INTRODUCTION

  The Church Heritage Forum welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation by the Select Committee. We would also wish to present oral evidence to the Committee and expand on the points made here. The subject matter is particularly relevant at present as the Forum, in consultation with a wide range of Church, Government and voluntary bodies, is seeking to develop a strategy to articulate the importance of church buildings and to forge enhanced partnerships for their care and maintenance, and use and development for the needs of the wider community.

  "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 been at the centre of the life of the nation for centuries and remains the largest faith group. It has a central part to play in the protection and management of the historic environment. Of its 16,250 cathedrals and churches in use, around 13,000 are listed. Between 32-42% of listed Grade I buildings and 14-19% of Grade II* buildings are churches.

1.   The contribution of historic buildings to urban regeneration

  "Among the typical resources which faith groups . . . can offer as part of the voluntary and community sector are local networks, leadership and management capacity, buildings with potential community use, and volunteers." (Faith & Community—Good Practice Guide, LGA, 2002)

  1.1  72% of the population—37 million people—stated themselves to be Christian in response to an optional question in the 2001 Census. Churches and cathedrals play a particular part in urban regeneration. They often form the focus of a settlement, historic or modern and are the defining building within their communities. They will often be the oldest building still in continuous use over many centuries and are therefore a symbolic and much valued landmark. They can act at the epicentre of the community geographically, spiritually and socially.

  1.2  Many faith groups including the Church of England see community projects as one of their important roles. This is especially relevant to the Church of England through its responsibility for people of all faiths throughout the whole of England. Helping and working with those groups suffering the greatest degree of deprivation has always been seen by the Church as part of its role. In 1985, the publication of Faith in the City led to a developing refocused urban social policy for the Church. Nearly 20 years on, the Church of England is to review again its urban policy to ensure that it is both relevant and working.

  1.3  The Church is crucially dependent on its buildings and volunteers to help meet the challenge of urban and community renewal. Many early C19 and Victorian churches were often built deliberately to bring Christianity to newly populated industrial urban areas. Many are physically large and may be capable of sub-division for extended uses. Such buildings are present in the majority of urban neighbourhoods suffering the greatest degree of deprivation. A building is very often vital to the sustainability of a project.

  1.4  Church communities also provide a network with professional leadership, a strong group of committed volunteers and a grassroot network of links with and local knowledge of their own and the wider community—all recognised as essential resources for community-led regeneration initiatives. Within neighbourhoods, faith communities often include people who are effectively excluded by other forms of organisations and whom statutory and even voluntary services find hard to reach.

  1.5  Church buildings can, therefore, provide both a physical safe space and act as a way in for voluntary organisations, as well as providing a community-led focus for activity, in the case of the Church of England, in the midst of every residential community.

  1.6  There are numerous manifestations of how this has worked in practice eg:

—  St John's Hoxton: a nursery school and family centre in the west end, and community cafe, training project and fitness centre for the disabled in the crypt of this early C19 building have made it a beacon for local regeneration.

—  Holy Trinity, North Ormesby, in an urban priority area in Middlesbrough: a new multi-purpose church centre linked to the Grade II church and facing the market place: new social housing is to be developed next to the centre.

—  The Thombury Centre, Bradford: a new worship centre including community facilities, restaurant providing training for local people, and a place where people of all faiths and cultures can meet.

—  St Martin in the Fields, London: a well known Grade I building which also has a major outreach to the homeless and to London's Chinese community.

—  St Philip's Leicester, a church rebuilt after fire, and now including space for community and multi-cultural activity.

  1.7  Historic Church buildings also benefit their area by acting as a stimulus for tourism: for instance in Winchester, a survey some two years ago indicated that 85% of visitors to the city visited the cathedral.

