1.  The Church Heritage Forum, which was established in 1997, brings together representatives of national and local church interests in matters relating to the Church of England's built heritage. It enables the Church to take a more active role in anticipating developments in the built heritage field and, inter alia, provide a point of focus for contact both within the Church and with outside bodies; promotes a wider public awareness of the Church's work in the built heritage area; and enables the exchange of information and facilitates mutual support.

  2.  Membership comprises representatives from the following: Advisory Board for Redundant Churches, Archbishops' Council, Association of English Cathedrals, Church Commissioners' Redundant Churches Committee, Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, Churches Conservation Trust, Council for the Care of Churches, and an archdeacon. They are assisted by several assessors including a Diocesan Secretary and the Secretary of the Churches Main Committee.

  3.  The staff supporting the Church Heritage Forum welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation by the Select Committee. We would be glad to present oral evidence to the Committee and expand on the points made here. I am writing as the Forum's lead officer; I am also Secretary of the Council for the Care of Churches and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England.

KEY POINTS

—  The historic environment needs continuing support from lottery funds for capital repairs, and for access and education projects.

—  Church buildings are a particularly significant part of the historic environment, and matter greatly to their local communities beyond the worshipping congregation.

—  We therefore urge that decisions on the future of the Lottery funds should ensure adequate provision for the continuing needs of the historic environment, both because of its intrinsic value and its potential for enhancing the quality of life for local people and visitors alike.

THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT GENERALLY

  4.  This response concentrates on the implications of the Lottery for the national heritage, with particular reference to the work of the Heritage Lottery Fund. The historic environment of this country is one of its greatest assets. As well as the considerable economic effect of the tourism generated by historic sites, buildings and places, people enjoy and respond to surroundings of significance; and the historic environment can provide people with a sense of self-worth, enjoyment and quality of life, as well as a deeper understanding of their surroundings and roots.

  5.  The Heritage Lottery Fund has carried out some extremely valuable work in enabling major capital repairs of historic buildings and also by enabling many local communities to carry out projects which give them, as well as visitors, a greater understanding of their own local buildings or sites. In particular, its ability to provide a range of grants from the very large (millions of pounds) to the very small has been a major benefit.

  6.  But, almost by definition, no society can ever say that it has "finished" the task of looking after its heritage. Buildings repaired will need to repair again in the future, though good maintenance will help reduce the need and extend the time between major repair programmes. Education in how best to care for historic buildings is a continuous task—just as each year's intake of schoolchildren needs to learn the alphabet—and so is the need to encourage, enable and support the volunteers who underpin so much of the work to maintain our historic environment.

  7.  And there is still a major capital task facing this country in caring for its historic buildings. Although it does not cover churches in use, English Heritage's Buildings at Risk Register indicates the scale of the problem overall:

—  The Register for 2003 identified 1499 items (Grade I or II* listed buildings, or scheduled monuments) still at risk.

—  Some 72% of these have been identified as being at risk since the Register was first published in 1999. Only 12% of the items on the 2003 Register would be economic for the owner to repair without financial help—though, once repaired, 43% would be economic to maintain.

—  Overall, the subsidy needed to deal with the repairs required would be in the region of £400 million. (Heritage Counts 2003, English Heritage).

  Note that this Register does not cover Grade II buildings, which constitute the vast majority of listed buildings. The market alone will not solve the problem: if society wishes to ensure proper care of its most precious buildings, it must provide help from public funds.

  8.  Within this general context, church buildings are particularly significant.

THE CHURCH'S BUILT HERITAGE

  9.  "The Church of England has the largest estate of listed buildings." (State of the Historic Environment Report 2002, English Heritage).

  The Church of England has a central part to play in the protection and management of the historic environment. Of its 16,250 cathedrals and churches in use, some 12,000-13,000 are listed. This is fairly small in relation to the total numbers of listed buildings. English Heritage calculate that there were 371,591 listed building entries as at August 2003 and the total number of individual buildings will be more. But churches are very strongly represented in the higher listing grades. Although precise figures are surprisingly difficult to obtain, it is estimated that in the region of 40% of all listed Grade I buildings and 14-19% of all Grade II* buildings are churches.

