MPCP(20)19 Church Commissioners Mission, Pastoral and Church Property Committee Closed Church of Crawshawbooth St John (Diocese of Manchester) Representations against draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Note by Harvey Howlett

Summary

(i) The Committee is invited to consider six representations concerning a draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme (four against, one in favour and a letter of comment) providing for the sale of the closed church building of Crawshawbooth St John and the annexed land in the Diocese of Manchester for residential use and for purposes ancillary thereto. The specific proposal is to provide residential accommodation for ex-armed forces personnel.

(ii) The representors against objected to the proposed plans due to concerns about the impact of the proposed development on this small village, the overlooking of neighbouring properties and the specific implications of housing ex-services personnel and the likely impact on the village as a whole. In addition, one representor objected to the proposals whilst an ongoing dispute with the Diocese remained unresolved.

(iii) The representor in favour, whilst looking to see more detailed plans, supported the use as an extremely positive development that would not only save and restore an important and historic building but also benefit the local community.

(iv) The letter of comment, from the nearest neighbour to the churchyard, whilst not objecting to the Scheme raised questions about the proposed design and the impact on their own property.

(v) The Bishop of Manchester responded to say that the Diocese wishes for the Scheme to proceed as drafted. He referred to the very difficult search for an alternative use for the building and argued that this may be the final opportunity to save this important heritage asset. He believed that the proposals made compassionate provision for certain members of society who were currently disadvantaged and said that particular questions of access and impact on the local community would be fully tested in any application for planning Permission and Listed Building Consent.

1

(vi) The case has been examined by the Committee’s case sifting representatives who agreed that the case should be considered on the papers alone.

(vii) In considering the representations, the Committee will need to have regard to the legislative requirement as to the suitability of what is being proposed. If the Committee considers the proposed use to be suitable in principle, it is still possible that it might be unsuitable in the particular circumstances of this building because of its location or other factors relating to achievability and the potential impact of the use.

(viii) The main issues to be considered are therefore, as follows:

• is the proposed residential use of the building a “suitable” use within the meaning of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011?

• are the concerns expressed in the representation against the draft Scheme of such substance and weight that the proposed use is to be considered unsuitable for the building in this location?

• will the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of ?

Recommendation

The Committee is invited to consider the representations and the issues set out in this report and, in the light of these, whether the draft Scheme should proceed.

2

Introduction

1. The Committee is invited to consider six representations concerning a draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme (four against, one in favour and a letter of comment) providing for the sale of the closed church building of Crawshawbooth St John and the annexed land in the Diocese of Manchester for residential use and for purposes ancillary thereto.

2. St John’s, a large and impressive Grade II* listed stone church in a Gothic Perpendicular style, was built in 1890-92, on a site donated by a local wealth business owner, to designs by H J Austin of Paley, Austin and Paley. It stands on a green and leafy steep hill raised above the Road (A682) to the south west of the small village of Crawshawbooth, a linear settlement extending along the A682 between Burnley and on the edge of the Pennine Hills. In the nineteenth century the village had prospered in the industrial boom with wool and cotton mills along the river. St John’s lies just beyond an area identified as being at risk of flooding. A housing development sits to the North but farm and moor land extend beyond the immediate line of development either side of the A682.

3. When in leaf, trees obscure the church from the road, though its tower and pinnacles rise above the tree line. The building was known locally as the ‘Cathedral of the Valley’ in view of its considerable landscape presence and architectural quality. The extensive and lofty interior is well-lit, adding to the sense of space, with the nave arcades being carried on moulded arches which are supported on alternately round and octagonal columns. Above is an arch-braced double-collared timber roof structure. There is a Garden of Remembrance, for the interment of ashes, near the south-west wall of the church, as well as one burial in the private burial ground situated on the south-west side of the large churchyard. It is proposed that rights of access will be preserved for people wishing to visit these areas.

4. The church was closed for regular public worship in February 2012, following a decline in the size of the congregation and a failure to attract additional community uses for the building. Closure was also necessary because of the increasing costs of repair, with the deteriorating condition of the church made significantly worse by the theft of lead from the roof in 2011.

