (pages 33-35)
22 Operational Costs & Legislation
The operation of church buildings has greatly increased in cost over the years, mainly as a result of changes in legislation and the rise of energy prices. Large spaces that are predominantly single-glazed and only used infrequently are difficult to heat to a comfortable ambient temperature, and the upgrading of the building envelope to increase energy efficiency often proves extremely difficult or impossible without causing significant damage to the existing fabric.
Exemptions from certain aspects of the Building Regulations can be granted for listed buildings, however, part B, K, L and M of the approved Documents13 can have serious impact on space requirements14, access to upper floors15 and detailing of building elements - including associated additional costs - when alterations and upgrading works to church buildings are carried out. .
Church repairs and maintenance procedures are also affected by tighter Health and
Safety regulations, and changes in DDA legislation have made it necessary to install hearing loops and to provide level access to buildings and lavatories for wheelchair users (CCC, 2005 and TSO, 1995).
13 Part B: Fire Safety, Part K: Protection from Falling, Collision and Impact, Part L: Conservation of Fuel and Power, Part M: Access to and Use of Buildings (TSO, 2006) 14 e.g. sizing of facilities for wheelchair users 15 e.g. galleries and towers
23 Contextual Review
A selection of literature relating to church use and funding and to the extended and shared use of churches is listed below, subdivided into publications from the Church of
England, English Heritage reports and guidelines, and literature from other sources.
Church of England legislation and procedures are reviewed and updated on a regular basis, and a number of CofE publications on church use and sharing of churches are available. Two important legislative documents on shared church use are the 1983 and
2006 (Amendment) Pastoral Measures (CCs, 2006 and LONI, 2007), specifying details of sharing churches with other partners. The report Building Faith in Our Future (CHF,
2004) investigates chances and challenges of church funding and makes proposals for closer cooperation between churches and the local community. CofE guidelines on church use, funding and extended uses of churches have been made available on www.churchcare.co.uk, the website of the Council for the Care of Churches (CCC) and on www.cofe.anglican.org, the Church of England website. The sections from the above websites that are most relevant for the dissertation are listed in figure 01. The CofE website also contains a number of downloadable presentations on total conversions and on the sharing of church buildings that are used at diocesan seminars (fig. 01).
The website of the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT)16 provides useful information on care and use of redundant churches, and a number of dioceses have carried out
16 www.visitchurches.co.uk
24 research in their parishes and produced reports on the future of church use and funding and on sharing church buildings with outside partners (fig. 01).
The English Heritage publication New work in Historic Places of Worship (2003) sets out EH views on alterations to churches and gives recommendations on issues such as access under DDA regulations, alterations to building services and heating of churches.
Minutes from regular meetings of the Places of Worship Forum (since Nov. 2005), give detailed explanation of recent and current EH initiatives and publications on churches and useful references to other charities and grant-giving bodies involved in church conservation17. The Inspired! campaign18 calls for more state funding for church buildings in need and the creation of a support framework that enables congregations to help themselves on church conservation and repairs.
Articles on church use and sharing of churches have been published in a number of newspapers and periodicals, and a range of books is available on the topic and on associated aspects, from The secular use of church Buildings (Davies, 1968), to How do we keep our parish Churches? (Cooper, 2004) and Making Church Buildings Work
(Durran, 2005). Further details on relevant literature are included in figure 01 and in the bibliography at the back of the dissertation.
17 incl. Places of Worship Strategy, Fabric Needs Survey and Mapping Places of Worship in Need 18 launched in spring 2006; campaign overview at www.english-heritage.org.uk/inspired/
25 Figure 01: Publications on Church Use and Conservation
CofE legislation and publications (available from www.cofe.anglican.org) The Pastoral Measure 1983 The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006 A Future for Church Buildings (GS, 2003)
The way forward for Church Buildings (CHF, 2004)
Building Faith in Our Future (CHF, 2004) Church Extensions and Adaptions (CCC)
Churchcare website (www.churchcare.co.uk) How to develop your Church Building Extended Uses of Church Buildings
Alterations and Extensions or Your Church Building
Guidelines and Best Practice for the Provision of a Hosted Post Office® Service in Churches and Chapels
Dioceses Norwich DAC: Church Buildings: A Source of Delight and a Cause of Anxiety (2003) Chelmsford DAC: A Review of Church Buildings in the Diocese (2003)
Chelmsford DAC: So you want to extend your church building? (1990)
English Heritage New work in Historic Places of Worship (2003) Places of Worship Forum minutes (since Nov. 2005) Inspired! campaign (www.english-heritage.org.uk/inspired/)
Publications by other bodies
The Changing Church (Essex County Council, 2002) Open all Hours (Rural Churches in Community Service programme), Acora, 2001
Publications by individuals The secular use of Church Buildings (Davies, 1968) How do we keep our parish Churches? (Cooper, 2004) Making Church Buildings Work (Durran, 2005) Regenerating Local Churches (Durran, 2006)
Articles in journals and the general press In Trust (article on the future of church buildings), Historic Churches, 2002 Alterations and Extensions of Your Church Building (article on the shared use of church buildings), Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 2002 Closing Time? (article on church redundancies), In Review, 2005 Makeovers breathe new life into village churches, The Daily Telegraph, 2008 Church Building magazine (regular articles on church conservation, adaptions and conversions)
26 THE CHURCH19 IN ENGLAND
CHAPTER 2
19 the word “church” refers to the church as an institution
27 Relevant Bodies & Legislation
The Church of England
The Church Commissioners (CCs) were established in 1848. They manage the assets of the CofE20 and also settle the future of redundant churches through pastoral and redundancy schemes. Redundancy schemes provide three options for the future of un- used churches – 1. alternative use, 2. vesting in the CCT or 3. demolition21. The CCs are advised by the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC)22 on the significance of places of worship that are to be declared redundant (AC, 2007a).
The Council for the Care of Churches (CCC)23 assists DACs and parishes in matters relating to church care, use and conservation and alterations to places of worship. The
CCC advises the Archbishops Council on issues relating to places of worship and also provides specialist advice on faculty matters and on churches that are affected by a redundancy scheme (AC, 2007a).
Each diocese has a Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC)24. The DAC gives advice to the Parochial Church Councils (PCCs), the bishop, the chancellor and archdeacons on use, maintenance and alterations to places of worship. The Diocesan Redundant
20 see also “Church Funding” (p. 32) below 21 see also “DRCUC” (p. 29) below 22 in June 2008 the ABRC and the CCC were merged to form the Church Buildings Council 23 see footnote 22 above. 24 most members of a DAC are volunteers (personal communication (Jane Logan, Ely DAC)
28 Churches Uses Committee (DRCUC) of a DAC deals with churches no longer needed for worship. During a use-seeking period of usually no longer than three years the building is vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF) for upkeep, while the
DRCUC tries to find a suitable alternative use. (CCs, n.d. (b))
The Churches Conservation Trust (CCT) was set up in 1969 as the Redundant Churches
Fund (RCF) and manages redundant Anglican churches. The buildings remain consecrated and are open to the public. They are used for occasional services and weddings and are more and more seen as an “educational and community resource”
(www.visitchurches.org.uk). The CCT is a registered charity and is jointly funded by the CCs (30%) and the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS - 70%). The trust is currently taking care of 340 (in 2007) churches in England (CCT, 2007 and
Britannia.com, 2000). Funding for the CCT for the period 2006-2009 is £9.000.000.
The contribution of the CCs in 2007-08 is £1.286 million (OPSI, 2006).
CofE Churches25 are exempt from Listed Building Consent under the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (Kelleher, 2003 and George, 2002).
However, any alterations to a listed church26 need faculty approval under the Faculty
Jurisdiction Rules 2000. Faculty applications have to be accompanied by a Statement of
Significance and a Statement of Need, explaining the importance of the church building and reasons why alterations are regarded as necessary. A faculty is granted by the chancellor of the respective DAC (Kelleher, 2003).
25 incl. certain other denominations (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church and the Methodist Church) 26 and to churches in conservation areas
29 The Pastoral Measure 1983 (“the 1983 Measure”) set out procedures for churches that were no longer required for worship (CCs, 2006). Section 56(2) of the 1983 Measure stated that the “sale, lease or other disposal of the whole or any part of a consecrated church other than under the 1983 Measure” (LONI, 2007:4) was prohibited. Alternative uses in part of a church building were only possible if a faculty for a license was granted or after the relevant part of the building had been declared redundant.
Under the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006 (“the 2006 Measure”) it is now possible to grant a lease for an alternative use within parts of a place of worship under faculty – under the condition that the building “will continue to be used primarily as a place of worship” and that the new use is “not [...] inconsistent with the [church] use”
(LONI, 2007:5) and residential use is only permitted if the new use requires a person to reside on site (LONI, 2007).
A lease provides more security of tenure for the new user and is often required to qualify for external funding, such as EH and HLF grants. The building also remains fully consecrated and the leased parts can relatively easily be used for worship again.
Alterations to leased parts of the church are still exempt from Listed Building Consent and can be carried out under faculty. However, the leased part of the church becomes a separately ratable unit and might be subject to council tax. For leases drawn up under the 2006 Measure the possibility of a tenant acquiring rights under the Landlord and
Tenant Act 1954 are limited and restrictive covenants set out conditions for the use of church buildings and the protection of existing fabric (LONI, 2007).
30 Other Legislation affecting Places of Worship
Planning Consent27 from the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has to be obtained for all external alterations to Places of Worship. Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 15
Planning and the Historic Environment (1994) and PPG 16 Archaeology and Planning set out government policies on historic buildings and on archaeological matters and form the basis for advice that EH and the national amenity societies28 (NAS) give on planning issues when consulted by the LPA (Kelleher, 2003).
Listed Building Consent (LBC) is required for alterations to redundant churches or parts of churches that are no longer exempt from LBC under faculty jurisdiction (CCs, 2006).
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) defines churches as “ ‘service providers’ ”
(Kelleher, 2003: 6) resulting in the need for PCCs to take reasonable steps to enable people with disabilities to access and use church buildings (Parliament, 2005). Level access and wheelchair-accessible lavatories are facilities that are now commonly being provided (Kelleher, 2003).
27 under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Great Britain, 1990) 28 Incl. the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), the Victorian Society and the Georgian Group
31 Church Statistics & Funding
The Church of England
The Church of England owns about 16200 church buildings, representing 45% of all
Grade 1 listed and 20% of all Grade 2* listed buildings in England. Although attendance figures for church services and the number of church members29 and baptisms is declining, statistics show that most people would not want their local church to disappear or to be sold off (Cooper, 2004). However, as set out in chapter 1, churches are facing significant changes and challenges with regards to maintenance, upgrading and funding.
The CofE is the “established Church in England” (CofE, n.d.(b)), but does not receive direct government support. Annual outgoings of around £1 billion are largely raised through donations in the parishes (ca. £750 million) and from funds (ca. £160 million) that are managed by the Church Commissioners. The CCs manage historic church assets of ca. £4.8 billion, including rural and urban property and investment funds. Other sources of income for the church include reserve funds in parishes and fees from funerals and weddings (CofE, n.d.(a) and CCs, 2007).
29 people on the church electoral roll of a parish
32 Grants from the Government, HLF and EH
Main sources of funding for work to listed places of worship from outside the Church of
England are grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and English Heritage (EH) and the possibility of reclaiming VAT from the government for repair works through the Listed Places of Worship (LPW) scheme (CHF, 2004).
Figures from the CofE report Building faith in our future (CHF, 2004) highlight that the funds listed above covered approx. 27% of total bills for repair works in 2002, and that the budget of grant-giving bodies has either remained largely unchanged in recent years30 or increases have been comparatively low31. Additionally, the LPW was introduced only as a temporary measure32 and zero-rating of repair works to historic buildings stands in conflict with the EU´s current VAT Directive, which does not allow reduced VAT rates for repairs to historic church buildings.
Redundant churches vested in the CCT receive funding from the Church
Commissioners and the DCMS. Only two new churches were vested in 2006, and the
DCMS contribution has been held at £3million per year since 200133 (CCT, 2007 and
CHF, 2004).
30 EH budget unchanged since 1995 (CHF, 2004) 31 increase of government contribution by 10% between 1994 and 2004 - in contrast to sports (132%) and arts (88%) (CHF, 2004) 32 introduced in 2001 as an “interim grant scheme” for works to listed places or worship, the scheme is due to continue until 2011 “unless a permanent reduced rate is achieved earlier“ (www.lpwscheme.org.uk/msg1.htm) 33 see also p. 36 below
33 Other bodies providing funding for churches
The Historic Churches Preservation Trust (HCPT) was formed in 1953 and over £26 million in grants have since been made available. Eligible for grants are all Christian places of worship34 that are over 100 years old and open for worship. In 2007 the HCPT and the Incorporated Church Building Society (ICBS) formed the National Churches
Trust (www.historicchurches.org.uk/).
A large number of Friends Groups of various sizes and levels of involvement have been set up over the years – from a small charity caring for a specific building35 to the
Friends of Friendless Churches Ltd (FFC), who own and maintain over 40 redundant churches that are not vested in the CCT. (FFC, n.d.).
Friends groups have been described as “a way of allowing the local community to play a part in the maintenance of the church without overt religious commitment“ (Cooper,
2004: 52). However, with no general register or central point of contact, concerted campaigning and fund-raising on a larger scale is difficult to achieve, and the Places of
Worship Forum of EH has therefore suggested to create a “National Confederation of
Friends of Churches” (EH, 2006 (5th meeting): 3) to improve management facilities and outreach.
34 except cathedrals 35 e.g. the Anglia Church Trust was set up to raise funds and look after Mickfield Church in Norfolk (Wright, 2007)
34 Redundant Churches and Total Conversions
Places of Worship that are affected by a redundancy scheme have been – and still are
– commonly either converted to alternative use, demolished or vested in the CCT.
Alternatively, parts of a church can be Figure 02: declared redundant, or a lease or license for alternative uses in parts of a place of worship can be granted under faculty, while other areas of the building are still used for worship36. 1,626 churches were declared redundant between 1969 and
2002 with 925 converted for alternative use, 360 demolished and 341 preserved by church and government bodies.
Figure 02 shows breakdowns for the above figures. Funds generated from the sale of churches – if not used for a replacement church building – are shared between the CCT (1/3) and the respective diocese (2/3). (Cooper, 2004)
36 for details see 1983 Measure and 2006 (Amendment) Measure on p.30 above
35 Churches vested in the Churches Conservation Trust
Churches that are vested in the CCT are open to the public and some income may be generated from occasional use (Taylor, 2002). However, for redundant churches there is no congregation or PCC that is actively raising funds from donations or other sources, and fewer ties with the local community may influence levels of care for the local church and the acceptance of money spent on upkeep and repair works.
