CONTENTS
Cadw 52
Archaeology 54
The DCMS Consultation Paper – The Future of Ecclesiastical Exemption 56
Acknowledgements Annex A
Glossary of Terms Annex B
Case Study - Llandaff Cathedral Annex C
A REVIEW OF THE SYSTEM OF ECCLESIASTICAL EXEMPTION IN WALES
The report notes that there are different arrangements and procedures in Wales in operating the ecclesiastical exemption, together with different practice in the secular system. It concludes that it would appear advisable for the exemption to remain for the immediate future. The report also considers that the exemption should be monitored in Wales by Cadw but generally on the basis that it must watch for any breaches of the ecclesiastical exemption procedures operated by the denominations, together with any breach of conditions attached to grants for repairs to places of worship. The process of validation should be carried out by external reviewers.
While accepting the need for a continuation of the exemption, the report highlights a number of areas where improvements can be made and makes a number of recommendations, to the denominations themselves and also to the statutory agencies, such as Cadw and local authorities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The Church in Wales
The Roman Catholic Church
The Methodist Church
The United Reformed Church
The Baptist Union
The Nonconformists – General Points
Local Authorities
Cadw
Archaeology
A REVIEW OF THE SYSTEM OF ECCLESIASTICAL EXEMPTION IN WALES – A REPORT BY PETER HOWELL FOR THE WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT
Until 1994 all churches and chapels in England and Wales in ecclesiastical use were exempt from Listed Building Control. This was reformed through The Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994, which provided that exemption would continue only for those six denominations that had their own approved systems of control. These were the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, and the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the Baptist Union of Wales. In the same year the Department of National Heritage and Cadw published The Ecclesiastical Exemption - What it is and how it works.
In 1997 John Newman produced his Review of the Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Controls, conducted for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Welsh Office. His principal recommendations were that ‘the six denominations which already had their own control system in the form of faculty jurisdiction or have set up systems from scratch should continue to enjoy the ecclesiastical exemption for the time being’, and that there should be a further review of all six denominations’ systems in three years time, while, ‘in view of the fact that these denominations enjoy the privilege of an exemption, they should remain in a lesser sense perpetually under review’.
In 1999 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Welsh Office published the Follow up to the Review of the Ecclesiastical Exemption (the Newman Report), summarising to what extent each denomination had acted on Newman’s recommendations. No full review has been undertaken since Newman’s.
In August 2003, as a precursor to a wide spread review, DCMS, in liaison with the Welsh Assembly Government, wrote to each exempt denomination ‘requesting an up-to-date stewardship report reflecting the further steps taken to implement the Newman recommendations’. In February 2004 DCMS issued The Future of the Ecclesiastical Exemption: A Consultation Paper for England, to which responses were requested by 31 May 2004.
In September 2003 the Welsh Assembly Government’s Minister for Culture, Welsh Language and Sport, Alun Pugh AM, launched a review of the legislation that governs the protection of the historic environment in Wales. In April 2004 he announced that, as part of that process, there would also be a review of the system of Ecclesiastical Exemption in Wales, and I was appointed with the following brief:
In carrying out my terms of reference, I was asked to consider several cases where complaints had been registered about the procedures followed. This was to assess whether the ecclesiastical exemption system was effective or whether issues needed to be addressed if the exemption were to continue. My remit was not to comment on the merits of particular decisions but to look at process and the systems operated. I was asked particularly to look at the process surrounding the faculty application for works to facilitate access for disabled people to Llandaff Cathedral, Cardiff.
My conclusions in respect of the cases I considered are generally set out in my report but, given its high profile, I set out in an Annex to this report particular findings and recommendations arising out of the Llandaff proposals but which might be implemented more widely.
The DCMS paper points out (paragraph 6) that ‘there is pressure to justify the continuation of exemption for ecclesiastical buildings in use for worship when other privileged positions are being normalised, e.g. the push to remove some of the Crown’s exemption from listed building, scheduled monument and conservation area controls’. This paper takes for granted the continuance of the ecclesiastical exemption.
Although this decision has been taken in England, it has been suggested that the Welsh Assembly Government could take a different line. Some of those consulted have indeed argued that the ecclesiastical exemption is even more of an anomaly in Wales, where the body owning the vast majority of the country’s historic churches is not ‘established’, and its system of control does not form part of the country’s legal machinery. Some have argued that it would be logical for all listed buildings, whether ecclesiastical or secular, to come under the same system of control. Others have, however, pointed out that local planning authorities (LPAs) in Wales differ widely in their expertise and effectiveness, so that, whereas some would exercise at least as good a system of control as those operated by the exempt denominations, others would not be able to do. Since it would clearly be impractical to introduce an eclectic arrangement, comparable with that by which some LPAs are trusted to make decisions on Grade II listed buildings, while others are not, it would appear to be advisable for the ecclesiastical exemption to remain for the immediate future.