5. During a lengthy marketing campaign, the cost of repairing the building has impacted on the viability of various possible use proposals being explored. A draft scheme for use as a renewable energy training centre was published in February 2014 but was not taken forward. The building has been seen as a priority for the ‘Find a Use Manchester’ project1 looking to secure the future of a number of long- standing closed church buildings. The prospective purchasers emerged during the extended period of renewed marketing and are now developing their proposals for the building to be converted to provide accommodation for veterans and ex-armed

1 The Commissioners and Historic England are jointly funding a three year post, which sits in the Churches Conservation Trust’s Regeneration Team, focussed on securing a future for a number of problematic listed closed churches in the North West. 3

forces personnel. The proposed residential accommodation would make use of the existing vehicular and pedestrian access from Burnley Road.

6. The Commissioners’ former statutory advisor, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, indicated in its early advice that St John’s is a church of high overall significance and advised that it be preserved by conversion to a suitable alternative use (its large volume of interior space seen as offering some scope for alteration).

7. The conservation and re-use of this important heritage asset is also a priority for both Rossendale Borough Council and Historic England, in line with local and national planning policies. The building has been on Historic England’s Buildings at Risk Register for several years.

8. Attached are:

Annex A Background to the case; Annex B The initial advice report on the building from the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches: the Critical Information Summary and Informed Change Assessment; Annex C A copy of the draft Scheme and site plan and accompanying Explanatory Note; Annex D A copy of the letter referring the representations to the Bishop together with a copy of his reply; Annex E A copy of the notes prepared by the prospective purchaser and circulated at the drop-in during the consultation period; Annex R A copy of the representations; and Annex S Supplementary comments by the representors (to follow).

Representations Received

9. Following the publication of the draft Scheme providing for the sale of this closed church building and the annexed land for residential use and for purposes ancillary thereto, we received six representations (four against, one in favour and one letter of comment) regarding the draft Scheme. The Representations are set out in Annex R.

10. The representations against came from Mr T Harden, Sarah Shepherd, Caroline Hudson and Keith Ingley; the representation in favour came from Allen Thompson; and the letter of comment from Mrs Judith and Mr Kenneth Allison.

Representations Against

11. Mr Harden and Sarah Shepherd both raise concerns about the suitability of the proposed use in the small village of Crawshawbooth which lacks many facilities, including medical support, and its remoteness in relation to employment opportunities. They are also concerned that there would not be any full time support staff on site and that some residents would potentially have psychological problems and be in need of specialist care. 4

12. Sarah Shepherd also raises particular concerns for her own and her child’s safety, given the proximity of her home to the church, which she indicates is in part overlooked by the church. She also refers to her previous experience of encountering some ex-service men within the prison system and raises concerns about the mental health and wellbeing of local residents and the impact this could have on the village. She also raises concern about the ex-servicemen themselves, including the treatment of any suffering with PTSD being removed to far flung locations.

13. Caroline Hudson raises similar concerns in a set of questions and lodges an objection to the scheme until adequate further information has been provided.

14. Mr Ingley writes to oppose the proposed sale of the property whilst there is no resolution to an ongoing dispute between him and both the Diocese and the Commissioners in relation to repairs and damage to his own property for which he is seeking restitution. He has also submitted supporting images marking a collapsed drain and water flow down Church Drive. He writes concerning an earlier collapsed tree causing damage to his property and comments on the failure to undertake necessary repairs which he states has led to flooding of his and neighbouring properties.

15. Mr Ingley also raises concerns about the proposed use of the existing drive, which he writes has been the cause of numerous accidents and near misses and which he argues is dangerous.

Representations in Favour

16. Mr Thompson writes in support of the proposal. Whilst looking forward to seeing more details and firm plans in the future, he says that this is an extremely positive development that will not only save and restore an important and historic building but will also benefit the local community and, he is sure, will help several ex- military personnel.

17. He looks forward to the positive restoration of the building and grounds and hopes that what may be the last chance for this stunning building is not missed.