As set out above (p. 33), government funding in recent years has (inflation-adjusted) been shrinking and building costs have been rising above general inflation. This seriously impedes the ability of the Trust to take up more churches each year and repair works to other vested churches may be affected by spreading a stagnant budget over an increasing number of redundant churches (Cooper, 2004).
Additionally, institutions such as English Heritage and other bodies involved in building conservation, regularly point out that buildings that are in use generally have a greater chance to survive than those without37.
Redundant churches are also an easier target for vandalism than churches that are frequently used and kept open during the day (Cooper, 2004).
37 : “[...] it is only through continued use [...] that conservation of the building can be best assured” (Kelleher, 2003: 3), “use them or lose them” (Ipswich DAC, 2005: 10)
36 Total conversions to other uses
The total conversion of churches to alternative uses can have a significant impact on the existing fabric, as well as on the community. Access to a church may become restricted
– contradicting its original purpose as a meeting and worship space for the community – and different uses may require a number of different rooms rather than one large single volume with only few or no ancillary spaces.
Expensive repair works to an historic building may not be a priority for a commercial user operating on a tight budget, and problems can arise from the use of external spaces for storage and advertising, as well as from the attitude of a commercial user towards a former place of worship - which may differ significantly from members of the local community.
Above (fig. 03): a nightclub in a church (St. Matthew, London), conversion date: 1992 (personal communication (S. Craven, Southwark DAC))
Right (fig. 04): a church used as an antiques centre (Eastback Chapel, Pembroke), conversion date: 2001 (personal communication (L. Robertson, owner))
37 The main problem of residential uses – if not converted to a single dwelling with mainly open-plan living arrangements – is the requirement for a number of different rooms and therefore the need to subdivide the existing church volume into smaller units. The size, number and position of existing windows often poses a problem in this instance (see figure 06) and – as well as for commercial users – the installation of services and plant and the need to comply with Building Regulation requirements can have a major impact on the fabric of the building.
Figure 05 (above left): bathroom in a church converted for residential use (St. Stephen, London), conversion date: 1986 (personal communication (G. Nunn, centre manager, St. Stephen´s Church & Centre))
Figure 06 (above right): subdivision of church spaces to form a number of flats (Lutherkirche, Berlin, Germany), conversion date: 1997 (Matzig, 1997). The image shows potential problems when inserting additional floors into church volumes. Floor slabs truncate the internal church geometry and cut through existing architectural details and decorations, additional columns restrict the use of new rooms, and the detailing of the secondary g lazing does not follow the geometry of the existing church window.
Problems can also arise if a churchyard is still open to the public but the new user wants to take over external areas for private use or for parking.
Church Buildings that are used by other Christian denominations or as spaces for performances, meetings or exhibitions tend to suffer less from alterations than churches
38 converted to commercial or residential use. Large existing spaces can relatively easily be re-used (see figures 07, 08), thereby limiting interference with the existing fabric, and building services – like drainage and plant – can often be concentrated in less sensitive ancillary spaces than it would be possible for a conversion scheme housing a number of flats.
Figure 07: Figure 08: conversion of a church to a museum example of a library in a converted church (Karmeliterkirche, Frankfurt, Germany), (Mönchenkirche, Jüterbog, Germany), conversion date: 1984 (Matzig, 1997) conversion date: 1992 (Matzig, 1997)
A number of the problems listed above are also likely to occur if churches are shared with external partners. However, under the 2006 Pastoral Measure the external partner in a sharing scheme would always only be a tenant to the main occupier of the building and would therefore only have limited powers with regards to the use of the respective part of a church or to changes to the fabric and appearance of the building. Benefits and problems arising from church sharing schemes are presented and discussed in chapters 4 and 5.
39 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 3
40 Research Focus
The research of the dissertation investigates the shared use of churches as an alternative to redundancy and total conversion. Challenges the Church of England is facing with regards to church buildings are investigated and the reader is introduced to problems that can arise from vesting churches in the Churches Conservation Trust or from allowing total conversions for alternative uses. A number of case studies are presented, with the evaluation and analysis of the fieldwork (chapters 4 & 5) based on a set of research questions that are listed under figure 09 below.
Figure 09: Research Focus and Questions
What impact has shared use of churches on
- the Fabric - Use & Spaces
- Funding, Maintenance & Management
- the Community
What are the legal restrictions?
- Planning legislation - Building Regulations (fire, sound, DDA, H&S, etc.)
- Church of England legislation
What are the views of the main bodies involved?
- Church of England - English Heritage - Other bodies involved in church conservation
41 Methodology & Questionnaire
The methods used to investigate research sources and to collect data for analysis are
- consultation of existing literature
- case studies
- interviews
Printed and web-based publications and legislation from the Church of England and other church and conservation bodies have been used in their entirety38 if - as a whole - of direct relevance to the key parts of the dissertation, or used in parts39 for general and background information in the introductory chapters of the thesis.
Case studies have been analysed on the basis of a questionnaire (see fig. 10), and a list of the main buildings evaluated is included on page 46 (fig. 11). Additionally, several other churches with characteristics relevant to the research were visited to further support the author’s argument in the “Analysis” and “Conclusions” sections. The structure of the questionnaire has evolved from a set of initial research questions (see fig. 09) that have been grouped and subdivided further to cover a range of different aspects during the fieldwork. All case studies listed under figure 11 were visited in person40, and contact was established with a member of the management for a church building and/or with the architect involved in the re-ordering works.
38 e.g. Building Faith in our Future (CofE, 2004) 39 e.g. A Concise Guide to the Parish Church (Hayman, 2007) 40 excluding “other […] examples”
42
Figure 10: Questionnaire
Impact on the Fabric:
- External Areas & Appearance - Internal Divisions (horizontal/vertical) - Fittings, Furniture & Decorations - Reversibility of Alterations - Services - Building Control Requirements - Access Routes - Extensions - Quality of Alterations - Respect the new user shows for the existing Fabric - Vandalism
Impact on Use & Spaces:
- Reading of internal Spaces & Hierarchy of Spaces - Previously under-used Spaces - Furniture Layout & mobile Furniture - Simultaneous Activities - Suitability of additional Use
Impact on Funding, Maintenance & Management:
- Additional Funding - Economic Viability of additional Use - Management & Sharing of Facilities (incl. insurance, security) - Levels of Care & Maintenance
Impact on the Community:
- Proportion of the population served - Type of Facilities provided
43 In some cases additional information was obtained from existing publications and from the respective diocese.
A number of semi-structured interviews - also based on the author’s questionnaire - and informal consultations on specific other items were carried out either on a face-to-face basis or via email and telephone. Interviewees were provided with a copy of the questionnaire for information before consultations took place and for most case studies at least one interview was carried out on site, thus providing the opportunity to discuss specific aspects of a re-ordering scheme directly and in more detail than usually possible by the telephone or email.
Where - apart from evaluation of the building itself - only one viewpoint about a project could be obtained, the author has tried to verify the information gathered by consulting a number of additional research sources. However, this has not always been possible and the possibility of bias regarding certain aspects of the fieldwork cannot be ruled out.
Case studies for certain aspects of the research (e.g. church use and community use) have been easier to identify than others (e.g. church use and residential use). As a result, a number of case studies with similar characteristics are clustered in the same area41, or only one case study42 has been presented. This reduces the possibility of generalisation of findings; however, the difference in availability and spread of case studies with certain characteristics potentially represents a result in itself, and this has been included as part of the analysis in Chapter 5.
41 urban examples of church use and residential use 42 current rural examples of church use and residential use
44 CASE STUDIES
CHAPTER 4
45 General Note
The chapter is subdivided into three categories of shared use of churches (figure 11).
Each category is subdivided further into urban and rural case studies, and historic examples of shared use are given at the beginning of each sub-chapter.
If sharing schemes include more than one additional use the case study appears under the category of the main new use. Additional to the main case studies further examples of shared use schemes are listed at the end of some of the sub-chapters (see fig. 11).
Figure 11: Case Studies
Church & Community Use
- Cambridge, St. Paul (Church & Community Facilities) urban
- Wentworth, St. Peter (Church & Village Hall) rural
Other rural examples: Kneesall, Burston, Much Wenlock
Church & Commercial Use
- London, St. Paul’s Old Ford (Church & Gallery & Fitness Centre) urban - Cambridge, St. Michael (Church & Café) urban
Other urban examples: Walsall, Hereford, London
- Eskdale Green, St. Bega (Church & Post Office) rural Other rural examples: Whitwell, Sheepy Magna, Shipbourne, Rolvenden, Sutton-in-the-Isle, Moggerhanger
Church & Residential Use
- London, St. Lawrence Jewry (Church & Vicarage) urban - London, St. Mary Le Bow (Church & Vicarage) urban
- Marrick, Marrick Priory (Church & Accommodation for Outdoor Centre) rural - Blueprints for the use of village churches in East Anglia rural
46 Church of England & Community Use
Historic Examples
In his book The Secular Use of Church Buildings J.G. Davies (1968) provides a detailed account of a wide range of community activities that churches throughout history have been used for. The nave of many churches was used for parish feasts, weddings and funerals, with numerous records of eating and drinking, dancing and acting in churches existing. Churches provided room for meetings, councils and elections, notices were published at the church entrance, and ancillary rooms - or the nave itself - sometimes served as school rooms and libraries. The village church was also often the place for distribution of poor relief, and fire-fighting equipment and other community belongings were commonly stored in churches.
Legal Restrictions and Requirements
Some of the above activities still take place in churches today and for a number of occasional additional uses no special agreements are required as the churches´ standard hiring arrangements are sufficient. More permanent additional uses, however, usually require legalisation under a lease or license (CCC, 2007a).
47 Cambridge, St. Paul
The church of St. Paul (Hills Road) was designed by Ambrose Poynter and dates from
1841. The building was extended to the East in 1864 and transepts were added in 1893.
Before the “Centre at St. Paul’s” was created in 1996, the church comprised a single open and largely undecorated volume with fixed wooden pews and a gallery at the West end.
Ancillary spaces within the building were limited and the church institute - providing space for Sunday School and social activities - was separated from the St. Paul’s Church by a busy road and was in need of renovation.
Figure 12: Figure 13: St. Paul’s Church – external view St. Paul’s Church – nave before reordering
48 With the church much larger than needed for usual Sunday services, the PCC decided to sell the church hall and to integrate a church centre into the existing Victorian church building. The re-ordering was carried out in 1996. (source: FRR Architects, Cambridge)
A first floor was constructed in the nave and aisles to the west of the transepts, creating a lower and an upper hall and five meeting rooms, including kitchens on both levels, a lift, toilet and storage facilities and a church office. The East part of the church has been retained as a worship area but mirrored in orientation for better views for the congregation of the altar during services43. A number of pews were re-used in the former chancel area, but the crossing and transepts have no fixed seating. This enables the use of the church as an additional space for non-worship activities.
Left (figure 14): St. Paul’s Church – shortened nave after reordering
Above (figure 15): St. Paul’s Church – worship space at the east end
43 The current maximum number of 300 seats for worship equals the number of seats with an unobstructed view of the altar before the re-ordering of the church (source: FRR Architects, Cambridge).
49 Left (fig. 16): St. Paul’s Church – church plan before re-ordering
Above (fig. 17): St. Paul’s Church – ground floor plan after re-ordering
Below (fig. 18): St. Paul’s Church – first floor plan after re-ordering
50 New structural elements are largely self-supporting and only butt up to new surfaces, thereby reducing damage to the existing fabric. The interior of the church had – prior to it’s reordering – only been sparsely decorated, which simplified the treatment of existing surfaces, and the transoms of the aisles’ windows were at a convenient height for the installation of a first floor – avoiding the edge of the floor structure being visible from the outside44.
Top left (figure 19): St. Paul’s Church – lower hall
Top right (figure 20): St. Paul’s Church – upper hall
Below (figure 21): St. Paul’s Church – long section
44 This only occurs at the west tower window, where he floor edge has been kept as slim as possible and the underside of the structure slopes away from the glass line
51 External alterations have mostly been avoided and only include three new doors for access and emergency escape. Waste bins are stored outside the West end of the North aisle, and parking facilities are not provided on site. Pay and display parking is available in the adjacent streets.
The church centre and the church have separate entrances, and the new dividing wall between the worship space and the church centre at the West end is of sound-proof construction to enable simultaneous activities in the building. All new rooms benefit from natural light - although the lower hall is lit indirectly via the new foyer, and the tower room only has a high-level window slot.
The project was funded through the sale of the church hall and from other funds raised by the PCC. Additional income is generated from non-worship activities that are licensed under faculty and that include dance classes, conferences, computer courses and community events. The whole of the church building is still consecrated and is managed by the PCC. The sharing scheme at St. Paul’s church has operated successfully for over
14 years and the PCC are currently investigating the feasibility of providing additional room for meetings and activities in and around the North transept of the church (personal communication (Michael Becket, vicar)).
With reference to the sub-chapter “Church Use and Residential Use”, an early scheme for the re-ordering of St. Paul’s Church shows the provision of two flats in the North transept of the building, substituting accommodation provided in the former church institute for church students and vergers (figs. 22 & 23).
52
Figure 22: St. Paul’s Church – early first floor Figure 23: St. Paul’s Church – early ground plan with flat floor plan with flat
The flats were subsequently omitted from the proposals because the area on the ground floor of the transept was thought to be of better use for additional seating in the worship area, and the PCC were uncertain with regards to funding of the additional building works and the viability of the flats, as the accommodation in the former church institute had previously been offered free of charge (personal communication (Michael Becket, vicar)).
53 Wentworth, St. Peter
In Wentworth, a small village north of Cambridge, the PCC was struggling with maintenance and upkeep of the church building, when in 1993 it was decided to subdivide the church into a worship space in the chancel and a multi-purpose community space in the nave. The former school building had been sold of for private use and there was no place for meetings and other communal indoor activities in the village (personal communication (Jane Logan, Ely DAC).
Figure 24: Wentworth Church – external view from South- Figure 25: Wentworth Church – East view from the chancel towards the new screen
A full height timber screen with sliding-folding doors at floor level and an internal window at high level has been constructed in line with the chancel arch, and the church can now be used either as two separate spaces or as a single church space during events with large congregations, such as at Christmas.
54 The high level window in the screen offers some internal views - providing a sense of the church as a whole even when the lower part of the screen is closed. The chancel is furnished with existing fittings and pews from the church and offers enough space for general Sunday services (usual attendance approx. 6 people).
The nave has been cleared of all pews and other fittings and a new floor finish has been installed. The base of the tower accommodates two toilets – one for ambulant disabled use, and a small kitchen and vestry area have been screened off at the West end of the nave.