  1.8  Historic church buildings will benefit from hosting activities beyond the needs of the worshipping community. These buildings are often in need of repair themselves and need help. Many have small congregations and a maintenance burden which is beyond the capacity of the worshipping or even the wider community to meet. Additional or extended uses offer many of them scope for a sustainable future as well as enriching the life of the wider community and neighbourhood. This can be so even when as a last resort a church has to become pastorally redundant, eg:

—  St Mary, Ipswich, is situated in a very run down industrial area, surrounded by large amounts of wasteland, but is gaining a new focus as part of the Waterfront Development project. The church will be used by museums and art galleries for displaying modern art installations, promoting young local artists and providing office space and other facilities. The Development Corporation there are particularly keen on public/communal meeting spaces in what is becoming a large residential inner city development.

2.   The role and effectiveness of the public agencies responsible for the built and historic environment in encouraging urban regeneration

  2.1  English Heritage deserve great credit for their tireless advocacy of the role of the historic environment in providing a focus for urban regeneration: their efforts have proved that, with patience and imagination, the historic environment can provide a catalyst for community cohesion as well as improvement of bricks and mortar. The principles enshrined in Power of Place and Force for our Future—the importance of the local environment, and the need to let that live—are bearing fruit in practice. But English Heritage are very stretched for resources, and need more money and staff to exploit this potential further.

3.   Whether those organisations carrying out regeneration projects give sufficient regard to historic buildings

  3.1  At national and regional level, the formal connection between regeneration and historic buildings is not always made. This connection is even more tennous at local community or in the case of church buildings, at parish level. There has also been a proliferation of bodies and agencies involved in regeneration schemes which means that lessons have to be learnt anew. In addition, the planning and conservation regulatory framework has been subject to change and increased complexity over the last decade or so in particular.

  3.2  Churches are not "developers" in the usual sense, but their contribution has to be given recognition. In several regions the Church has been working hard to build partnerships with local and regional governments. Where this has happened, then some of the misunderstandings about the potential of the churches' role in regeneration have been dispelled. In these areas the importance of working at parish level has been recognised.

4.   Whether the planning system and the listing of historic buildings aid or hinder urban regeneration

  4.1  Adapting historic buildings is not always easy, though a compromise or creative solution is generally possible given good will on all sides and understanding of the building. The operation of the Faculty Jurisdiction by the Church of England continues to seek to balance the needs of care and conservation of its buildings with the continuance of their use as centres for worship, mission and also as centres of cultural activity and community outreach. The Ecclesiastical Exemption is about to be itself reviewed by the DCMS. While the Church itself intends to bring forward some simplification initiatives to lessen some of the more bureaucratic aspects of the system, it is our view that the current system works well in its overall aim of achieving a balance between protecting the buildings and enabling their wide range of uses.

  4.2  Relations between those operating the Church system, English Heritage and the amenity bodies are generally extremely positive. For the most part, all parties work constructively together to meet the challenge of balancing conservation with the ever increasing and varied extended uses of these buildings. The weaker link maybe, though not everywhere, relationships with local authority staff, where there are pressures on resources and an imperfect understanding of the Church's role. The Church is continuing to seek ways to build up relationships both at national and local level.

  4.3  The Designation Review currently being undertaken by DMCS is also looking at ways in which the systems for protecting the different aspects of the historic environment can be simplified and made more flexible and accessible.

5.   Whether the Government Departments take adequate account of the historic environment

  5.1 The repair and maintenance of historic church buildings is a heavy burden. Unless the 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. Grants under the English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund Joint Places of Worship Grant Scheme have been increased to £30 million for 2003-04, but this grant scheme is always over subscribed and in recent years eligible works have had to be confined to urgent works to keep the structure wind and water tight and there is no money for smaller repairs or eroding stonework. English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund need continuing Government support, and additional support to help maintain their work for historic buildings. More money and therefore eligibility for both repairs and maintenance, alongside a simpler procedure for obtaining it, would ease burdens on parishes. It would free up energy which could be put to doing more work with the wider community and social projects.

  5.2  Churches are particularly vulnerable because their management and operation is dependent largely on the commitment of volunteers. Parishes are responsible for repairing and maintaining their own buildings for which they are dependent on the congregation's or other voluntary contributions. The Church's central organisation does not have spare funds. 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. It is ironic that 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 years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05.