Letter of Comment

18. Mr and Mrs Allison write that whilst they support the conversion in principle, as it would be good to see the building restored and cared for, they have concerns about the particular proposals for the development and the intended siting of the proposed main entrance, which they say is likely to cause both disturbance and overlooking of their property and which they suggest could be remedied.

Diocesan response to the representations 19. Following normal practice, a copy of the representations was sent to the Bishop of Manchester to seek his comments. The correspondence with the Bishop is attached as Annex D.

5

20. The Bishop sets out the long history of marketing of the building since its closure in 2012 and the more recent involvement of the Find A Use Manchester project which has resulted in the current proposals. The Bishop argues that this may be the final opportunity to secure the restoration and use of this heritage asset. He notes that the prospective purchaser has considerable experience in dealing with historic buildings and has a realistic appreciation of the task before him. He confirms that, whilst the type of accommodation being proposed (housing for veterans and ex- Armed Forces personnel) is supported by funding streams which can cover the significant costs of conversion and restoration, the Diocese itself in the meantime was addressing the problem of flooding and a substantial sum of money was to be spent on geo-engineering works which should safeguard the church and adjoining properties against future flooding events.

21. The Bishop did not believe that the provision of accommodation for ex-service personnel would be unsuitable in this location. His understanding was that all relevant background checks on potential tenants will be undertaken in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence. He explains that it is understood that the accommodation to be provided in St John’s will be fully supported and supervised, with an on-site care facility, so that the impact on both the immediate neighbouring properties and on the village with its limited medical facilities will be minimal. He also explains that the proposed use of the church makes provision for the grounds to be landscaped in a way which would enhance the privacy of church occupants and neighbouring residents alike. He also suggests that roof lights were likely to be the only new openings allowed in the building and overlooking from these was generally very limited.

22. Although the Bishop indicated his limited knowledge of the area, he believes that there is quite good access to wider employment opportunities, with transport links to neighbouring towns, even if such opportunities in Crawshawbooth itself are not plentiful. He notes that the local authority views this area as a sustainable location and one which can accommodate some further growth, evidenced by new housing being constructed nearby..

23. The Bishop understands that there may not be a high level of car ownership or car use by prospective occupants of St John’s. Local facilities are within walking distance and public transport is available for longer journeys. He also notes that traffic issues will be considered in some depth by the local planning authority and the County Council highways department, should a planning application for the proposed use be submitted, but believes that any concerns could be addressed at the design stage of the project.

24. With regard to the concerns raised by Mr Ingley, the Bishop understands that the Diocesan Property Manager has already taken steps to deal with the issues regarding trees and drainage raised in the past, and the work being done this summer on the watercourse would safeguard Mr Ingley’s property from the flooding which occurred because of the unexpectedly high rainfall and subsequent blockages in the goyt around the church.

25. The Bishop also refers to Mr Ingley's claims for restitution and correspondence between the Diocese and Mr Ingley and his solicitor over many years to seek to 6

resolve the issues raised. He says that as no court claim has been lodged by Mr Ingley concerning these matters, any formal action for restitution arising now would be resisted on the basis that the Limitation Act 1980 applies.

26. Overall the Bishop believed that the proposals make compassionate provision for members of our society who are currently disadvantaged. They also show respect for previous generations in that this important building can continue to bear witness to its history and its role within the local community.

27. He adds that the consensus among the twenty people attending the drop-in session, as part of the consultation process, was that the proposals for residential use were to be welcomed.

The Further Views of the Representors 28. The Bishop’s response has been shared with the representors. Any further comments received will be circulated separately and included in Annex S.

The Sifting Group’s decision 29. The case has been examined by the Committee’s case sifting representatives who considered that the issues raised in the written material were clear and limited in scope and they concluded that they had sufficient information in the written papers to fully understand the objectors’ concerns. Given this, they did not consider that questioning the representors or the Diocese was required in the interests of fairness or for the benefit of the representors. The Sifting Panel, therefore, concluded that the case should be considered on the papers alone but recognised that if discussion of the case by the Committee brought up further points this might be revisited.