Figure 26: Wentworth Church – new screen Figure 27: Wentworth Church – west end of nave between nave and chancel (view from nave) with vestry (on the right), kitchen and lavatories (beyond in the tower)
All new insertions are constructed from timber and are reversible. The new timber screens only butt onto the existing structure, thereby restricting damage to the existing fabric to a number of fixing holes. The detailing and colour finish of the new screens
55 looks dated and of its time and the facilities at the West end of the nave are of a basic and temporary appearance. Compared with the construction of the new timber screens, the provision of a new floor finish (vinyl with tile-effect) has had a far greater impact on the existing fabric. A level solid base has been provided, possibly involving the removal of existing floor finishes and pew platforms and excavations for a new floor structure.
All furniture in the nave area is movable and stackable tables and chairs are stored next to the kitchen at the West end. The first floor of the tower provides some storage space, but the PCC would like a larger area for storage, and tables and chairs are stacked in a corner next to the font.
Activities do not take place simultaneously in the nave and the chancel. Services are only held on Sunday morning and the timber screen between the two spaces is not fully soundproof. The nave is used as a village hall and can also be hired for private functions for £5/hour. Functions generally need approval from the PCC and activities such as gambling are not allowed. Parking is allowed on roads around the church. Waste storage facilities are not provided at the church, and users of the nave are asked to take all rubbish off site after events.
56 Other Schemes where Church Use is shared with Spaces for the Community
In Kneesall (Nottinghamshire) the village could no longer support both the church and a run-down village hall. The village hall was subsequently sold off, and following a partial redundancy scheme the chancel of St. Bartholomew is now the church, and the nave serves as a village hall and is leased to the local council. The scheme was completed in 2004 and was mainly funded by the National Lotteries Charities Board. A glazed screen separates the chancel from the nave and a kitchen and storage space has been provided in ancillary spaces in the church. (www.cofe.anglican.org/about/ churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/buildingsandmission.pdf)
Figure 28: Kneesall Church – New screen Figure 29: Kneesall Church – The nave as between nave and chancel village hall
In Burston (Norfolk) the chancel of St. Mary’s Church is used as the church, and the nave is separated from the worship area with an iron screen and used as a hall by a neighbouring school. (www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/burston/burston.htm)
57 Re-ordering without a redundancy scheme has taken place at Holy Trinity, Much
Wenlock (Shropshire) where a new disabled access, a kitchen and toilets and a new meeting room at the West end of the church have been provided. The new facilities are used by the congregation and by the wider community for a range of events.
(www.muchwenlockchurch.co.uk)
Figure 30: Much Wenlock Church – Figure 31: Much Wenlock Church – New meeting room (incl. tee new entrance and information desk kitchen in the cupboards on the right)
Other schemes for community use of churches are frequent45. Common alterations are the provision of toilets, tea-making facilities, DDA access to the church and meeting rooms that can more easily be heated in the winter and sometimes be used as a winter church.
45 The Council for the Care of Churches have produced a detailed catalogue of churches with community facilities. Contact: Rebecca Payne, CCC.
58 Church of England & Commercial Use
Historic Examples
Churches in history have regularly been used for business purposes and again, J.G.
Davies´ research (1968) gives a useful overview of the diversity of commercial activities in places of worship. These range from the occasional sale of food and drink during fairs and stalls selling religious articles near the church entrance to the more permanent lease of churches´ ancillary spaces for business use.
Legal Restrictions and Requirements
Legal procedures and agreements for additional uses in churches are explained in chapter 2 above. As the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006 only came into effect in
January 2007 all schemes described below have been established either under a license from the respective diocese or by declaring the relevant parts of a church building redundant.
59 Cambridge, St. Michael
The church of St. Michael in the city centre of Cambridge was built in 1382. A number of fittings were introduced by G. G. Scott in the 19th century. When, in the 1960s, the building ceased to be used for worship and became a church hall for the neighbouring church Great St. Mary, a number of adaptions were carried out – including blocking up the chancel arch and parts of the aisles, clearing out all furniture and introducing sus- pended ceilings and concrete floors in the aisles. During the following decades the buil- ding suffered from general neglect and vandalism and from the use as a shelter for homeless people. In 2001/02 St. Michael´s was again re-modeled and the building is now used as a church, a cafe and a community centre. The whole of the building is still consecrated and the cafe and community facilities are licensed under faculty. Funding for
Figure 32: St. Michael´s church – external view Figure 33: St. Michael´s church – circular access from Trinity Street ramp to church and cafe
60 the project was achieved with the help of HLF and landfill grants and the support from local businesses. (personal communication (Shona McKay (church architect), www.michaelhouse.org.uk/ html/about_us.html)
The cafe - including kitchen and plant room - occupies the nave and parts of the aisles, with a gallery for additional seating projecting into the nave from the North aisle. Toilet facilities are located north of the chancel and all first floor areas, including the church office and several meeting rooms, are accessible by lift.
Top left (figure 34): St. Michael´s church – cafe in the nave with serving counter and gallery
Top right (figure 35): St. Michael´s church – new gallery supported on new column with gap to existing stone arch
Left (figure 36): St. Michael´s church – view from cafe, glazed screen to chancel
61 Fittings and finishes and a number of dividing walls from the 1960s were removed during the works and the existing structure of the church was repaired. Existing concrete floors in the North and South chapel were retained and re-used, and new structural elements - like the gallery in the North aisle - are self-supported on new steel columns
(with new pad foundations) and constructed with a gap to the existing fabric.
Figure 37: St. Michael´s church – first floor Figure 38: St. Michael´s church – ground floor plan showing 1960s alterations plan showing 1960s alterations
All new work is of high quality with careful detailing. The glazed screen to the chancel allows visitors to experience the building as a whole whilst providing the chancel and the adjacent chapel with a certain degree of separation and privacy from the cafe. The screen is not of sound-proof construction but services are regularly held weekdays during opening hours of the café.
62
Figure 39: St. Michael´s church – current first floor plan
Figure 40: St. Michael´s church – current ground floor plan
63 External alterations to St. Michael’s church have mostly been avoided. A circular ramp allows wheelchair and pushchair access to the church and the café and a set of glazed doors provides a view of the inside for visitors and passers-by. The existing external timber doors have been retained and are kept fixed open during opening hours.
Access for deliveries is via the North porch of the church, and two further external doors serve as alternative means of escape.
St. Michael´s church, promoted as the “Michaelhouse Centre and Café”, is run as a charitable trust and employs a full-time manager. The centre and the café have operated successfully for six years and the church is a popular meeting place in the city centre of
Cambridge with over 300 visitors and guests per day (www.michaelhouse.org.uk/ html/about_us.html)
64 St. Paul’s Old Ford, Bow, London
The church of St. Paul’s Old Ford, Bow is a Grade II Victorian building of 1878 in the
East End of London. The church was closed in the early 1990s due to safety risks from years of neglect. Following plans for re-development by a private developer, proposals for a church-led shared use scheme were drawn up under the initiative of the new vicar Revd. P. Boardman and the PCC and subsequently were approved and grant-aided with over £3m from HLF and various other bodies. Matthew Lloyd Architects designed and coordinated the project and the building re-opened in 2004.
(Williams, 2004).
Before the re-ordering was carried out the church comprised a single open and largely undecorated Figure 41: St. Paul´s Old Ford – old ground floor plan volume with fixed wooden pews and a gallery at the West end.
Ancillary spaces within the building
– for use as meeting rooms or for other non-worship activities, or to serve as a winter church (to avoid having to heat the whole church
Figure 42: St. Paul´s Old Ford - external view of church volume) – did not exist. with external escape staircase between church and vicarage
65 Changes to the external appearance of St. Paul’s church include a new entrance to the
church and an escape door on the North elevation, a new external fire-escape staircase
with access from all levels of the church on the South side and some alterations to the
roof, including a number of circular windows and the top of the lift shaft, which is
protruding through the roof surface.
Figure 43: St. Paul´s Old Ford – current ground floor plan
66 The main internal feature of the new scheme is the “Ark”, a two-storey “pod” (Williams,
2004: 14) supported on curved steel columns and projecting into the main volume of the church. With this new steel structure and further insertions and alterations at the West end of the church and in the attic, three floors with rooms for commercial and community use have been created within the existing historic envelope of the church.
Figure 44: St. Paul´s Old Ford – worship space with “Ark” above
Figure 45: St. Paul´s Old Ford – East end of church with “Ark” above
67 With the East end of the ground floor retained for worship, the West end has been opened up to serve as a new foyer with a café, reception, lavatories and stairs and lift access to the upper floors. An area under the new “pod” in the church can be partitioned off with full height partly-glazed sliding wall panels to form a community hall.
Figure 46: St. Paul´s Old Ford – Figure 47: St. Paul´s Old Ford – sliding walls to form a café & servery in the foyer community room
The walls of the new “Ark” are solid apart from two small internal windows. The detailing is clearly modern and walls and floors facing the worship space are clad with strips of tulip-wood. The whole structure of the “Ark” is set back from the existing walls of the church, thereby avoiding difficult and unsatisfactory junctions between existing and new fabric and problems regarding the treatment of existing window openings. Instead, the existing windows still give light to the worship space, and the full height voids on both sides of the “pod” reduce the solidity of the new insertion and help to retain a feeling of the height and space of the whole church volume.
68 The inside of the “Ark” is fitted out to be used as an art gallery – although, there is currently no operator. The gallery has a multimedia control desk for performances at the
West end and - although largely lit artificially - benefits from borrowed light from the lobby and an adjacent studio space. The ceiling above the control desk and above parts of the studio space is at a lower level than the rest of the gallery, creating a split level for building services and plant and a further meeting room.
Figure 48: St. Paul´s Old Ford – gallery in the Figure 49: St. Paul´s Old Ford – gallery entrance “Ark” with small window into the church with control desk and doors to studio space (left)
Figure 50: St. Paul´s Old Ford – gym in the attic with new Figure 51: St. Paul´s Old Ford – circular windows changing rooms and sauna beyond structure set back from existing window
69 The attic of the church is occupied by a fitness centre with the gym at the East end and changing rooms (male/female/disabled), a sauna, an office and the reception aligned along a corridor. To light the attic spaces a number of circular windows have been formed in the existing roof.
Access to all levels is via a new fire-protected staircase at the North-West corner of the church. A lift provides wheelchair access to all areas of the building and a new external escape staircase serves as a second escape route from all levels.
The new spaces created at the West end of the church have had a major impact on the existing fabric, including demolitions of an existing entrance lobby, new foundations and pit for the lift shaft and excavations for a new basement toilet block. However, the new structure only butts up to existing surfaces in most places and structural interference with the existing walls has been kept to a minimum. The staircase is partly set back from the existing walls and windows, and the lift shaft serves as a stabilising structural core for the new floors. Services are mostly integrated into new fabric or surface mounted on existing walls. The font has been relocated from the foyer to the main worship space and all pews have been retained - although shortened to suit the new layout of the interior and the need for flexible use throughout the building.
Simultaneous activities are part of the new use scheme and services are regularly held whilst the café and the fitness studio are open. On weekdays access to the church is via the main entrance lobby at the West end, and on weekends through a new separate entrance door in the North wall. During services the community room under the “Ark”
70 is usually only used for church-related activities (as a crèche and for Sunday school), but at other times activities in this space include meetings, fitness classes etc.
Workmanship and detailing of all new elements in the building is of high quality. A reduced palette of materials and colours has been used for new elements, including painted steel, exposed timber and white concrete and plaster surfaces. The floors in all main areas are painted dark grey. Existing fabric is largely left undecorated and can be clearly distinguished from new elements.
St. Paul´s Old Ford was declared redundant in 2003 because the Diocese would not allow the proposed alterations to be carried out under faculty. The works were therefore carried out under secular planning law, but most areas of the building were re- consecrated after completion of the re-ordering and the external shell of St. Paul´s
Church is now again under faculty jurisdiction. All facilities of St. Paul´s are managed by the PCC and the gym, the gallery and the café are registered as charities to avoid losing exemption from business rates (personal communication (P. Boardman, vicar) which leased parts of church buildings may be liable for when operating on a commercial basis (CCC, 2007a).
Since completion of the works in 2004 the “New heart for Bow” (Williams, 2004) has become a popular centre for the community with a range of different activities and any profits from commercial activities at St. Paul’s Old Ford are re-invested to benefit the community and to maintain the church building (personal communication (P. Boardman, vicar).
71 Other Urban Examples
St. Paul’s Church, Walsall lost its congregation when the town centre around the church was cleared of residential housing and re-developed for commercial use. The church was considered for demolition in the 1980s but instead was extensively re-ordered in 1994-95 and now houses a number of retail outlets, community and conference facilities, a coffee shop and a worship area on the first floor. Parts of the building are still consecrated but worship is only one use amongst many others, and visitors to St. Paul´s church are likely to experience the church use as of secondary importance to the other uses in the building.
Above left (figure 52): St. Paul, Walsall – External view
Above (figure 53): St. Paul, Walsall – New Mezzanine and First Floor
Left (Figure 54): St. Paul, Walsall – Shops on the ground floor
72 The church operates as a “Christian social enterprise” under the name “St. Paul’s at the
Crossing” and St. Paul´s Entreprises Ltd leases non-church spaces from the PCC
(personal communication (Mike Mannix, operations manager)).
Figure 55: St. Paul´s, Walsall – worship space on the 1. floor Figure 56: St. Paul´s, Walsall – meeting room in the chancel
The exterior of the church has been kept free from permanent commercial advertising for the shops inside the building and movable boards are erected at the entrance to the church during the day. However, once inside the building, it is not obvious to visitors that one is standing in a church. The ground floor houses a small chapel, but all other areas at street level and the whole of the mezzanine gallery are used for retail and catering purposes.
The meeting rooms and the multipurpose conference/worship space on the top level have been constructed with glass screens to allow views through the whole length of the building. However, due to fire restrictions these screens are of heavy construction and views between different areas are limited. New structural elements and the new floor levels are supported on a new steel frame that only butts up to the existing fabric, but the general impact from the reordering works (with regards to finishes, services, etc) on the existing church fabric is significant.
73 St. Paul, Walsall
Above (figure 57): First Floor Plan
Right (figure 58): Mezzanine Plan
Below (figure 59): Ground Floor Plan
74 One of the best known examples of a church shared with a commercial partner is the café in the nave at All Saints, Hereford. The scheme was completed in 1997 and comprises a freestanding “pod”, housing the vestry and the café kitchen and servery, with a gallery for seating on top. The new insertion is part of the main body of the church and - depending on the number of guests - the nave is used for additional seating for the cafe. Toilet facilities have been provided in the base of the tower. The project at All Saints has been referred to as a model for various other re-ordering schemes, including St. Michael´s,
Cambridge and St. Paul´s Old Ford, London (personal communication (S. McKay, P.