  11.  Church buildings also matter deeply to their communities. Studies in recent years, including Power of Place and the Department's own response A Force for Our Future, have emphasised just how important the contribution of local buildings is to the environment to which people respond and which they appreciate.

  12.  Church buildings will often be the oldest building in a settlement still in continuous use over many centuries and are, therefore, a symbolic and much valued landmark. Many will also be the focus of a conservation area, and attractive to visitors as well as providing a sense of place for local residents. They make a major contribution to social capital and supporting sustainable communities in a variety of ways. Nearly all serve as centres for community and social service, cultural and educational activity. The Church Heritage Forum is currently engaged in work to promote a wider understanding of the scope provided by church buildings, which is often taken for granted, and to seek greater partnerships based on the contribution which these buildings make to the nation as a whole. Following a strong endorsement of this initiative by the General Synod last July, we propose to publish a report later this year.

  13.  A recent opinion poll carried out across the country for the Church of England and English Heritage showed that of the 1,000 respondents:

—  89% regard their local church buildings as a place of worship.

—  59% as a landmark.

—  53% as a historic place.

—  63% said they would be concerned if their local church or chapel were no longer there.

—  75% agreed that churches should also be used for other activities beside worship.

  14.  Interestingly 86% of respondents said that they had been inside a church building within the previous 12 months; their reasons for doing so included attendance at concerts or theatrical performances (17%) or while visiting family and friends (17%). A significant number (13%) indicated that they were going past and just felt the need to go in.

THE IMPACT OF LOTTERY FUNDING

  15.  The repair and maintenance of historic church buildings is a heavy burden, but unless a church is in good repair, it cannot fulfil its potential for full use. In 2001, £86 million was spent on necessary church repairs to Church of England churches alone.

  16.  It is important to stress that the management and operation of church buildings is dependent largely on the commitment of volunteers. This is in some sense a strength—because it harnesses commitment—but also a burden—because parishes depend largely on the congregation or other voluntary sources for repairs and maintenance. The Church of England may be very much part of the fabric of the nation, but it and all denominations are disadvantaged in financial terms. Many Churches in other European countries receive significant financial support from the state. In England, the only guaranteed core Government support which churches receive is when they become redundant, through the DCMS contribution to the Churches Conservation Trust. Even so the CCT's grant has been frozen at £3 million for the years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05.

  17.  Not all potential applicants may wish to take Lottery money, and the Church of England's policy has been that it is for each parish to decide whether it wishes to apply for funding towards maintenance of its buildings: the Church would not wish to apply, and the Lottery would presumably not wish to give, for funds directly related to the Church's ministry and preaching. However in practice Lottery funds have proved a valuable source for church buildings. The Lottery distributor with which members of the Forum have had most contact is the Heritage Lottery Fund, although other distributors, particularly the Community Fund, have helpfully given money for a number of imaginative projects within church buildings enabling them to fulfil extended functions within the wider community. But it is the Heritage Lottery Fund which has for some years now given substantial grants for repairs of historic places of worship, under a scheme run in partnership with English Heritage.

  18.  This scheme has made a significant impact: and any reduction in funding would be correspondingly damaging. But it has always been oversubscribed; and in recent years eligibility has been confined to urgent high-level works to keep the structure wind and watertight, without money for smaller repairs or eroding stonework

  19.  In 2002-03, the scheme received 598 applications, for projects costing £68.4 million: 270 were offered grants (totalling £20.7 million) for projects totalling £38.7 million. The balance of the cost must be raised by the parishes. We therefore warmly welcome the English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund's decision to offer £30 million in 2003-04 (the highest annual figure ever). Further work needs to be done to quantify more precisely the outstanding repair needs of historic churches overall (and both the Church and EH are considering ways of doing so). But the figures above, and the experience of churches up and down the country from their regular quinquennial inspections, indicate strongly that the demand for grant, and the need for EH/HLF help, remains. More money, and eligibility for a wider range of repairs, alongside simpler procedures for obtaining it, would ease burdens on parishes. It would also free up energy for more work with the wider community and social projects. We welcome however the growing interest of both EH and HLF in considering scope for schemes to encourage and enable good maintenance, and would wish to encourage this.