The issues for the Committee 30. In considering the representations, the Committee will need to have regard to the legislative requirement as to the suitability of what is being proposed. The Mission and Pastoral Measure Code of Recommended Practice gives examples of alternative uses which have been found to be acceptable in other cases and these include residential use. Section 17.4 of the Recommended Code states:

17.4 The most common alternative uses include: • Worship by other Christian bodies • Civic, cultural or community purposes (includes community centre; lecture or concert hall; conference hall and exhibition centre; art gallery or heritage or tourist centre; county record office; urban study and architectural interpretation centre; youth work and night shelter; library; Scout and Guide headquarters; children’s nursery) • Monument (for preservation) • Residential • Storage (includes university book store; scenery and props; warehouse; diocesan furnishings store)

7

• Arts and crafts, music or drama centre (includes arts centre; theatre and restaurant; orchestral or operatic rehearsal hall; Fine Art auctions; craft workshop) • Light industrial / office / retail (includes: pottery manufacture; studios and offices; antiques market; retail shops) • Private and school chapels • Educational purposes • Museums (includes: natural history; archaeological; regimental) • Adjuncts to adjoining estates • Sports use (includes: squash courts; gymnasium; indoor climbing centre).

31. If the Committee considers the proposed use to be suitable in principle, it is still possible that the use might be unsuitable in the particular circumstances of this building because of its location or other factors relating to the impact of the use. These could include concerns raised about the particular nature of the proposed residential use itself, as well as questions regarding traffic and parking, viability and the potential impact of the proposed use on neighbouring properties.

32. Finally, the Committee must be satisfied under the general duty of the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 that the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England.

33. The main issues to be considered are, therefore, as follows:

• is the proposed residential use of the building a “suitable” use within the meaning of the Mission and Pastoral Measure? • are the concerns expressed in the representation against the draft Scheme of such substance and weight that the proposed use is to be considered unsuitable for the building in this location? • will the proposals, taken as a whole, support the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England?

Recommendation

The Committee is invited to consider the representations and the issues set out in this report and, in the light of these, whether the draft Scheme should proceed.

(Signed) Harvey Howlett Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ 30 April 2020 8

Click here to go back to top of paper ANNEX A Closed Church of Crawshawbooth St John (Diocese of Manchester) Representations against Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Background

The Building This Grade II* listed church building dates from 1890 to1892 and is a large and impressive stone building designed in a Gothic Perpendicular style by H J Austin of Austin and Paley. Known locally as the ‘Cathedral of the Valley’ it has considerable landscape presence as well as architectural quality. The extensive and lofty interior is well-lit, adding to the sense of space, with the nave arcades being carried on moulded arches which are supported on alternately round and octagonal columns. Above is an arch-braced double-collared timber roof structure. The village of Crawshawbooth is a linear settlement which extends along the Burnley Road (A682 between Burnley and Rawtenstall), S of Burnley and SE of Blackburn, N of Rawtenstall. The road roughly follows the route of the River Limey (joins in Rawtenstall) and is a hilly winding road. To its north the village merges with and . It is within the St. John’s is situated on the Burnley Road, south west of the village centre. Pinner Lane (a steep bridleway with stone walls to either side) runs along its southern boundary. It is a green and leafy hillside site, raised above the road. When in leaf trees obscure the church from the road, though its tower and pinnacles rise above the tree line. A housing development sits to the North, but farm and moor land extend beyond the immediate line of development either side of the A682. Use Seeking St John’s was closed for regular public worship in February 2012, following a decline in the size of the congregation and a failure to attract additional community uses for the building. Closure was also necessary because of the increasing costs of repair, with the deteriorating condition of the church made significantly worse by the theft of lead from the roof in 2011. A draft scheme for the use of the building as a renewable energy training centre was published in February 2014, but that proposal was not taken forward. This building has been seen as a priority for the ‘Find a Use Manchester’ project to secure the future of a number of long standing closed church cases. The prospective purchasers emerged during the extended period of marketing and are now developing the proposals for the building to be converted to provide accommodation for veterans and ex-armed forces personnel working with the Veterans Gateway organisation. The outline for the proposal is set out in the document circulated by the prospective purchaser at the public drop-in and attached at Annex E.