Boardman)). The manager for the cafe at All Saints also operates the cafe “The Place
Below” in the crypt of St. Mary le Bow in London (see “Residential Case Studies” and
“Analysis” below).
Figure 60: All Saints church – cafe seating in the nave
Figure 61: All Saints church – staircase to gallery with servery below
75 At St. Martin in the Fields, London, a £36m restoration and conversion scheme will be completed in September 2008 (personal communication (St. Martin in the Fields)). Due to its huge importance for the history of London and as a significant landmark for the
London cityscape (Johnson, 2005), the recent restoration and alteration works to St.
Martin’s have kept the appearance of the main above-ground church volume almost unchanged and instead utilised and upgraded existing ancillary spaces. All additional facilities are located below-ground – with a cafe and a gallery in the vaults of the former crypt, and new universal access, a shop and other facilities – including a centre for homeless people and rooms for the Chinese community – in re-configured spaces below a courtyard adjacent to the church.
Left (figure 62): St. Martin in the Fields – schematic layout of re-modeled crypt and adjacent areas
Above (figure 63): St. Martin in the Fields – the new cafe in the crypt
76 Churches in Rural Areas
Sharing of churches with commercial partners in the countryside is less common than in urban areas. The number of customers and general turnover are likely to be lower than in an urban environment and many village churches do not – in contrast to larger urban churches – have separate rooms or foyers that could easily be screened off for non- church use. Nevertheless, a number of village shops and outreach post offices have recently been installed in churches.
Most facilities are open for a few days per week only and either use mobile storage units and sales counters that are kept in the church or small shop areas installed near the church entrance or in the liturgically less sensitive West end of the church. Examples of villages with post offices in the church are Eskdale Green, Cumbria, Whitwell on the
Isle of Wight and Sheepy Magna in Leicestershire.
When the village shop and post office in Whitwell closed, the church of St Mary and St
Rhadegund stepped in and offered to open a satellite post office within the church for several mornings per week. This service started in 2007. At All Saints, Sheepy Magna a post office and community help desk, a DDA WC and a tea serving area have been installed with grants from the Post Office, the Diocese and the local council. However, due to staff difficulties the post office in Sheepy Magna is currently closed. (personal communication (Rebecca Payne, CCC))
77 In St. Bega, Eskdale a satellite post office opens twice a week at the West end of the
church, and the “Discover Eskdale Centre” in the church informs visitors about the local
history and geography of the Lake District. Local information is displayed on folding
screens, while equipment required for postal services is kept in a mobile cupboard.
Folding tables are used to serve tea and coffee in the church on post office days. A
removable Post Office sign on the porch and a freestanding notice board next to the
entrance announce the services provided within the church.
Figure 64: Eskdale Church – external view Figure 65: Eskdale Church – Post Office sign
Figure 66: Eskdale Church – visitor information at Figure 67: Eskdale Church – Post Office the West end of the church equipment in mobile cupboard
78 The Post Office funded the installation of a telephone and data connection as well as the mobile storage units which house all the postal equipment but also provide space for the storage of church vestments. All valuable items related to postal services are taken off site when the post office is closed, and vandalism and theft have so far not been a problem for the PCC (personal communication (Anne Baker, Vicar), www.eskdalebenefice. org.uk)
Other rural churches have also shown an interest in opening outreach post offices, and the CCC published a document in 2007 – Guidelines and Best Practice for the
Provision of a Hosted Post Office® Service in Churches and Chapels – about recent experience and the procedures of opening outreach post offices in churches.
Other examples of community-oriented commercial activities in church are St. Giles in
Shipbourne and St. Mary the Virgin in Rolvenden where farmers’ markets are held in the nave of the church on a regular basis. St. Andrew in Sutton-in-the-Isle organises a tithe sale in the church every month, with a tenth of the revenue raised paid to the church
(www.shipbourne.com/village.htm, www.rolvendenfarmersmarket.co.uk/Pictures.html, personal communication (Kevin Belcher, Sutton-in-the-Isle PCC)).
Another example, where a rural church provides spaces for services and facilities that no longer exist in the village, is St. John´s church in Moggerhanger, where in 2000, with support from the Millenium Commission and the Scarman Trust, a community shop was installed in the vestry. The shop is non profit making and run by volunteers and opens every morning – except Sundays – and on several afternoons during the week.
79
Figure 68: Moggerhanger Church – community shop in the Fig. 69: Moggerhanger Church –
sign at the church entrance vestry
Figure 70: Moggerhanger Church – internal view of Fig. 71: Moggerhanger Church – community shop cafe/meeting place in the church
Additionally, the parts of the nave and the North aisle of the church serve as a meeting place for the community on weekday mornings, when tea and coffee are served and produce from local farms is sold. (personal communication (J. Hollington, meeting place and shop), www.mainlinksystems.co.uk/church/shop.html)
80 Church of England & Residential Use
Historic Examples
A number of publications refer to historic examples of people living in churches.
Common areas for living accommodation were rooms in towers and over porches, and sometimes guardians slept in the church itself (Davies, 1968). At several churches single or double-storeyed extensions were built to provide accommodation for priests or religious hermits (anchorites). When there was a shortage of housing in London in the late 16th century - resulting from rapid population growth – several churches raised additional funds from providing accommodation in their churches, mostly in ancillary rooms like porches and vestries. A surviving example of a priest room attached to the church building can be found at Terrington, St. John in Norfolk, and St. Mary’s Church in
Figure 72: St. Mary, Chipping Figure 73: Terrington St. John Figure 74: Terrington St. John – Norton - room over porch – priest´s room next to tower internal view of priest´s room
81 Chipping Norton has a room over the porch which is believed to have been a priest’s residence (www.chippingnorton.net/Visitors/church/stmary.htm).
The first floor of the tower at All Saints, Snodland (Kent) has a fireplace and once served as the rectory (www.snodlandhistory.org.uk/localhis/churches.htm).
An extension to St. Mary and All Saints Church in Willingham (Cambridgeshire) was used as an anchorhold, a cell for a religious hermit (www.willinghamchurch.org/Lander/
Lander.htm).
Figure 75: All Saints, Snodland – external view Figure 76: Willingham Church - anchorhold
82 Urban Churches
Current examples of residential use within churches that are still used for worship are rare, and only two examples in an urban context could be identified. Both schemes are vicarages that have been included into the volume of the churches of St. Lawrence
Jewry and St. Mary Le Bow in London during rebuilding and restoration works after the
Second World War.
The vicarage at St. Lawrence Jewry - built 1687, bombed 1940, restored 1957
(www.london-city-churches.org.uk/Churches/St%20Lawrence%20Jewry.htm) - is arranged on three levels at the North-West corner of the church next to the tower. The vestry and the church office on the ground floor are accessible from the adjacent Guildhall Yard as well as from the nave of the church. The living accommodation is located on the first and second floor.
Figure 77: St. Lawrence Jewry – external view Figure 78: St. Lawrence Jewry – internal view with vicarage at the west end of the North aisle
Apart from a separate entrance door in the North elevation, the only other signs of the vicarage from the outside are a chimney projecting above the roof parapet and clear
83 glazing to the top half of a number of arch-headed windows. Inside the church the volume of the vicarage is clearly visible, however, due to the asymmetric plan of the church with only one aisle and finishes and decorations of the vicarage walls matching other parts of the church, the accommodation block does not stand out and might seem to some visitors as part of the original layout.
Left (Figure 79: St. Lawrence Jewry – isometric view of vicarage
Above (Figure 80): St. Lawrence Jewry – roof garden
The first floor structure of the vicarage cuts through arch-headed windows of the North and West elevation of the church. The upper half of the openings serves the sitting room and study and has clear glazing, while the lower half has opaque glazing and lights the vestry, the lobby and the church office. The opaque glazing obscures the first floor structure, which is also set back from the glass line and therefore hardly visible from the outside.
84 The second floor level is set just above the top of the arch-headed church windows and below the parapet of the North aisle roof. This arrangement has made it possible to introduce a “sunken” third level of accommodation with access to a roof garden on the
North aisle, but which is hardly visible externally. External walls on the second floor are set back from the parapet to enable the installation of windows in the vertical plane and to avoid the top storey being visible from Guildhall Yard. A number of rooms, including the rear of the living room and the lobby are lit via circular roof lights. The appearance of all internal areas of the vicarage is clearly domestic. Many fittings, including wardrobes and kitchen units were designed as built-in furniture during the construction of the vicarage, and - although of dated appearance - are mostly still in use.
Reversibility of structural members has not been a priority because the vicarage was purpose-built as a private residence and did not just represent a temporary solution. The solid construction of walls and floors reduces noise transmission between the church and the vicarage although the organ, singing and some talking from the church can be heard inside the vicarage. However, this is of little relevance as the vicar is involved in most church activities (personal communication (David Burgess, vicar)).
Fire escape routes from the vicarage are either through the flat or onto the roof terrace on the North aisle. The vicar has a parking space outside the church in a courtyard.
The church benefits financially from the fact that the diocese does not need to provide and maintain an additional property as a vicarage by paying a reduced diocesan quota.
(personal communication (David Burgess, vicar)).
85 The vicarage at St. Mary Le Bow – built 1680s, bombed 1941, rebuilt 1964
(www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?History) – follows a similar layout as St. Lawrence Jewry.
The two churches are also within walking distance from each other.
Figure 81: St. Mary le Bow – Figure 82: St. Mary le Bow – war damage external view
At St. Mary Le Bow the vicarage does not protrude into the main church volume but is located in a void between the tower and the church. The office is again on the ground floor, with a study – enlarged through merging with a former bedroom – on the first floor. The second level accommodates three bedrooms and a bathroom, and the top level comprises a kitchen and a living-dining area with access to a roof garden.
Figure 83: St. Mary le Bow – roof garden next to Figure 84: St. Mary le Bow – vicarage set back tower to minimize visibility from street level
86 The vicarage is hardly visible from the street, apart from a line of trellis on the roof terrace – which were introduced only recently (and without faculty approval). Fittings and built-in furniture are of good, solid quality and most original fittings (from the
1960s) are still in use. All parts of the vicarage are well looked after. A lift that was originally installed for the ambulant disabled wife of the first post-war vicar has since been removed but the space is only used as storage space. A new lift could possibly be installed, although current DDA space requirements for lifts would not be met.
Figure 85: St. Mary le Bow – sketch plan and section of vicarage
87
Figure 87: St. Mary le Bow – living room with roof garden beyond
Figure 86: St. Mary le Bow – roof garden with church roof beyond
Noise transmission from the vicarage to the church or vice versa is currently not an issue as the vicar lives on his own and simultaneous activities therefore do not take place. Fire escape routes from the vicarage are either through the flat or onto the roof terrace. The vicar has a car parking space outside the church in a courtyard. As at St.
Lawrence Jewry, St. Mary le Bow benefits financially from the vicarage being incorporated into the church building by paying a reduced quota to the diocese.
(personal communication (George Bush, vicar)).
The former crypt of St. Mary le Bow has been converted to the café “The Place Below” and is managed by Bill Sewell, who also operates the café at
All Saints Church in Hereford (see also p. 75). (source: www.theplacebelow.co.uk).
The use of church crypts for non-worship activities and Figure 88: St. Mary le Bow – by external partners is analysed in chapter 6 (p. 116). café in the crypt
88 Rural Churches
Many rural churches and chapels have, over the years, been sold off and converted to private dwellings (Walker, 2008). Examples of shared schemes, however, are rare, and current examples that meet all the criteria of the research focus (shared use of non- redundant Anglican parochial churches) could not be identified. Instead, data from a number of other case studies with characteristics relevant to the analysis of rural residential sharing schemes has been obtained.
A blueprint for residential schemes in rural churches
A drawing by Peter Cleverly for private dwellings within churches, where an area at the
East end of the church is retained for worship, is shown below. The proposal was a general conception for Norfolk village churches in the 1970s. Peter Cleverly based his layouts on the church of St. Margaret, Rishangles, Suffolk.
The drawing below (figure 89) has been taken from “Change and Decay – The Future of our Churches” (Binney/Burman, 1977). P. Cleverly’s proposals show a three bedroom dwelling on two levels with a full height entrance hall. A double-height passage along the North part of the nave could have been created to retain a feeling of the former size of the nave before insertion of the new internal walls. The study on the ground floor is planned to be used as a private study or as a meeting room for the church
89 (Binney/Burman, 1977). The cross section shows interference with the existing nave roof, where a linear dormer window has been inserted to light the second floor rooms. A further window is marked on the plan on the North elevation (although not shown on the cross section), and the void below the ground floor seems to have been proposed to avoid the first floor structure cutting through existing arch-headed windows in the South wall.
Figure 89: Blueprint for private dwelling in church (based on Rishangles Church, Suffolk)
90 However, the long section drawing shows the gallery structure above the study in front of one of the existing church windows - but possibly set back from the existing glass line. Information about use of existing church fittings, about finishes and external areas and other items of the questionnaire could not be obtained.
The church in Rishangles has since been converted to a private residence, but areas for church use have not been retained. After having served as a “centre for heritage and arts activity” (www.homeliveart.com/home_suffolk.htm) the church can now be rented as a holiday home and provisions include a living room and kitchen-dining area on the ground floor, four bedrooms on a new first floor and in the tower, several bathrooms and an additional sitting room in the tower (www.bookcottages.com/cottages/100-
BMQ-rishangles-old-church.htm).
Pilgrim Churches
The book Norfolk Country Churches and the Future (Harrod, 1972) contains a further blueprint for providing residential accommodation in rural churches that are struggling to survive and may be affected from closure and redundancy. The sketch of figure 90 shows a sleeping loft in the chancel, with a “well appointed” kitchen on the North wall of the chancel, a bathroom in the North vestry, heating and a screen in the line of the chancel arch that can be opened up for large services to incorporate nave and chancel. The arrangement shown is only indicative and annotations refer to accommodation and service areas to be installed in suitable spaces depending on the specific layout of a church.
91 Figure 90: Blueprint for a pilgrim church
92 The facilities were considered for “Pilgrim Holidays”, where – as part of a planned route - people would stay in a number of different churches and find basic sleeping accommodation and convenience facilities. Visitors would need to bring their own food and bedding, and a “custodian” (Harrod, 1972: 28) would look after the new facilities and the church in general. Any income generated from visitors would be used to maintain the fabric and ensure the operation of church buildings. The facilities provided
- like the kitchen and the WC – would also be used by the congregation and during events at the church.
Marrick Priory
At Marrick Priory in Yorkshire, the Diocese set up an outdoor education centre in the
1970s and installed dormitories and a refectory within the volume of an existing church.