  20.  The Heritage Lottery Fund contribution is particularly important in view of the continuing pressures on English Heritage funding. Moreover its ability, unlike English Heritage, to assist provision for interpretation, access or community facilities, is vital for the survival and extended use of many churches:

—  Heritage Lottery Funding has been particularly helpful in respect of the upkeep (and development) of Grade II buildings which are not "outstanding" and therefore cannot qualify for English Heritage grants, but which often share the scale and structural problems of more highly listed churches. (Many large Victorian Grade II churches are also located in urban areas of social deprivation.)

—  The relatively low number of churches coming forward for redundancies in recent years may in part be attributable to the ability of parishes to maintain the upkeep of church buildings with the assistance of Lottery funding.

  21.  Church buildings and the communities which they serve have also benefited from other Heritage Lottery Fund schemes, such as "Your Heritage" and the Local Heritage Initiative. The Council for the Care of Churches is currently discussing arrangements with the Heritage Lottery Fund under which it might advise them on applications from churches for grants towards repair and conservation of their historic contents (bells, stained glass, organs, books, manuscripts and textiles) coupled with access and education initiatives.

THE FUTURE OF LOTTERY FUNDING FOR "HERITAGE" PROJECTS: THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION DOCUMENT

  22.  The Forum very much welcome the commitment to continue to allocate funds towards heritage projects (paragraph 2.10 of the Department's Decision document) and to maintain the present percentage share of Lottery money which goes to the heritage, until 2009 (paragraph 1.4). We are concerned however to see no reference to any specific commitment to funding for the heritage beyond that point, and urge that plans for the future of the Lottery more generally should recognise the immense amount of work still needs to be done to safeguard and support the historic environment, and thereby the quality of life of this country.

  23.  The Forum also warmly supports the tributes in the Decision document to the specialist approach brought by the Heritage Lottery Fund, as well as the recognition (paragraph 5.14) that the fabric of our communities has often been transformed by major capital projects. Works to historic buildings, almost by definition, will require capital funding—and careful assessment of the proposals, to ensure that the work will be sympathetic to the building which it is intended to preserve or enhance. It is very important that a Lottery Distributor has access to specialist expertise when considering such projects, both to avoid delay and to make wise use of resources.

QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

  Comments on those questions most relevant to the work of the Forum follow.

DISTRIBUTION AND FUNDING

What will be the impact on the existing good causes of the Olympic funding stream being created to provide resources in the event that London wins the 2012 bid? How realistic are the Government's estimates?

  Any new funding stream will inevitably affect the funding available for existing causes unless substantial new income is raised. As the heritage sector already faces a situation where resources are scarce in comparison to need, there must be a fear that the capacity of the Heritage Lottery Fund to meet existing, let alone new, needs will be diminished.

Does the National Lottery have the right focus—is it right that the range of available awards will be from a few hundred pounds for a local grant to (possibly) millions of pounds for a national transformation grant?

  The ability of the Lottery Distributors to finance both small, local projects and major national projects is to be commended. For the former it is particularly important that the application process is as simple and straightforward as possible.

What are the implications of the merger of the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund with the Millennium Commission's ability to support large scale regeneration projects?

  One of the major proposals in the Decision Document is the establishment of the new body amalgamating the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. It is proposed that the new body will be allocated 50% of the money available for distribution and it also appears that it will act as a focal point for pre-application discussion and liaison over projects with elements relevant to different distributors.

  The Forum recognises the value of having a single body which can co-ordinate the responses from different distributors and reconcile potentially conflicting requirements. It urges, however, that, if it is to act as a focal point for pre-application discussions, the new body should take careful account of the needs and sensitivities of the historic environment, in close consultation with the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Will this merger be enough to achieve the desired changes: improvement in efficiency and increased speed and simplification?

  The Decision Document proposes a common application form (paragraph 4.28). This is a sensible development, and could indeed be adopted more widely: many voluntary and charitable bodies who apply for funds from different sources experience disproportionate difficulties because different grant-making bodies ask subtly different questions. A common form for Lottery distributors will help simplify this.

  The Forum does however urge careful consideration of the proposals relating to the handling of unspent balances. The Document expresses concern about the high levels of unspent balances, and the proposals for achieving reduction of those balances.