A1 Dispute with Mr Ingley One of the complications in pursuing a new use has been an ongoing dispute with a neighbour of the Church, Mr Ingley. In 2012 Mr Ingley took possession of a disused toilet block on the boundary of the churchyard and subsequently pursued a claim against the Diocese for damages caused to this property from trees in the churchyard land. The Diocese has always denied liability for the damage caused but did arrange for the trees to be removed. The Diocese is also arranging for repairs following flooding damage in relation to the watercourse which runs across the land. The Views of the Commissioners’ Statutory Advisors The Commissioners’ former statutory advisor, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, in its early advice indicated that St John’s is a church of high overall significance and advised that it be preserved by conversion to a suitable alternative use. The Board’s advice, Critical Information Summary and Informed Change Assessment are attached at Annex B. Planning and Access The conservation and re-use of this important heritage asset is a priority for both Rossendale Borough Council and Historic England, in line with local and national planning policies. The proposed residential accommodation is intended to make use of the existing vehicular and pedestrian access from Burnley Road. Burials and the Churchyard There is a Garden of Remembrance, for the interment of ashes, near the south-west wall of the church, as well as one burial in the private burial ground situated on the south-west side of the churchyard. Rights of access will be preserved for people wishing to visit these areas.

A2 Click here to go back to top of paper

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 Click here to go back to top of paper B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 Click here to go back to top of paper Annex C

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Click here to go back to top of paper Annex D

The Right Reverend the Bishop of Manchester Harvey Howlett Bishopscourt, Casework Support Manager Bury New Road, Pastoral and Closed Churches M7 4LE

Your ref: Our ref: RC24/101 7 April 2020

Dear Bishop

Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Closed Church Building of Crawshawbooth St John Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme

Following the publication of the draft scheme providing for the sale of this closed church building and the annexed land for residential use and for purposes ancillary thereto, we received six representations (four against, one in favour and one letter of comment) regarding the draft Scheme.

The representations against came from Mr T Harden, Sarah Shepherd, Caroline Hudson and Keith Ingley; the representation in favour came from Allen Thompson; and the letter of comment from Mrs Judith and Mr Kenneth Allison.

Representations Against Mr Harden and Sarah Shepherd all raise concerns about the suitability of the proposed use in the village of Crawshawbooth arguing that it is not a suitable location because of the lack of supervision for the residents, the lack of medical support in the village and the remoteness of the village in relation to employment opportunities. Sarah Shepherd also raises particular concerns, for the safety of her own and her child’s safety with unsupervised for servicemen overlooking her property. given the proximity of her own home and from her previous experience of encountering ex-service men within the prison system She also raises concerns about the mental health and wellbeing of the residents and the impact this could have in the village. In particular she raises concern about the treatment of those suffering with PTSD being removed to far flung locations. Caroline Hudson raises similar concerns in a set of questions and lodging an objection to the scheme until adequate further information has been provided. Mr Ingley wrote to oppose the proposed sale of the property whilst there is no resolution to the ongoing dispute between him and both the Diocese and the Commissioners in relation to repairs and damage to his own property and for which he is seeking restitution. He has also submitted supporting images marking a collapsed drain and water flow down Church Drive. He writes concerning earlier collapsed tree causing damage to his property and comments

Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct Line: 020 7898 1782 London Switchboard: 020 7898 1000 Email: [email protected] DX: 148403 Westminster 5 Website: www.ccpastoral.org The Church Commissioners are a registered charity (number 1140097). D1 on the failure to undertake necessary repairs which he states has led to flooding of his and neighbouring properties. Mr Ingley also raises concerns about the proposed use of the existing drive, which he writes has been the cause of numerous accidents and near misses and which he argues is dangerous. Representations in Favour Mr Thompson writes in support of the proposal. Whilst looking forward to seeing more details and firm plans in the future he wrote that this is an extremely positive development that will not only save and restore an important and historic building, but will also benefit the local community and I am sure will help several ex-military personnel.