The church, part of a former convent in an isolated location in the Yorkshire Dales, had stood un-used for a number of years and the fabric was deteriorating. As part of a preservation scheme the main body of the church was declared redundant, and a meeting room and a refectory were installed on the ground floor whilst two dormitories were formed on a new gallery. The chancel was retained as a consecrated space for worship. A new adjoining building acts as the service wing for the outdoor centre housing the kitchen, an office and other ancillary rooms. An access zone has been created in the void between the two buildings with further bedrooms and the washrooms
93 on the first floor. A number of farm buildings that are situated around the church complex are privately owned and have no connection with the outdoor centre.
Figure 91: Marrick Priory – external view (farm on the left not part of the church centre)
Figure 92: Marrick Priory – isometric view
94
Figure 93: Marrick Priory – Figure 94: Marrick Priory – Figure 95: Marrick Priory – entrance hall and dormer window chapel, looking west refectory with dormitory above
New structural additions to the church fabric are substantial and floor finishes have been changed throughout the building. However, most of the existing structure seems to be unaltered and new structural elements are mostly constructed from steel and timber and could be removed again without causing major damage to existing surfaces.
Figure 96: Marrick Priory – dormitory on gallery Figure 97: Marrick Priory – access to dormitory and fire-glazing to refectory
Penetrations of the existing structure for service routes have been mostly avoided by locating all bathrooms, kitchens and plant outside the main church volume. Where new floors cut across existing church windows, the new structure has been set back from the
95
Figure 98: Marrick Priory – meeting room between chapel Figure 99: Marrick Priory – first floor and refectory structure set back from old windows glass line and fire-proofing towards the main staircase has been achieved with secondary glazing – leaving the existing stained glass intact. A more substantial intervention is a linear dormer window on the North slope of the nave roof, which provides light to the refectory and to both dormitories on the church gallery.
Existing fittings from the church (pews etc) have not been re-used. New insertions and details are clearly of their time and are of plain but solid quality. Damage to the existing fabric by guests to the outdoor centre has been minimal and the whole complex is well cared for.
Funding for the church is shared between the Marrick Priory Trust, who runs the outdoor centre, and the diocese. Although surpluses are small, the business model has worked since the 1970s and any profits over the years have been used for maintenance and upgrading of the fabric, with extensive works carried out in 2002 to improve escape routes from first floor areas. Further recent improvements include level access to all ground floor areas and wheelchair accessible accommodation (personal communication
Jim Gleave, Head of Centre).
96 Mickfield, St. Andrew
St. Andrew´s Church in Mickfield (Grade 1 listed) was declared redundant in 1977 following the amalgamation of two parishes and after structural problems had led to the closure of the building. The church was sold for housing in 1989 and all internal fittings were removed, and the building fell into disrepair after the owner abandoned it. In 2002 the building was taken over by the Suffolk Architectural Heritage Trust and the exterior was restored in 2004, funded by the new (current) owner and grant-aided by English Heritage.
The church is now classed as a private residence with a chapel (Wright, 2007).
Figure 100: St. Andrew, Mickfield – External view with entrance to the church
Figure 101: St. Andrew, Mickfield – View of the nave (with gallery above) from the chancel
Figure 102: St. Andrew, Mickfield – view of the nave and the chancel
97 The new owner, a former Anglican lay reader, and his wife do not live in the church themselves, but instead a “Christian Centre” (Anglia Church Trust, n.d.(a)) has been set up, with the building used for a number of services during the week and on weekends, and as a meeting place and retreat for a variety of groups. Visitors or a warden can stay overnight in a room in the tower and kitchen and bathroom facilities are provided in the base of the tower and at the West end of the nave. The chancel is exclusively used for worship and is separated from the nave with a curtain that acts as a rood screen.
Above left (figure 103): St. Andrew, Mickfield – corridor under the nave gallery with kitchen beyond and staircase to gallery on the right
Above left (figure 104): St. Andrew, Mickfield – kitchen in the South porch
Above left (figure 105): St. Andrew, Mickfield – living/dining area on the new nave gallery
98 The nave serves as a multipurpose space for worship and community activities. There are no pews in the nave and chairs and tables can be arranged as necessary for different activities. A large dining table is used to serve breakfast between an early Sunday morning prayer and a later, more informal, family service.
A new first floor with a gallery has been inserted at the West end of the nave, with a circulation zone, an office, a lavatory and a bathroom installed below. The South porch serves as a kitchen and houses a boiler and the tower has been converted to sleeping accommodation – accessed via an existing narrow spiral staircase - with a bedroom on the first floor and a sitting room/study on the second floor.
Left (figure 106): St. Andrew, Mickfield – bedroom in the tower
Below left (figure 107): St. Andrew, Mickfield – bathroom at the west end of the nave
Below (figure 108): St. Andrew, Mickfield – gallery above the bedroom in the tower
99 The church is accessed through a door in the North wall of the nave and a corridor under the new gallery acts as a circulation zone to all areas of the building. The chancel is carefully furnished, is kept clean and tidy and conveys the appearance of a worship space. All other areas however, are of a “low budget” approach, and fittings and furniture generally46 have a distinctly domestic feel. Most internal areas are untidy, in parts neglected and dirty and of careless and unfinished appearance with low quality workmanship. Most fittings in the nave have been constructed from timber and installed in a reversible manner but new building services and wall finishes to the bathroom and the kitchen have possibly47 caused considerable damage to the existing fabric.
The bedroom in the tower is again of unfinished appearance, with a poorly fitting carpet and a self-constructed four-poster bed of a size that makes navigating around the room difficult. A gallery above the bedroom is accessed via an alternating tread staircase and party furnished but without windows and with insufficient lighting installation. The walls are covered with polythene sheets and curtains, and the room generally conveys an unwelcoming feel.
External areas around the church have been landscaped “based on medieval ecclesiastical layouts” and around 60 gravestones have been incorporated into the new layout (Anglia Church Trust, n.d.(b)). Parts of the churchyard (near the road) are still open to the public (personal communication (J. Parret, Ipswich DAC)), but visitors are also granted access to the new private gardens around the church building.
46 incl. a considerable number of personal items 47 Fixing details and the use of materials would need further investigation
100 The church is generally open during the day and a leaflet at the entrance serves as a guide around the building for times when the owner is not present. Visitors can make tea and coffee in the kitchen and use all facilities of the building. An entrance fee is not charged but visitors are asked to leave a donation. Although the church is open during the day (and the office staffed only at certain times), vandalism and theft have not been an issue since the building was re-opened in 2005. Funding of the church is generated from donations, which cover the operation (bills and general maintenance) of the building. (personal communication (Mark Wright, owner)).
101 ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5
102 General Note
The chapter is subdivided into three categories of shared use of churches, reflecting the structure of Chapter 4 “Case Studies”:
- Church of England & Community Use
- Church of England & Commercial Use
- Church of England & Residential Use
Data collected from the fieldwork and from printed research sources is analysed with regards to historic and current examples of shared use of churches, and differences between urban and rural areas are highlighted.
The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006 came into effect in January 2007. The
Council for the Care of Churches are not aware of any sharing schemes that have since been set up under the revised legislation, but dioceses are encouraged to report sharing agreements under the 2006 Measure to the CCC for wider circulation within the Church of England and to inform other relevant bodies of the experience with the new legislation (personal communication (Rebecca Payne, CCC).
103 Church of England & Community Use
Historic Examples and Occasional Use by the Community
The role church buildings have played for the community throughout the centuries has been highlighted in Chapters 2 and 4. The church was often the largest communal roofed-over space in a village or town and lent itself to a wide variety of activities.
Today, the occasional use of churches for cultural and community events is still common to many churches48 and apart from the provision of universal access, lavatories and tea-making facilities (already frequently in place) often very few or no alterations to the fabric of the building are required. Occasional events can also be more easily programmed around services and other church activities - like funerals and weddings - and separate screened-off areas49 are therefore usually not required.
48 occasional activities can usually operate under existing hiring arrangements that are in place for most churches 49 for recurrent events an area for storage of equipment may be useful
104 Regular Use by the Community
Where the community use of a church exceeds occasional events and certain permanent facilities for the new user(s) are required this can have a considerable effect on the fabric and on existing spaces of a church building. Some community activities require permanent installations – computer rooms, sports facilities or storage areas – and separation of those facilities from the worship space may be considered important.
If subdivisions in a church are required, the CofE and EH prefer the construction of walls and screens in positions that follow existing architectural lines (Kelleher, 2003).
Depending on the size of a church, this may be the whole or parts of an aisle or a screen between the nave and the chancel – usually with the chancel then serving as the worship space and the nave available for community activities and events. Care is to be taken that any new screens (solid or transparent) are carefully detailed and do not distort the feeling of space of a worship area unnecessarily50.
New spaces, that do not use the full height of an aisle or the nave51 may be relatively easy to heat but are often difficult to light and, where ceilings cut through existing church windows, the detailing of junctions is in most cases difficult or impossible to achieve. The relatively high position of most church window sills means such rooms also often end up with an appearance that is similar to a basement room.
The treatment of wall and floor surfaces, the quality of furniture and storage solutions and the programming of activities in the church building can also affect the decision
50 eg. screening off both aisles in a church can result in the appearance of the nave as a narrow corridor 51 eg. the meeting room at Much Wenlock (p.58)
105 over how to construct any permanent screens. If community areas are cared for and kept tidy then a simple glass screen – like at Kneesall – may be the right decision. If, however, noise is generated and community activities take place during services, or if the appearance of the community space is found unsuitable for a place of worship (or visible from the liturgical space) then a solid partition with possibly some high-level glazing may be the right approach.
Urban Churches
St. Paul´s Church in Cambridge has a large and active congregation that regularly uses the building as a worship space and for other church activities while at the same the building provides facilities for a wide range of community events in new spaces at the
West end of the church. This setup can lead to considerable tension between partners of a sharing scheme if the facilities provided are not adequate for multiple uses, or if no common ground can be found regarding management and operation of the premises.
The scheme at St. Paul´s, however, has successfully operated for a number of years and conflicts of interest between the different users of the building have so far not occurred
(personal communication (Michael Becket, vicar)). Access to the church and to the community areas is independent from each other and, with new sound-insulated partitions; simultaneous activities can easily be staged in different areas of the building.
106 This simplifies programming of events and avoids feelings of inferiority of any sharing partner with regards to access and use of the premises.
Rooms of various sizes offer spaces for a wide range of activities with different space requirements and the neutral appearance of most of the new rooms enables the church and the community to share and feel comfortable in those spaces. Problems regarding the appearance of spaces that can occur when existing proportions of church volumes are changed have been addressed innovatively by mirroring the orientation of the worship space – which does not feel truncated but instead offers a more inclusive arrangement for worship.
Careful planning of storage solutions has provided a tidy appearance to the meeting rooms. With all areas generally of good quality appearance and workmanship and a professional approach towards the provision of catering facilities, competitive rates for hiring out rooms can be charged to fund the management and maintenance of the church building and the new facilities. The sale of the former church institute has further concentrated resources and enabled funding of the church conversion. Formerly under-used spaces in the church have been brought (back) into use and now serve the congregation and the community - instead of using up funds maintaining vacant spaces.
Other churches with community uses may also operate on a smaller scale than St. Paul´s church. Characteristics of smaller schemes are likely to be similar to sharing schemes in rural areas that are discussed below.
107 Rural Churches
The shared use of rural churches is likely to be different from an urban setting and certain features of rural sharing schemes have been highlighted in the case study of St.
Peter´s Church in Wentworth and with reference to churches in Kneesall and Burston.
The construction of screens and additional floors in small rural churches is often difficult to achieve without serious impact on the feeling and appearance of existing spaces and with regards to the handling of existing features52 of the building. The insertion of new structures may also be too expensive for a village church as financial returns from community activities are likely to be smaller than from those in an urban context53.
Depending on the required fit-out of a community space and if mobile furniture and other storage units can be used, it may be possible to bring a screened-off community area into use for occasional church activities54 that require additional seating – like at
Christmas and for weddings. This is the case in Wentworth, where the chancel is carefully furnished and appears well cared for and maintained, but the nave is of very basic appearance with cheap furniture and low quality finishes. However, although the nave would benefit from the improvement of fittings, finishes and decorations, the scheme is fulfilling its purpose – the building serves the congregation and the wider
52 e.g. windows and decorations 53 eg. St. Paul´s Church, Cambridge 54 eg. at Wentworth Church
108 community – and some additional income from renting out the nave as a village hall contributes to funding the upkeep of the building.
If, like at Burston Church, the chancel is retained as a worship space but only used infrequently, it may be suitable to only fit a low level screen or railings to indicate to users of the community area that the chancel is reserved for worship and not open for general use. Again, issues of appearance of the community space and the programming of events are important to avoid conflicts between the different use(r)s.
If new facilities like access ramps, lavatories and kitchens are installed, those may be used for both church and community activities and sometimes, like at Kneesall, the village hall can then even be sold off. This approach can have synergetic effects and concentrate and save resources that can then be spent on church upkeep and on community activities – especially as church spaces are usually a more pleasing environment for community events than village halls, where strip lighting and a low- budget appearance often fail to create an inviting environment.
109 Church of England & Commercial Use
Historic Examples
The church in former times was a meeting place for the community and therefore a convenient place for business. Churches were frequented throughout the day and used for a variety of purposes, including the sale of products (Davies, 1968). With the chancel reserved for worship but the nave a place that was used for both worship and non-worship activities, the separation of sacred from secular parts of a church building was less strict than it is the case in most churches today, where usually a solid – and often closed – entrance door to a church indicates a sudden transition to a very particular kind of space.
Temporary or permanent stalls were commonly erected in the nave, in ancillary spaces or for events in the churchyard, although the sale of goods was seldom approved but usually only condoned and church authorities frequently attempted to ban commercial activities in churches (Davies, 1968).
Urban Churches
Many urban churches are located in central and easily accessible locations but the potential of attracting people into church buildings for commercial activities has so far only been utilised to a limited extent. With the boundary between the outside and inside
110 of a church more profound than in former times (see previous page) and many people now unfamiliar with places of worship, potential visitors of new facilities in churches are likely to feel uneasy about entering a church building for purposes other than worship. When many churches only open for limited times and on particular days of the week and with entrance doors usually solid and frequently kept shut the problem is exacerbated.
Where additional commercial uses have been installed in churches, or are being considered, some church committees are likely to fear that the new business use might take over as the primary use of the building, resulting in the church use being restricted and possibly degraded to almost an ancillary use. Careful planning of sharing schemes with commercial partners is required, and the church55 needs to ensure that suitable legal agreements are in place and that any business partners are chosen with care. The
1983 Measure and the 2006 Measure provide a legal framework for sharing church buildings with the aim of avoiding potential problems highlighted above.