  5.3  As stated in the heritage sector's 2000 publication Power of Place, 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. This was further asserted by Government in the 2001 DCMS's response A Force for Our Future. 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. As described above, all these are positive objectives, and form part of the Church's own agenda too. However, these activities are additional to the need to repair and maintain the buildings. Unlike a commercial developer, these activities in general do not make a profit which can then be spent on repairing the buildings.

  5.4  It is, therefore, essential that there is a greater recognition of the importance of the historic environment in its own right. A well-maintained church building gives a positive message to its local community whether or not it directly benefits from its activities. 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 sourced from these buildings have been fully quantified.

  5.5  It should also be recognised that cathedrals and churches are often responsible for bringing the majority of tourists to an area. This obviously includes some urban areas, where the church building acts as a "magnet" to visitors and as a result increased economic benefits to local hotels, restaurants, cafes and shops. However, very often the church building itself does not itself benefit directly financially.

  5.6  Craft skills also need positive encouragement. There is in many areas of specialist conservation work, a shortage of trained and experienced craftsmen. This includes experienced conservation architects. Unless training programmes are initiated and supported, this problem will only get worse, because there will be no development of successors. This area of work should be recognised as a huge potential area that can offer skilled employment. It is also essential that we continue to develop this area of the workforce in order to maintain and sustain the existing historic environment.

6.   Whether fiscal and legislative changes should be made

  6.1.  A crucial fiscal change is to ensure a permanent reduction for VAT on repair works on places of worship. This is a change for which the Church and the heritage lobby have been pressing for a very long time. The Listed Places of Worship Scheme which refunds to listed churches only, in the form of a grant, the difference between VAT at 17.5% and 5% is extremely helpful, but the bureaucracy and time involved is a disadvantage. However, at the very least, we would to see this scheme continued if a permanent reduction in Brussels cannot be achieved. The £15 million already paid out through this scheme for works carried out since April 2001 suggests that £187.5 million have been spent on Church repairs since April 2001 on solely those works for which applications have been made and granted. The refund is not eligible on VAT for works costing under £1,000, architects' fees and works to fixtures or historic contents.

  6.2  It would be useful to set up a cross-cutting Government group looking at the effect of proposed new regulations or policies on churches including cost. Officials of several Government Departments are already meeting representatives of the Forum, and we hope that this will continue. It is vital to appreciate the burden of regulation on small communities and to recognise and acknowledge the voluntary commitment, and expertise which they bring to the care and maintenance of their buildings and to the numerous activities taking place within them.

  In this context, we would like the Government to look at how churches can access more monies to enable them to repair and maintain their buildings, continue to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and also provide improved facilities such as toilets and heating. All of these in turn, will then enable the church building and its parish to give back even more to its community.

  6.3  All sources of funding need to be reviewed with the aim of simplifying the application process to provide a clarity of purpose and procedure. Further emphasis should be put on funding for initial capacity building. There needs to be a recognition that many new projects need to be given sufficient time to develop and if proven, a guarantee of long term funding programme to provide confidence to enable further development and sustainable growth.

  6.4  A reassessment of how contacts are dealt with at regional level. For instance there is currently only one faith representative on the Regional Cultural Consortia and similar regional bodies. This isn't sufficient to allow full and constructive consultation to take place. We suggest that the Yorkshire and Humberside model presents an example of good practice under which the faith representatives on the different bodies are underpinned by a secretariat, thus enabling them to network and follow up initiatives.

  6.5  Regional and local authorities should be encouraged to consult dioceses and other church bodies about major development proposals particularly about any Local Regeneration Plans.

  6.6  Adequate time should always be allowed for consultation. The standard consultation period of 12 weeks is not sufficient for many faith groups, including the Church of England, when so much of the work is carried out by and local knowledge held by volunteers.

  Given the scale of this inquiry and the range of our involvement with so many historic buildings, it would have been helpful to have had more advance warning of this inquiry and a greater period of time to respond. In view of this, we reiterate our hope that it will be possible to appear before the inquiry and answer questions.

Cathedral and Church Buildings Division

Church House

Great Smith Street

London SW1P 3NZ