He looks forward to the positive restoration of the building and grounds and hopes that we do not miss, what may be the last chance, for this stunning building.

Letter of Comment Mr and Mrs Allison write that whilst they support of the conversion in principle, as it would be good to see the building restored and cared for, they have concerns about the particular proposals for the development and the proposed siting of the proposed main entrance which is likely to cause both disturbance and overlooking of their property and which they suggest could be remedied. It will be necessary for our Mission Pastoral and Church Property Committee to consider the matter and I should be grateful for your comments on the representations in general and on the following, more specific points:-

1. What were the main considerations that led to the proposal to recommend the sale of this closed church for residential use?

2. Do you believe the concerns raised about the particular proposal to house ex-service personnel are such that the use would be unsuitable in this location?

3. Would you comment on the questions raised about the impact of the proposed use on the village and the neighbouring properties?

4. Would you comment on the potential impact of traffic from the proposed use?

5. Recognising ongoing legal proceedings, could you comment on the particular concerns raised by Mr Ingley?

6. How do you believe the proposals will impact on the mission of the Church of England in this community?

7. Are there any other factors which the Commissioners should be aware of in their consideration of these representations?

In considering what information to include in your reply, I should be grateful if you would bear in mind that the Commissioners are now required to consider the representation under the quasi-judicial process laid down by the 2011 Measure. A legal challenge may arise from the Commissioners’ decision if, among other things, it is based materially on incorrect information. In some cases, this might necessitate the withdrawal of the Scheme. Of necessity, the Commissioners rely on others to provide the information to assist their deliberations and to this end I should be grateful for your help.

D2 I am hoping that this matter can be discussed at the 6th May 2020 meeting of our Mission, Pastoral and Church Property Committee. If the matter is to be discussed at that meeting, we will need to receive your response by 20th April please. This is to allow time for this letter and your reply to be considered by our Sifting Panel, to determine whether the representors and diocesan representatives should be offered an opportunity to make oral representations to the Committee, and for them to be sent to the representors, for them to make any further comments and, if necessary, for you to respond. As you know we also ask representors if they wish to speak to their representations to the Committee.

If oral representations were to be heard, there would also be an opportunity for you or a diocesan representative to speak in favour of the proposals. The diocesan representative may be any appropriate person (e.g. the Chairman or a member or the Secretary of the Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee or an Archdeacon) but should not be the Diocesan Registrar or other legal representative. We do not wish the Mission and Pastoral Measure process to take on the characteristics of an adversarial tribunal and have advised the representors that they too should not be legally represented.

Our normal practice is, as you probably know for oral representations to be made at a public hearing. In the present circumstances that is, of course, not possible but it may be possible for representors and diocesan representatives to make presentations and answer questions by video conferencing. That would depend in each case on the practicability of whether all those concerned were contactable on line and able to participate in a video conference. It would be helpful therefore if you would confirm whether you or your representative(s) would be able to participate in this way. Otherwise, if a hearing is not to be held, the case will be considered in private and you will be informed accordingly.

Please note that while the Committee is able to discuss cases by video conference it is not able to take decisions remotely. Decisions would have to be made by a subsequent correspondence procedure and there would therefore be a further two or three weeks after the 6th May meeting date before they could be announced.

We would normally expect the representations to be considered at the earliest opportunity but please let me know if you are unable to meet the timetable for the 6th May meeting or wish to give the matter further consideration or undertake further local consultations before replying. Once we have informed the representors of the meeting date (which we will do when sending them a copy of your reply) we would hope not to have to defer it. However, all parties will have the right to ask us to defer the matter to a subsequent meeting if justifiable reasons arise. The two following meeting dates for the Committee are one of 15th, 16th or 17th June and then 22 July.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Revd Alan Simpson in your Diocesan Office and to Norman Bilsborough, the Commissioners Case Officer, for information.