  This is a complex issue, and we urge against an over-simple solution. The important factor is surely why projects are not proceeding. If grants are regularly not spent because the projects which have been offered funds prove not to be viable and do not proceed, there would be reason for concern. No doubt the Heritage Lottery Fund will have refined and developed their procedures for assessing risk to large projects since their establishment.

  However in reality the very capital projects which can do so much to transform the country's environment take time to deliver. Once an offer of grant has been made, the applicant will often need to finalise proposals, draw up specifications and proceed to tender before work can start: unless substantial development funding has been granted, few applicants will have had the resources to take the proposals to that stage before a firm offer of grant. There may also be statutory permissions to seek, and matching funding to be raised. (NB The scheme for church repairs now includes an initial offer of development funding.)

  There will often, therefore, be a substantial time-lag between an offer of grant and completion of major building work. Since this is inherent in the type of projects which Heritage Lottery Fund is seeking to help, it is crucially important that they should have the flexibility to earmark the sums necessary to meet those commitments: equally, the grantees must be able to proceed with their preparations in good faith once an offer has been made. The Department's final proposals for dealing with accumulated balances should reflect those legitimate needs of the recipients of the funds.

Does the existing pattern of Lottery awards represent a fair and equitable investment in the quality of life across the UK; across society? How does the pattern of expenditure match up with the pattern of ticket purchase? Will the new arrangements affect the status quo?

  In A Force for Our Future the Government reasserted that the historic environment is something to be valued and protected in its own right (while at the same time, with understanding and sensitivity enabling change to take place). In practice, the best ways for obtaining public monies at present are through initiatives dealing with tourism, education, social inclusion, access and community as well as regeneration projects. These are positive objectives, and form part of the Church's own agenda too for the extended use of its buildings to enhance the quality of life in local communities. However, such activities are additional to the need to repair and maintain the often historic buildings concerned, and generally do not make a profit which can then be spent on such repair and upkeep.

  We urge therefore that decisions on the future of the Lottery recognise the importance of the historic environment in its own right. A well-maintained church building gives a positive message to its local community. The space around churches including churchyards can sometimes provide the only green space in an otherwise concrete-bound urban environment. These benefits apply even before the vast array of voluntary and charitable work resourced from these buildings have been fully quantified.

  The economic benefits of investing in historic church buildings are also significant. For example, cathedrals and churches are often responsible for bringing the majority of tourists to an area, acting as a `magnet' to visitors and as a result bringing increased economic benefits to local hotels, restaurants, cafes and shops. A survey in Winchester a few years ago estimated that 85% of visitors to the city visited the cathedral. However, very often the church building itself does not itself benefit directly financially.

  Is enough done to assist communities that potentially merit Lottery funds actually to: (a) develop projects; (b) attract matching funding; and (c) apply for, and win, Lottery grants? Is there anything in the new proposals to tackle concerns in this area?

  The expertise and experience available to and built up by the Heritage Lottery Fund has enabled it to guide parishes and communities and other bodies through the complexities of funding capital projects on historic properties.

  Simplifying the application process further will also be helpful. With capital projects the need to raise funds from a variety of sources is particularly important and we would welcome further emphasis on funding for initial capacity building. As already indicated it should also be recognised that many new projects need to be given sufficient time to develop and if proven, some guarantee of long term funding to provide confidence to enable further development and sustainable growth is important.

GENERAL

  In 2001, and other Reports, the Committee have highlighted a number of principles and issues:

—  the additionality principle

—  the requirement for matched funding

—  distribution at "arms length" from Government

—  the tax neutrality of Lottery duty

We would welcome views on these matters and whether the Government's proposals affect the existing situation.

  Additionality: The Forum's view is that lottery funding for work to church buildings should continue to be additional to other State grant-aid for church buildings. This is in part because of the genuine objections which some congregations, denominations and faith communities have to use of Lottery money, but also in recognition of the Government's share of responsibility for this major part of the national heritage.

CONCLUSION

  24.  Overall, we urge that heritage work should remain a priority call upon National Lottery funds as a whole, and that any changes should not reduce the monies available for this essential work.

January 2004