The case studies of Chapter 4 present different approaches to the use and hierarchy of church spaces and the way people experience and navigate through shared church buildings.
55 “church” as an institution
111 At St. Michael´s Church in Cambridge visitors are guided towards the entrance door via new steps and a circular ramp. New glazed doors allow a view of the interior of the building and of staff behind the serving counter and guests in the church café. This approach can help to minimise visitors´ feelings of uncertainty regarding the disruption of services or other church procedures or whether one is permitted to enter the building at all.
The arrangement at St. Michael´s Church has created a café in a beautiful environment.
However, with the commercial use of the building – including seating arrangements, plant areas, church office, lavatories and meeting rooms - occupying the nave and the aisles, and only the chancel and a small chapel still serving as the church, access to the worship space is only possible through the café56. With this arrangement, and the new screen at the chancel arch fully glazed and not sound-insulated57, the cafe use has taken over as the primary use of the building with the worship space of only secondary importance.
This approach stands in contrast to the CofE´s aim to retain worship as the primary use of shared places of worship (see p. 30). However, the scheme at St. Michael´s was not deemed feasible on a smaller scale (personal communication, S. McKay, church architect)), and as the building is still owned by the church – with the café operating under a license – a loss of control over the building for the church is unlikely.
56 an existing external door to the chapel could be used as an independent entrance to the worship spaces; however, the door currently serves as fire exit only because of access restrictions from an adjacent gated courtyard of Gonville and Caius College 57 and the cafe incl. conference facilities open on most days from 9.30am to 5.00pm
112 The cafe at All Saints, Hereford58 is of a similar layout to St. Michael´s, with the cafe - including gallery seating on top of a free-standing “pod” (see p. 75) - installed in one of the aisles and in parts projecting into the main volume of the nave. The church has several entrance doors and visitors to the worship space do not need to pass through the cafe. Similar to St. Michael´s, however, the cafe at All Saints is not strictly separated from the worship area and, depending on the number of visitors, parts of the nave can be used for additional cafe seating. The arrangements at St. Michael´s and All Saints potentially pose a problem for programming of events and for sound protection and some people may find the commercial use of a café in a church inappropriate. However, the church is well frequented by both, café users and worshippers, and the merging of facilities encourages people, who usually would not visit a place of worship, to join church activities, and at the same time for church services, weddings and other events to be catered for by the café.
A different arrangement to the churches of St. Michael and All Saints has been created at St. Paul´s Old Ford in London. There, a greater number of users operate in the same building and a separate circulation zone59 has been installed at the West end of the church to allow independent access to all areas of the church without passing through a space of different use. A separate entrance to the church has also been provided via a
58 Hereford was one of the first schemes where a commercially run cafe was installed in the main church volume without solid partitions to the worship space, and the scheme is often referred to as a model for other church sharing schemes throughout England. The operator of the café at Hereford also operates cafés in St David’s Cathedral (Pembrokeshire) and the café “The Place below” in the crypt of St. Mary Le Bow in London 59 including a foyer with a reception desk
113 new door in the North elevation of the building. The main worship area is visible through a glass screen from the foyer and also via a number of internal windows from the staircase to the upper levels of the building, thus highlighting to all users – including people who do not attend church services - that considerable parts of the building are used as a place of worship.
The cafe at St. Paul´s is in a less prominent position than at St. Michael´s and at All
Saints and neither benefits from natural light (the artificial lighting is bright and cold) nor from a view of the architectural features and decorations of the main church space.
The church is also located in a much less central area than the city-centre churches in
Cambridge and Hereford. However, the café is still well frequented and accepted as a meeting place for the community.
The sharing scheme at St. Paul´s incorporates a number of different facilities under one roof, but the new high-quality architecture and layering of uses at the West end and in the roof of the church has retained a sense of space in the worship area. All new uses in the building fit well into the existing volume without being overbearing or disrupting the use of St. Paul´s as a church. The zoning of the church allows a mixture of people with different intentions and attitudes to frequent the building at the same time and internal windows visually interconnect different parts of the building but without the disadvantage of sound-transmission (see St. Michael’s and All Saints above) that would otherwise restrict the type and programming of simultaneous activities in different parts of the church.
114 A more radical approach, where the commercial use of a church has clearly taken over as the primary use of the building, is St. Paul´s, Walsall. Worship has been degraded to an ancillary use and the church now serves mainly as a shell for commercial activities. It is not immediately obvious to visitors that parts of the building are still used as a church as the worship space has been installed on the first floor and also serves as multi- purpose room for conferences. On the other hand, restrictions on advertising on the outside of the church60 have a considerable effect on the economic viability of the retail units inside the church (personal communication (Mike Mannix, operations manager)).
Influence from the Church of England is also noticeable in the choice of businesses for the church61 and the range of products on sale62.
A different approach to that of Walsall and the other commercial sharing schemes of chapter 4 is St. Martin-in-the-Fields, London. Due to its importance in history and for the London cityscape (Johnson, 2005), the recent restoration and alteration works to St.
Martin’s have kept the appearance of the main above-ground church volume almost unchanged and instead utilised, restored and upgraded existing below-ground ancillary spaces. As a result, simultaneous activities in above- and below-ground parts of the building do not interfere with one another. High quality lighting of the underground spaces, the use of large-scale light wells and the careful planning of access and escape
60 CofE covenant 61 christian bookshop, fairtrade coffeeshop, charity office 62 products are checked by the management of St. Paul´s Church on a regular basis (personal communication (Mike Mannix, operations manager))
115 routes have provided an attractive environment and avoided many of the problems that can arise from bringing underground spaces of churches into use for the public.
Other churches that have adapted their crypts for commercial and community use include St. Mary Le Bow (London) and St. Peter (Walworth), and a number of further case studies are presented in the book “Change and Decay” (Binney/Burman, 1977) and potential advantages and problems of crypt conversions are discussed.
Figure 109: St. Andrew, Walworth – Access diagram for crypt facilities
The use of crypts – usually with solid ceiling structures to the church above – as commercial premises reduces the risk of sound transmission between different parts of a church building, and crypts sometimes have an existing entrance from a foyer or from the outside of the church, thereby avoiding the need to provide new circulation zones
116 and access routes. Often of smaller size and height and usually less decorated than above-ground areas of churches, crypts and other underground spaces can also be more readily available for additional uses - without having to subdivide an existing worship space and the need to respond to issues such as existing decorations and the position and size of windows.
Potential challenges for the use of crypts are the provision of universal access to (and escape routes from) underground areas, and the installation of suitable lighting to counterbalance the absence of natural light. Underground spaces also frequently suffer from dampness and therefore can be difficult to use without causing major damage to the existing fabric from tanking and covering up potentially important floor and wall finishes – which are often key features that distinguish a church crypt from ordinary basement rooms and can add considerably to the quality and atmosphere of such spaces.
Rural Churches
Implementing commercial setups in rural churches poses different problems from urban areas. Rural churches are often much smaller than urban places of worship, and with many people now regarding villages only as places to commute from to the nearest town or city, small village businesses have been suffering and unable to compete with larger outlets that are conveniently located along commuter routes or in retail parks that serve as destinations for family outings on weekends.
117 Businesses that need a number of rooms and large-scale service installations may not be the right choice as a partner in a rural church as providing a number of conveniently sited, sized and accessible spaces in village churches – additional to the worship area – is often very difficult or impossible to achieve.63
Village churches therefore often lend themselves more conveniently to the use of commercial operations that either only need very small spaces64 or only one room, or that can function with the help of mobile furniture. The community shop at
Moggerhanger (p. 79) is an example, where, with minimal alterations to the building fabric, a small commercial setup has been created and the outreach post office at
Eskdale (p. 78) which operates entirely with mobile furniture and storage cupboards.
Some commercial activities can be staged in a church without any alterations to the building fabric or the permanent occupation of premises – like farmers´ markets and village fairs – although those activities are usually held less frequently65 and can relatively easily operate under general hiring arrangements that are in place for most churches.
A number of churches have recently shown interest in installing outreach post offices in the base of a church tower or at the West end of a church. Often, these facilities are then combined with the sale of other products66 or the provision of tea-rooms67 and
63 this also applies to residential uses 64 e.g. a former vestry or the base of a tower 65 e.g. once a week or month 66 e.g. the sale of organic foods from local farms 67 e.g. Moggerhanger
118 sometimes also serve as an information point for visitors and tourists68. As a reaction to the heightened interest in providing post office services in churches, the CCC have prepared guidelines for PCCs which are available from the website of the CCC.
Shops in churches often operate as a charity69 and are staffed by volunteers. This approach can simplify the relationship between the church and the commercial partner, because the commercial setup is not solely focused on maximising profits and keeping overheads and contributions to building maintenance to a minimum. Although efficiency and a professional approach are basic factors for the success of a business, a sharing scheme in a church may benefit from a more inclusive business model and the aim to give local people work and to support the local community. The National
Association for Voluntary and Community Action (NAVCA) and the Village Retail
Services Association (ViRSA) can provide useful support for community-focused businesses (www.navca.org.uk, www.virsa.org).
68 e.g. Eskdale 69 e.g. the fitness studio at St. Paul´s Old Ford
119 Church of England & Residential Use
General Note and Historic Examples
The choice of residential case studies in Chapter 4 reflects the limited availability of sharing schemes involving the Church of England and residential uses. Only two examples in an urban context could be identified and the rural examples are two non- implemented blueprints from the 1970s and a case study that houses residential facilities, but in a predominantly commercial environment70. St. Andrew’s Church in
Mickfield is a redundant church and classified as a private residence with a chapel, and therefore the 2007 Amendment Measure does not apply to the management of this building. Reference to this aspect of the research is made in chapter 6.
Historic examples of the residential use of churches (chapter 4) show that people living in church buildings were usually linked to religious activities or were acting as guards against theft of church valuables or to report fires that could be more easily detected from an elevated position71 than from ground level (Davies, 1968).
The residential use of buildings usually requires the provision of one or several rooms for the various aspects of domestic life – and preferably of a size that allows heating of the respective area(s). With the main church space usually difficult to sub-divide for those purposes, historic examples of residential uses in churches were commonly sited
70 and the church is not a parochial church but part of a former convent 71 e.g. a church tower
120 in church towers, over porches or in other spaces72 ancillary to the main church volume.
Accommodation of this kind was relatively easy to provide, as long as only a single room73 was required, and service installations – with the exception of fireplaces – were almost non-existent. With today’s lifestyle and expectations of certain comfort levels and the provision of convenience facilities74, the provision of living accommodation in churches – including insulation, drainage and electrics – is very difficult to achieve without considerable alterations and damage to the building fabric.
Problems can also arise from the treatment of external spaces75 and possibly the need for a separate entrance to private areas.
Urban Churches
The provision of residential accommodation in urban churches is potentially easier than in rural places of worship due to the provision and number of more generously sized ancillary spaces. Urban churches frequently also have more than one entrance to the building, and if several staircases to upper areas exist, these - and existing foyers76 - can offer internal circulation solutions, thereby avoiding the need for new external access routes or access to domestic areas solely from the worship space.
72 e.g. anchorites 73 or a small number of rooms 74 incl. the legal framework of Building Regulations and fire regulations 75 e.g. parking and garden 76 e.g. St. Mary le Bow
121 However, examples of urban church sharing schemes are rare and the only examples that could be identified are the Vicarages at St. Lawrence Jewry and St. Mary Le Bow in London. The schemes are similar in several aspects, including the layering of accommodation on three floors and being confined to a minimal footprint. At St. Mary
Le Bow an existing gap between the tower and the liturgical space has been utilised for this purpose and the vicarage is almost invisible for passers-by. The visual impact of the vicarage at St. Lawrence Jewry has been minimised by treating the envelope of the new residential block in the North aisle in a similar way as the rest of the church. The asymmetric footprint of the church disguises the new insertion into the church volume further.
In both cases, the vertical layering of the accommodation has concentrated interference with the existing fabric to one area of the building, and the challenge of providing personal external spaces in a church context and urban setting, has been addressed with the provision of roof gardens.
The vicarages at St. Lawrence Jewry and St. Mary Le Bow have been constructed as permanent structures and in a solid, not easily reversible manner. The appearance is traditional where the envelope of the new volumes is visible, but internal areas clearly reflect a design language of the time of construction. Although EH and the CofE generally favour new additions to churches to read as new building elements with a modern design language77 (Kelleher, 2003), interference with the existing fabric at the two churches is serious, and a more careful approach with the aim to minimise damage
77 the publication highlights problems that can arise when new extensions and other new elements are separated from existing fabric with shadow gaps, and glass joints
122 and to achieve maximum reversibility of new building elements would be more favoured today (Kelleher, 2003).
The two case studies, however, represent special cases because both buildings were heavily damaged during the Second World War and original fabric and features only survived to a limited extent. Without the economical consideration of utilising existing spaces and saving on the provision of a separate vicarage, the restoration of the two churches may not have been economically possible and therefore resulted in the demolition of the two places of worship.
The introduction of the dissertation refers to the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006 and the possible impact of legislative changes on the use of church buildings. If additional accommodation in churches was exclusively used for church-related activities78, the CofE would retain maximum control over changes and alterations that were carried out in and around the respective buildings. The users of those areas would be accustomed to the treatment of church fabric and simultaneous activities could more easily be coordinated than between the CofE and a non-church partner.
Providing accommodation to non-church-related persons is referred to in the 2006
Measure, but limited to personnel that is required to reside on site to ensure the correct operation of procedures that occur within a (shared) church building. This could relate to a commercial agreement, but could also apply where a church is used as a shelter for people in need or as a security measure to guard the building against theft of church belongings, vandalism or lead theft.
78 e.g. as a vicarage or for a manager of church activities
123 In large churches it may be possible to partition off areas at the West end of the worship space to create a number of rooms for residential (and possibly other) uses, similar to a scheme carried out at St. Andrew’s Church in Cambridge79, where ten rooms have been formed in and around the tower.
Fig. 110: St. Andrew the Great, Cambridge – Isometric view of west end alterations
However, problems often occur with regards to horizontal divisions to the nave and aisles to form a number of rooms, as needed for the different aspects of residential use80.
As part of a large-scale sharing scheme the provision of two flats for vergers were at some point considered in the North transept of St. Paul’s Church in Cambridge, but was then abandoned because the church could not afford the fit-out and preferred to spend resources on the provision of community facilities.
79 although St. Andrew’s church is only used for church-related community activities 80 see Chapter 4: Church Use & Residential Use
124 The conversion of St. Paul’s Old Ford would have offered the possibility of inserting the vicarage into the attic of the existing church and to sell the neighbouring vicarage to generate extra funding for the conversion scheme. However, this approach would only have provided a one-off payment from the sale. Instead it was decided to generate regular income from a commercial partner81 and to keep the vicarage in church ownership and as a site for possible future development (personal communication (P.