Yours sincerely

Harvey Howlett

D3 THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER

The Rt Revd Dr David Walker

14th April 2020

Mr Harvey Howlett Casework Support Manager Pastoral and Closed Churches Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ

Your ref. RC24/101

Dear Harvey,

Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 - Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Closed Church Building of Crawshawbooth St John

Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 7 April 2020 informing me of the representations for and against the draft disposal scheme for Crawshawbooth St John. As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to these. Let me address the specific points which you raise in your letter.

1. What were the main considerations that led to the proposal to recommend the sale of this closed church for residential use?

I’m sure the Commissioners will be aware that it has proved very difficult indeed to secure a suitable future use for this important Grade II* listed building – it was of course one of the closed churches which was visited on your tour of Manchester Diocese in the summer of 2016.

Following the closure of St John’s for regular public worship in February 2012, marketing of the property by Dunlop Heywood produced several offers for the building. What seemed to be the most appropriate of these, a proposal for the use of the building as a renewable energy training centre, was taken forward with the publishing of a draft disposal scheme and an application by the prospective purchaser for planning permission and listed building consent. In the event this application was refused by the local planning authority and the prospective purchaser eventually withdrew in 2016, partly due to a frustration with the planning process but also no doubt because of the deteriorating condition of the building as a result of on-going lead theft and vandalism.

Further marketing was undertaken from late 2017 onwards by new agents (W T Gunson and Co.), but although there were an encouraging number of viewings and expressions of interest none of these resulted in what were demonstrably viable proposals for the long-term future of the building. By July 2018 the agents concluded that the property ‘had no market in its current condition’ and withdrew from actively promoting St John’s.

However, through the ‘Find A Use Manchester’ project (a joint initiative of the Commissioners and Historic England which is supporting Manchester Diocese in dealing with its closed churches) this current proposal for the conversion of the building to residential use has now emerged, and I believe it represents what may be a final opportunity to secure the restoration and future use of this heritage asset which has suffered so badly from the ravages of theft and vandalism over a period of several years - and even before its closure as a place of worship. Bishopscourt, Bury New Road, Salford M7 4LE Tel: 0161 792 2096 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @bishmanchester

D4

The prospective purchaser has considerable experience in dealing with historic buildings and so has a realistic appreciation of the task before him, whilst the type of accommodation being proposed (housing for veterans and ex-Armed Forces personnel) is supported by funding streams which can cover the significant costs of conversion and restoration. The Diocese itself is doing its part by addressing the problem of flooding which has resulted from the banks of the watercourse on the northern and eastern edges of the churchyard being eroded and overwhelmed by greater than average rainfall in the last couple of years – a substantial sum of money is being spent this summer on geo-engineering works which should safeguard the church and adjoining properties against future flooding events.

2. Do you believe the concerns raised about the particular proposal to house ex-service personnel are such that the use would be unsuitable in this location?

I do not believe that the provision of accommodation for ex-service personnel would be unsuitable in this location. As I understand it, all the relevant background checks on potential tenants will be undertaken in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence to ensure as far as possible that those housed in St John’s would be no threat to nearby residents and could be properly integrated into the local community.

3. Would you comment on the questions raised about the impact of the proposed use on the village and the neighbouring properties?

I understand that the accommodation to be provided in St John’s will be fully supported and supervised, with an on-site care facility, so I’m persuaded that the impact on both the immediate neighbouring properties and on the village with its limited medical facilities will be minimal.

Although I have limited knowledge of the area, I believe that access to wider employment opportunities is quite good even if such opportunities in Crawshawbooth itself are not plentiful – the main road connecting Rawtenstall to Burnley (the A682) runs alongside the church, and the public bus service into nearby Rawtenstall will no doubt connect to destinations further afield. It would appear that the local planning authority already views this area as a sustainable location and one which can accommodate some further growth, given the new housing being constructed nearby.

With regard to the question of overlooking, the proposed use of the church makes provision for the grounds to be landscaped in a way which will enhance the privacy of church occupants and neighbouring residents alike. Roof lights are likely to be the only new openings allowed in the building and overlooking from these is generally very limited.

4. Would you comment on the potential impact of traffic from the proposed use?

My understanding is that there may not be a high level of car ownership or car use by prospective occupants of St John’s. Local facilities are within walking distance and public transport is available should longer journeys be required, so I believe the potential impact of traffic from the proposed use will be minimal. Traffic issues will, of course, be properly considered in some depth by the local planning authority and the County Council highways department should a planning application for the proposed use be submitted.

I anticipate that if the authorities have any concerns over the question of access onto the main road from the church driveway, these could be addressed at an early design stage in the planning process.

D5 5. Recognising ongoing legal proceedings, could you comment on the particular concerns raised by Mr Ingley?

I understand that the Diocesan Property Manager has already taken steps to deal with the issues regarding trees and drainage which Mr Ingley has raised in the past, and the work being done this summer on the watercourse will safeguard Mr Ingley’s property from the flooding which occurred because of the unexpectedly high rainfall and subsequent blockages in the goyt around the church. As mentioned already, any issues concerning the safety of the church’s access onto the main highway will be dealt with in discussion with the relevant authorities. As regards Mr Ingley's claims for restitution, for a number of years, the Diocesan Registry has been advising the Diocesan Board of Finance, in whom the property is currently vested for care and maintenance. At various times since 2013, to no avail, correspondence has been entered into with Mr Ingley and his solicitor to seek to resolve the issues he has raised. As no court claim has been lodged by Mr Ingley concerning these matters, any formal action for restitution arising now would be resisted on the basis that the Limitation Act 1980 applies.

6. How do you believe the proposals will impact on the mission of the Church of England in this community?

I believe that the proposals set out in the draft scheme further the mission of the Church of England in that they make compassionate provision for certain members of our society who are currently disadvantaged. They also show respect for previous generations in that this important building can continue to bear witness to its history and its role within the local community.

7. Are there any other factors which the Commissioners should be aware of in their consideration of these representations?

I think it’s worth saying that the proportion of representations against the proposals compared to those in favour (4 to 1, at face value) is not necessarily an accurate or complete picture, and I trust that the Commissioners will recognise that those in support of something can often be ‘the silent majority’ particularly if they believe they have already registered their views.

I understand that at the drop-in session held on 24 February 2020, as part of the consultation process for the draft scheme, the consensus amongst the twenty people who attended was that the proposals for residential use were to be welcomed - it was recognised that action needed to be taken urgently to save this important building. Of those twenty, Sarah Shepherd (against) and Allan Thompson (for) wrote in with their more detailed comments.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the representors’ concerns.

Yours ever,

cc Norman Bilsborough Alan Simpson

D6 Click here to go back to top of paper Annex E

E1 At Risk The Church is currently on the English Heritage "Heritage at Risk Register". With its condition being described as "Very Bad". The Church was also listed on the Victorian Society's 2013 "Top 10 Endangered Buildings" List. Source information :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_the_Evangelist%27s_Church,_Crawshawbooth E2 Urgent Restoration The Church will receive a full restoration program overseen and approved via the National Heritage Association and Historic England`s approvals. Restoring this historic building to its former glory before its to late.

E3 The proposal The Church will receive a sympathetic conversion and change of use overseen and approved via the Church of England, National Heritage Association, Historic England, the Local County Council and the Local Parish council and its Residence. The change of use will be subject to LPA approval, it is envisaged that the conversion will form up to 19 self contained apartments along with communal and social areas for the use of re homing ex-service personnel, with full Disabled Access and Care Facility should they be needed. Garden landscaping to form wellness gardens, assess and parking improvements and on going care and maintenances thereof.

Images are only for illustration purposes and may not reflect the final approvedE4 plans • Saving this historic landmark which is currently at Risk. • Re homing of our service men and women. • On going maintenance and upkeep • Employment • Investing in the community and its people

Images are only for illustration purposes and may not reflect the final approved plans E5 E6 Click here to go to top of paper Annex R

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9