Boardman, vicar) for the “‘New Heart for Bow’” (Williams, 2004: 14).
Rural Churches
The blueprints from Peter Cleverly and Peter Codling are examples of a rural places of worship shared with residential uses. Current examples of the shared use of non- redundant rural churches could not be obtained. Two further case studies of residential use of churches, Marrick Priory and Mickfield, have been included in Chapter 4. These sharing schemes do not comply with the restrictions set out at the beginning of the dissertation82 but the layout and operation of all three buildings show characteristics that are deemed useful for the argument of the analysis.
Certain issues set out for urban churches above also apply to rural places of worship.
The shared use is likely to be less problematic and controversial if the residential area is accommodated by a church-related person or by individuals that are required to reside on site as part of a sharing scheme.
81 the gymnasium in the attic 82 see p.18
125 Providing residential accommodation in rural churches may easily lead to a conflict with the Pastoral Measure 2006. The measure states that a shared use should only be permitted if the respective church building “will continue to be used primarily as a place of worship” (Section 56, 2a). However, many rural churches would not offer enough space to partition off sufficient areas to form a flat without taking over the majority of the church building.
The investigation of the churches at Marrick Priory and Mickfield has highlighted a number of issues regarding the provision of residential accommodation within places of worship.
At Marrick Priory, only the common room, a refectory and two dormitories have been installed within the church volume. All facilities requiring building services83 are located outside the main church volume. This approach has utilised formerly under-used spaces in the church while minimising damage to existing fabric from the installation of new pipework, plant and extensive tiled areas.
Other issues that might result from domestic use of church buildings, however, only occur to a limited extent as the residential use is only one aspect of an otherwise mainly commercial setup.
The problems of shared worship and domestic use of a church building – without clear boundaries between both uses - can be illustrated at St. Andrew’s Church in Mickfield.
Although classified as a private residence with a chapel, the building is used for services
83 e.g. bathrooms, kitchens and plant rooms, but excluding central heating
126 and as a meeting place and retreat. However, resulting from a low-budget approach to most areas, the untidy appearance of the interior84 in general and a distinctly domestic feel85 of the West end of the church, visitors are in danger of feeling uneasy about invading someone’s private sphere and unsure if one is allowed to navigate around all areas of the building. It is not clear where the domestic zone ends and the worship area starts in the nave and the careless detailing and poor workmanship with regards to new building elements do not further the feeling of entering a place of worship. Besides, with the kitchen and bathroom untidy and dirty and the sleeping accommodation in the tower of careless and unfinished appearance, visitors may not be encouraged to stay over night in St. Andrew’s church.
The two blueprints by P. Cleverly and P. Codling show two different, but non- implemented, approaches to the residential use of village churches.
P. Cleverly only retains the chancel for use as a worship space, with the nave mostly converted to residential use86. Floor levels have been arranged as necessary to avoid cutting through existing windows, but the impact on the existing fabric of the church building would still be considerable, with a new first floor structure inserted, the installation of building services to the kitchen and to a number of bathrooms, and new roof windows formed in the nave roof. It would again be useful if the occupiers of the flat in the church were involved in church activities or were at least familiar with
84 excluding the chancel 85 from carpets, furnishings, furniture, personal items and the character of the kitchen and bathroom 86 apart from gallery and study/meeting room
127 appropriate behaviour in and around a church to avoid potential problems as highlighted for Mickfield church above.
In contrast to P. Cleverly´s proposals, the “Pilgrim Church” by Peter Codling avoids a number of problems that can occur if facilities for daily use and full occupancy are provided. Space requirements are kept to a minimum, and - as common for “budget” accommodation – these facilities would not necessarily need to be “ensuite” but could be located in separate areas (see figure 90). Instead of inserting a gallery into the liturgically sensitive chancel area, facilities could be located in existing ancillary spaces87, or a small new structure could be constructed within the church, preferably at the liturgically less important West end and with a kitchen and a bathroom, that could be shared with the congregation and the wider (church) community.
Accommodation of this sort would resemble the historical examples listed in Chapter 4, but issues of access of upper floors (DDA), fire safety and expectations with regards to convenience and comfort would need to be explored before any such scheme was implemented. The use of the facilities mainly by church members or other people accustomed to the treatment of places or worship could minimise conflicts with other users or the building.
87 eg. the tower
128 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 7
129 Conclusion & Recommendations
The case studies and the analysis of the fieldwork have highlighted chances and challenges with regards to sharing church buildings with the community as well as commercial and residential partners.
Sharing schemes of different scales in urban and rural areas and with varying levels of success have been presented, and the fieldwork illustrates that sharing schemes are usually set up to provide extra funding for the upkeep and operation of a church building88, and/or to offer services to the community that may no longer exist in an area89.
The 1983 Pastoral Measure provides a framework for the shared use of churches, and the 2006 amendment has updated the legislation, making sharing agreements more flexible and improving the landlord-tenant relationship and the possibility of reversion of leased areas to worship use90. Changes to Section 56 of the 2006 Measure will possibly have substantial effects with regards to the lease of parts of a church building91, but generally the main wording of the Measure has been retained, suggesting that the arrangements drawn up by the Church of England in 1983 have so far worked satisfactorily.
Section 56 of the 1983 and 2006 measures also stresses the requirement that worship needs to be retained as the primary use of shared church buildings. This may be of less
88 (St. Paul, St. Michael, St. Paul’s Old Ford) 89 (St. Paul’s Old Ford, Moggerhanger, Eskdale). 90 (chapter 2) 91 which, however, has not yet been tested
130 importance where the new partner in a sharing scheme focuses on providing services for the community and general access to most areas of the building is retained, but is especially important where a commercial or residential partner occupies parts of a church building that then is no longer publicly accessible and contradicts the view of the church as a place open to everyone.
Generally, close coordination between all parties involved and careful planning of additional facilities is required to avoid conflicts between partners and the failure of a sharing scheme. Issues of access (shared or separate?) and new building services and other alterations to the church fabric need to be discussed at an early stage. The nature and programming of activities (simultaneous with services, acceptable within a church?) has an effect on the design of new partitions and screens (temporary or permanent, with or without glazing, sound-proof construction?). If any areas are shared between partners
(meeting rooms, lavatories, kitchens) it is important to agree on the appearance
(tidiness, neutral design?) of those spaces to achieve mutually acceptable solutions.
The case studies of chapter 4 have highlighted that small village churches are likely to opt for a flexible arrangement with movable screens, mobile furniture and multi-use of existing areas92, while larger urban churches can more easily either re-use vacant existing spaces (above or below ground), or provide new layered arrangements in new structures – usually at the liturgically less sensitive West end of a church93.
92 (Eskdale, Moggerhanger, Wentworth) 93 (St. Paul’s, St. Paul’s Old Ford, St. Andrew the Great, etc)
131 When new building elements94 are constructed careful detailing is required, especially with regards to responding to existing architectural lines and windows and at junctions with existing surfaces. The shape and surface finish of new insertions – blending in95 or standing out96 – needs to be considered, and the quality of workmanship can “make or break” a scheme97.
The arrangement of escape routes is often a problem when upper floors are created or re-used and the need for alternative exits can either take up valuable space within a church building or, where external staircases are required, be difficult to impossible to implement. External areas generally – and especially issues of advertising and waste storage – need to be planned carefully.
Sharing concepts can have a positive effect on concentrating resources98 and generating additional income for the maintenance of church buildings, while also attracting people, who usually would not visit a place of worship99, to join church activities. A professional approach can generate synergetic effects for all partners involved and avoid negative impact on quality, management and appearance (and therefore on the viability of a business model) which can easily result from a muted and over-cautious approach.
94 floors, partitions, galleries 95 e.g. St. Lawrence Jewry 96 eg. St. Paul´s Old Ford 97 eg. St. Paul´s Old Ford compared to St. Andrew´s, Mickfield 98 e.g. Kneesall Church 99 like St. Paul’s Old Ford and at All Saints, Hereford
132 Low-budget schemes100 are in danger of only generating low income from basic facilities and limited appeal, with returns only allowing maintenance of the status quo and little or no upgrading of facilities.
Where the new user of a church building operates under a license or lease, the PCC usually acts as the manager of the whole building101 and new uses are often set up as a charity to be exempt from business rates.
Responsibilities may be assigned differently if a new use has been introduced by declaring parts of a church building redundant102. Sometimes it may also only be possible to find an additional use that will dominate in a sharing scheme. This solution stands in contrast to requirements of the 2006 Measure, but if sharing agreements and covenants are carefully set up and the church remains the owner of the building, the legislation should provide a strong enough framework to enable schemes of this nature103.
For sharing schemes involving community use & commercial use it seems possible that a use of church buildings can be achieved which more closely resembles church use in former times, where the nave and West end of a church were mixed-use areas and only the chancel was exclusively reserved for worship. Today, mobile furniture and movable partitions can help to respond to the size of congregations and the type of event in the church, and multi-use areas can offer flexible arrangements for all users and be opened up to serve as part of the worship space if necessary. With shrinking congregations
100 like at Moggerhanger and Wentworth 101 St. Michael’s, St. Paul’s Old Ford 102 eg. St. Paul´s, Walsall 103 eg. St. Michael, Cambridge
133 many urban churches have maintained vacant areas in churches for decades. These can offer valuable space for additional uses which in return can generate (financial) support for community projects and operation of the church building.
Church sharing schemes with residential partners are rare and in addition to issues of subdividing churches and handling building services and access (see previous page), further questions arise with regards to private external spaces and whether the person residing on site is involved in other (church or non-church) uses of the building.
Individuals not related to church activities would need to be chosen carefully and informed of the restrictions that result from residing within a place of worship as the
2006 Measure requests strict covenants and lease conditions to minimise potential problems104 between different users of a church building.
Residential sharing schemes for churches are likely to suffer or fail if no consensus on the use of spaces and on treatment of facilities and people using the building is reached.
On the other hand, church property in general could be used more efficiently if the existing stock of buildings set aside for church-use was condensed (vicarages and church halls could be sold off or rented out) and vacant existing spaces within church buildings were utilised as living accommodation for individuals involved in the running of a church (like the vicar or a buildings manager). This could result in church buildings regaining some of the importance churches played in former times – serving as a point of contact for people in need and kept open much more than it is currently the case for
104 like at St. Andrew´s, Mickfield
134 many churches. Installing a person on site could also help to tackle vandalism and the current problem of theft of metals and other building materials.
Living accommodation in churches is more likely to be acceptable for the community and the Church of England, if public access and the general use of the building were restricted as little possible and if the community could even benefit from the new use
(see previous page).
The limited availability of current sharing schemes highlights the difficulty to find suitable arrangements for sharing church use with residential use, and further investigation and discussion within the Church of England – and with local communities – is likely to be required to find acceptable solutions.
135 Further Reading
The main body of the dissertation has investigated the sharing of CofE churches with partners from the community and with commercial and residential users. Another possible way of extended church use is the sharing of CofE churches with other
Christian – and possibly non-Christian – denominations. Sharing schemes have already been established between the CofE and a number of other Christian denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church
(Diocese of Chelmsford, 2003). A more controversial issue, however, is the sharing of
Anglican churches with non-Christian faiths. Several publications on the topic are available from the Church of England and the Council for the Care of Churches, and
English Heritage have joined the discussion of multi-faith worship with the – still ongoing – research project “Religion and Place” (Brown, 2005). A number of publications, as a possible basis for further research, are listed at the end of the bibliography.
136 BIBLIOGRAPHY
137 Printed Research Sources
The Church of England
AC (Archbishops´ Council of the CofE) (2004a): Church Statistics 2002, London: Church House Publishing
AC (2007a): The Church of England Year Book 2008, London: Church House Publishing
CCC (Council for the Care of Churches of the CofE) (2002): Church Extensions and Adaptions (2nd ed.), London: Church House Publishing
CHF (Church Heritage Forum of the CofE) (2003): A Future for Church Buildings (GS 1514), London: Church House Publishing
CHF (2004): Building Faith in our Future, London: Church House Publishing
Diocese of Chelmsford (1990): So you want to extend your church building?, Chelmsford: Chelmsford DAC & Essex County Council
Diocese of Chelmsford (2003): A Review of Church Buildings in the Diocese, obtained from the Diocesan Office in Chelmsford (weblink currently unavailable)
Diocese of Norwich (2003): Church Buildings: A Source of Delight and a Cause of Anxiety – the report of a working group, Norwich: Norwich DAC
138 Miscellaneous
Anglia Church Trust (n.d.(a)): A brief guide to St. Andrew´s, Mickfield, unpublished
Anglia Church Trust (n.d.(b)): St. Andrew´s, Mickfield - Heritage Trail, unpublished
Binney, M., Burman, P. (1977): Change and Decay - The Future of our Churches, London: Studio Vista
Bowyer, J. (1977): The Evolution of Church Building, London: Granada
Brown, S. (2002): Faith in Building – Launch of “Religion and Place” project, English Heritage Conservation Bulletin, Vol.43, October: 14-15
CCT (The Churches Conservation Trust) (2007): Annual Review 2006-2007, London: Empress Litho
Codling, P. (1972): Pilgrim Churches in East Anglia, in Harrod, W. (ed.) Norfolk Country Churches and the Future, The Norfolk Society, Woodbridge: Baron Publishing
Cooper, T. (2004): How do we keep our Parish Churches?, New Malden: The Ecclesiological Society
Davies, J. G. (1968): The Secular Use of Church Buildings, London: SCM Press Ltd
Durran, M. (2005): Making Church Buildings Work - A handbook for managing and developing church buildings for mission and ministry, Norwich: Canterbury Press
Durran, M. (2006): Regenerating Local Churches - Mission-based strategies for transformation and growth, Norwich: Canterbury Press
139
EIG (Ecclesiastical Insurance Group) (2008): Guidance notes – Theft of Metals, Gloucester: Ecclesiastical Insurance Office
Essex County Council (2002): The Changing Church, Chelmsford: Chelmsford DAC & Essex County Council
George, C. (2002): Alterations and Extensions of Your Church Building, Ecclesiastical Law Journal. Vol. 31: 306-317
Great Britain (1990): The Town and Country Planning Act, London: HMSO (Her Majesty´s Stationary Office)
Hayman, R. (2007): A Concise Guide to the Parish Church, Stroud: Tempus
Johnson, M. (2005): St Martin-in-the-Fields, Stroud: Phillimore & Co Ltd
Kelleher, S. (2003): New Work in Historic Places of Worship, Swindon: English Heritage
Matzig, G. (1997): Kirchen in Not (churches in need), Bonn (Germany): Deutsches Nationalkommitee für Denkmalschutz
Parliament (1995): Disability Discrimination Act 1995, London: HMSO
Parliament (2005): Disability Discrimination Act 2005, London: TSO (The Stationary Office)
Parliament (2006): Building Regulations - Approved Documents, London: TSO
140 Petre, J. (2008): Makeovers breathe new life into village churches, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd March: 13
Rowe, S. (2001): Open all hours – A way forward for Church buildings in the 21st century, Stoneleigh Park: Acora
Sewell, B. (2006): A Church Enterprise Culture – Hospitality was always in keeping with religious tradition, Church Building, Vol. 101, September/October: 16-17
Taylor, J. (2002): In Trust, Historic Churches: 25-27
Williams, A. (2004) St. Paul with St. Mark, Old Ford, Bow, Church Building, Vol. 88, July/August:14-17
Wright, M. (2007): draft document about St. Andrew´s, Mickfield, unpublished
Unknown Author (2005): Closing Time?, In Review, Vol. 3, December: 3
141 Web-based Documents and Websites
Note: All websites listed below were accessed in August 2008.
The Church of England
AC (2002): The CofE´s built Heritage, [online], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/builtheritage/
AC (2004b): The Way Forward for Church Buildings, [online], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/builtheritage/wayforward.html
AC (2007b): Guidelines and Best Practice for the Provision of a Hosted Post Office® Service in Churches and Chapels, [PDF file], www.churchcare.co.uk/pdf_view.php?id=31
CCs (2002a): The Procedure following Redundancy (Flowchart), [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/parishes/flowchartone.doc
CCs (2002b): What happens if a church is declared redundant?, [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/parishes/rcg4.doc
CCs (2006): Pastoral Measure 1983 – Code of Recommended Practice, [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/pastoral/pastadmin/code/pm1983code.doc
CCs (2007): The Church Commissioner’ Annual Report 2006, [PDF file], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/annualreport/fullreport2006.pdf
142 CCs (2008a): Annual General Meeting - Report of the Redundant Churches Committee to the Board of Governors for the year to 31 December 2007, [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/reporttoboard07.doc
CCs (2008b): Redundant Churches - A Guidance Note for Local Planning Authorities, Appendix 2 – The Procedure Following Redundancy, [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/lpa/rcg3appendix22008.doc
CCs (2008c): Redundant Churches in the Church of England – A Guidance Note for Local Planning Authorities (RCG 3), [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/lpa/rcg32008.doc
CCs (n.d.): Partnership and Progress – Buildings and Mission, [PDF file], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/buildingsandmission.pdf
CCs (n.d.(a)): Buildings – Practical Issues, [PDF file], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/practicalissues.pdf
CCs (n.d.(b)): The Pastoral Measure 1983 - Frequently Asked Questions [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/pastoral/pastadmin/faqs/faqs.doc
CCC (2007a): Alterations and Extensions or Your Church Building, [online], www.churchcare.co.uk/develop.php?FJ
CCC (2007b): Extended Uses of Church Buildings, [online], www.churchcare.co.uk/develop.php?FC
CCC (2007c): How to Develop your Church Building, [online], www.churchcare.co.uk/develop.php
143 CofE (n.d.(a)): Funding the Church of England, [online], www.cofe.anglican.org/info/funding/
CofE (n.d.(b)): The History of the Church of England, [online], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/
Diocese of Ely (2006): Annual Report of Diocesan Activities 2006, [PDF file], http://www.ely.anglican.org/information/documents/ANNUALREPORT2006.pdf
Diocese of St. Edmundsbury, (2005): Building for the Future – towards a strategy for our church buildings, [PDF file], www.stedmundsbury.anglican.org/pages/admin/ downloads/Building%20Report%20-%20draft%20final%20report.pdf
LONI (Legal Office of the National Institutions of the CofE) (2007): Wider use of part or parts of a Church – A guide to section 56 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 (as amended), [WORD document], www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchlawlegis/measures/pamguide.rtf
144 Miscellaneous
Britannia.com (LLC) (2000): The Churches Conservation Trust – Who they are & What they do, [online], www.britannia.com/history/org/cct.html
English Heritage (2005 – 2007): Places of Worship Forum. Minutes (1.-8. meeting), [PDF files], www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.10653
English Heritage (n.d.): Inspired – Securing a future for historic places of worship, [online], www.english-heritage.org.uk/inspired/server/show/nav.9568
FFC (Friends of Friendless Churches) (n.d.): Friends of Friendless Churches – About the Friends, [online], www.friendsoffriendlesschurches.org.uk/aboutFFC.html
OPSI (Office of Public Sector Information) (2006): Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1008 - The Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2006, [online], www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061008.htm
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (2007): SPAB Statement 1: Church Extensions, [online], www.spab.org.uk/html/advice/statements/spab-statement-1- church-extensions/
Strong, R. (Sir) (2007): The Beauty of Holiness and its Peril – What is to happen to 10,000 Parish Churches?, [online], www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=604
145 Other websites referred to in the dissertation www.historicchurches.org.uk/ www.lpwscheme.org.uk/msg1.htm www.navca.org.uk www.stpetersnottingham.org/misc/rector.htm www.virsa.org www.visitchurches.co.uk
Anglican Churches shared with other denominations
Board of Mission´s Inter-Faith Consultative Group (1996): Communities and Buildings – Church of England Premises and other Faiths, London: Church House Publishing
Ipgrave, M. (2002): The Road ahead – a Christian-Muslim Dialogue, London: Church House Publishing
146 Case Studies
Burston, St. Mary www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/burston/burston.htm
Cambridge, St. Michael personal communication (Shona McKay, church architect) www.michaelhouse.org.uk/ html/about_us.html
Cambridge, St. Paul personal communication (Michael Becket, vicar) www.centrestpauls.org.uk
Cambridge, St. Andrew Sargent, A. (ed.) (1994): St. Andrew the Great, Cambridge: a history, Cambridge: PCC of the Holy Sepulchre
Chipping Norton, St. Mary www.chippingnorton.net/Visitors/church/stmary.htm
Eskdale, St. Bega personal communication (Rebecca Payne (CCC) and Anne Baker (Vicar)), www.eskdalebenefice.org.uk
Hereford, All Saints www.cafeatallsaints.co.uk, www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/buildingsan dmission.pdf
147 London, St. Lawrence Jewry personal communication (David Burgess, vicar) www.london-city-churches.org.uk/Churches/St%20Lawrence%20Jewry.htm
London, St. Martin in the Fields www2.stmartin-in-the-fields.org/page/building/building.html Johnson, M. (2005): St Martin-in-the-Fields, Stroud: Phillimore & Co Ltd
London, St. Mary Le Bow personal communication (George Bush, vicar) www.stmarylebow.co.uk/?History www.theplacebelow.co.uk
London, St. Paul´s Old Ford, Bow personal communication (Rev´d. Phillippa Boardman, Vicar) http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/yearreview/dec04/story2.html http://www.matthewlloyd.co.uk/html/st_pauls_bow.html
Kneesall, St. Bartholomew www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/buildingsan dmission.pdf
Marrick, Marrick Priory personal communication (Jim Gleave, Head of Centre) www.marrickpriory.co.uk
148 Mickfield, St. Andrew personal communication (Mark Wright, owner) Wright, M. (2007): draft document about St. Andrew´s Mickfield, unpublished Anglia Church Trust (n.d.): A brief guide to St. Andrew´s, Mickfield, unpublished Anglia Church Trust (n.d..): St.Andrew´s, Mickfield - Heritage Trail, unpublished
Moggerhanger, St. John personal communication (J. Hollington, Meeting Place and Shop) www.mainlinksystems.co.uk/church/shop.html
Much Wenlock, Holy Trinity www.muchwenlockchurch.co.uk
Pilgrim Churches Codling, P. (1972): Pilgrim Churches in East Anglia, in Harrod, W. (ed.) Norfolk Country Churches and the Future, The Norfolk Society, Woodbridge: Baron Publishing
Rishangles, St. Margaret Binney, M., Burman, P. (1977): Change and Decay - The Future of our Churches, London: Studio Vista www.bookcottages.com/cottages/100-BMQ-rishangles-old-church.htm www.homeliveart.com/home_suffolk.htm
Rolvenden, St. Mary the Virgin www.rolvendenfarmersmarket.co.uk
Sheepy Magna, All Saints personal communication (Rebecca Payne, CCC)
149 Shipbourne, St. Giles www.shipbourne.com/village.htm
Snodland, All Saints www.snodlandhistory.org.uk/localhis/churches.htm
Sutton-in-the-Isle, St. Andrew personal communication (Kevin Belcher, Sutton-in-the-Isle PCC)
Terrington St. John, St. John www.norfolkchurches.co.uk/terringtonstjohn/terringtonstjohn.htm
Walsall, St. Paul personal communication (Mike Mannix, operations manager), www.thecrossingatstpauls.co.uk, www.cofe.anglican.org/about/churchcommissioners/redchurches/srs/buildingsan dmission.pdf
Whitwell, St Mary and St Rhadegund personal communication (Rebecca Payne, CCC)
Willingham, St. Mary and All Saints Church www.willinghamchurch.org/Lander/ Lander.htm
150 APPENDICES
151 Appendix 01 (Source: LONI, 2007: p23-26)
Section 56 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 as it will read following its amendment by the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006
(Changes shown in bold)
56. (1) It shall not be lawful to make any order or give any direction for closing a church on the ground that it is no longer required for use as a church, and the only procedure for closing a church on that ground shall be by way of a declaration of redundancy or the exercise of powers under section 55.
(2) Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B), it shall not be lawful to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any church or part of a church or the site or part of the site of any church or any consecrated land belonging or annexed to a church except in pursuance of powers under this Part or section 30.
(2A) Without prejudice to subsection (3)(a), on an application by the incumbent of the benefice comprising or including the parish in which the church is situated or, where the benefice is vacant, the bishop in the name and on behalf of the incumbent in the corporate capacity of the incumbent, the court may grant a faculty for a lease to be granted by the incumbent or, as the case may be, the bishop, of part of a church, provided that the court shall ensure that the premises remaining unlet, together with the premises let, under any lease or leases granted under this subsection, are, taken as a whole, used primarily as a place of worship.
(2B) On an application by any person referred to in subsection (2A) the court may, whether or not it grants a faculty under that subsection, grant a faculty for the lease of any land belonging to or annexed to a church.
(2C) The parochial church council for the parish in which the church or land is situated shall be a party to any lease granted under subsection (2A) or (2B) and, without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the lessor, shall have the same rights as the lessor to enforce any term of the lease which may be binding on the lessee, including any rights to forfeit the lease or to distrain on the property of the lessee.
152 (2D) Subject to any directions of the court, any rent or other payment payable under any lease granted under subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be paid to the parochial church council.
(2E) Subject to subsections (2D) and (2F), any such lease shall be for such period, and may contain such terms, as the court may determine and the lease or any terms contained therein may be varied at any time by the court on application by any party to the lease or otherwise as authorised by the court.
(2F) Any such lease shall be deemed to contain the following terms-
(a) in the case of a lease of part of a church granted under subsection (2A), the premises which are the subject of the lease shall not be used for purposes which are, or in a way which is, inconsistent with the use specified in that subsection, and
(b) in the case of a lease granted under subsection (2A) or (2B), no use shall be permitted for residential purposes except by a person who, as an employee of the lessor or otherwise, is required, as a condition of the employment or contract, to reside in the premises or part thereof, and the lease shall be deemed to contain a covenant on the part of the lessee to perform the said terms.
(2G) Where any lease is granted under subsections (2A) or (2B) –
(a) in the case of a lease of a premises to trustees to be held on trust to be used for the purposes of a place of worship, the trustees shall not be entitled to exercise the right conferred by the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920 (10 & 11 Geo 5 c. 56) to enlarge the leasehold interest by acquiring the freehold;
(b) in the case of a lease consisting of a tenancy of premises occupied or to be occupied wholly or partly for the purposes of a business, the tenancy shall not be subject to any provision of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz. c. 56) under which the lease is continued until determined, or under which the tenant is entitled to apply to the court for the grant of a new tenancy, in accordance with the provisions of that Part; and
153 (c) in the case of a lease of land consisting of a tenancy which would, but for this subsection, be a farm business tenancy to which the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (1995 c.8) applied, that Act shall not apply to the tenancy and, accordingly the tenant shall not be entitled to exercise any of the rights conferred by Part I, II or III of that Act.
(2H) Without prejudice to section 84, where at any time, there is no parochial church council, the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect and any lease granted under subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be construed as if, for any reference therein to the council, there were substituted a reference to the churchwardens.
(2I) Where a lease has been granted under subsection (2A) or (2B) and, at any time, the benefice is vacant, the bishop in the name and on behalf of the incumbent in the incumbent’s corporate capacity may exercise the power conferred on the lessor by subsection (2E) to apply to the court for a variation of the lease or any terms therein and the lease shall be construed as if any reference therein to the incumbent were a reference to the bishop acting in the name and on behalf of the incumbent as aforesaid.
(2J) Any question relating to the interpretation or enforcement of any term of any lease granted under subsection (2A) or (2B) shall be determined by the court and section 11 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 (1964 No. 5) shall apply in relation to proceedings under subsection (2E) and this subsection as it applies to the proceedings mentioned in that section.
(2K) Section 16(2), so far only as it applies to the archdeacon, (3) and (4) of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (1991 No. 1), shall apply to proceedings under subsections (2A), (2B), (2E) and (2J) as they apply to other proceedings for a faculty.
(2L) In this section, except subsection (2G)(b), “the court” means the consistory court of the diocese in which the building is situated or, in the case of the diocese of Canterbury, the commissary court thereof and section 14 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (1991 No. 1) shall not apply to the jurisdiction of the court conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section.
154 (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not -
(a) prevent the grant of a faculty authorising a suitable use of part of a church or the grant of any faculty in respect of any such land as aforesaid; or
(b) affect any powers under any Act of Parliament
(c) affect the power of the bishop of the diocese under section 22 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 to make an order directing that a building or land shall not be subject to the legal effects of consecration.
(4) Where any church other than a church which has been declared redundant is purchased compulsorily or is purchased by agreement under an enactment conferring powers of compulsory purchase, then for the purposes of any enactment applying to the disposal of sums paid to the Commissioners in respect of the purchase of the church or any land annexed or belonging thereto, or in respect of compensation for damage to other ecclesiastical property arising in connection with the purchase, the provisions of this Part relating to the disposal of the proceeds of sale of a redundant building or any land annexed or belonging to a redundant church shall be deemed not to be applicable.
155 Appendix 02 (Source: CCs, 2008c)
156