A further argument in favour of the Church in Wales system is that the control exercised is wider than listed building control, since it covers, for example, movable items of church furniture, and unlisted tombs in churchyards.
The Churches Main Committee in England has argued that the term ‘ecclesiastical exemption’ should be replaced by some such title as ‘Churches (or Places of Worship) Listed Building Control’, but this is not advisable. In my view, it would lead to confusion with the secular system. More importantly, it is essential that those denominations which have their own systems of control should be reminded that they only do so as a result of exemption from the general system.
It is significant that there is evidence of a perception that ‘if the exemption were to be lost, the Church would be severely disadvantaged because its ability to order its form of worship or adapt its buildings to changing conditions would be more restricted’ (Church in Wales Parochial Administration Handbook, p.6). The Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Architects’ and Surveyors’ Association has been quoted as saying: ‘in the church system it is more possible to change historic fabric than it is in a secular system, where there is more of a mind-set of preserving things as they are found’. It is sometimes claimed by the Roman Catholics that bringing churches under the secular system of control would be an interference with freedom of worship. Such arguments are compelling evidence of the need to keep the ecclesiastical exemption under regular review. It can be argued, on the contrary, that secular listed building control has to take into account the use of the building, and there is no good reason why ecclesiastical use should be regarded as in any practical sense different.
At present there is great pressure to make churches more comfortable and more ‘flexible’, as congregations think that the only way to keep going is to make the buildings more ‘welcoming’ and adaptable to other uses. Liturgical fashion favours more informal worship. The Church in Wales insists that Chancellors and Diocesan Advisory Committees (DACs) should attach great weight to ‘the Church’s mission and worship’. Now more than ever it is necessary to remember the celebrated 1892 Judgment of Lord Penzance:
‘The notion that the matter in question should be decided by the wishes of the majority of the parishioners proceeds in my opinion upon an entirely mistaken view of the law. The appellants … seem to forget that the sacred edifice has a future as well as a past. It belongs not to any one generation, nor are its interests and conditions the exclusive care of those who inhabit the parish at any one period of time.’
There is a particular problem in considering the operation of the ecclesiastical exemption in Wales, which is that ecclesiastical boundaries do not always coincide with political ones. Some Church in Wales churches which were in the Diocese of Hereford prior to disestablishment opted to remain within that diocese. Herefordshire as a whole counts as part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cardiff. Both the Baptists and the Methodists have Listed Building Advisory Committees that cover both England and Wales.
Background
Since 1920, the Church in Wales, though remaining part of the Anglican Communion, has been disestablished. As a consequence all church buildings, and their contents, were vested, not in parishes, but in the Representative Body of the Church in Wales. This is an important difference from England, as it greatly simplifies all matters relating to buildings and their contents. For example, the exceptional circumstances of ‘Peculiars’, referred to in the DCMS paper at 32-34, do not arise in Wales, where any building used for Anglican worship which does not belong to the Representative Body is subject to listed building control.
The Church in Wales owns some 1,500 churches, of which over 1,100 are listed or lie in conservation areas.
The Church in Wales is not subject to canon law, so that its own canons, rules and regulations are internal and not part of the law of the land. Nevertheless, it has its own system of faculty jurisdiction, implemented by diocesan chancellors. Unlike English chancellors, they are unpaid. The chancellors are advised, as in England, by DACs.
The Current System
The DAC system in Wales used to be notoriously unsatisfactory, but in recent years, and particularly since revised Rules came into force in 1995, it has been improved enormously. On the whole it works well. The membership of each DAC includes the Archdeacon and nine other members, two appointed by the Diocesan Conference from among its elected members, and four of the others appointed after consultation with the Council for British Archaeology (CBA), Cadw, ‘the relevant association of local authorities’, and the national amenity societies. On one DAC the same person was appointed after consultation with both the CBA and the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies. This should be avoided, as it is likely to reduce the level of expertise on the committee.
Recommendation: Common appointments should be avoided in the interests of maintaining a high level of expertise on the DAC.
Each DAC has a consultant for organs (who is sometimes also a member), and one for bells. Some have consultants for fine arts, stained glass, needlework and woodwork. It would be helpful if DACs could strengthen their lists of consultants, especially as the specialist advice provided in England by the Council for the Care of Churches is not available in Wales.
Recommendation: DACs should strengthen their lists of consultants.
Staffing
The DACs have secretaries, all of whom work part-time. Some work from the diocesan offices, some from the legal offices of the registrars. All are working with impressive conscientiousness to fulfil the demands of a complex and demanding system. Newman recommended that each diocese should appoint a ‘conservation officer’ to provide expert advice: this was rejected as too expensive. Understandable as this response was, it remains clear that, although DAC secretaries have built up a considerable degree of know-how in the course of doing their jobs, they do not have the specialised training that would help them to deal with matters relating to historic buildings. It has been suggested that there is scope for training DAC secretaries, and that co-operation with training institutions in Wales could see suitable courses devised at minimal expense. The University of Wales at Lampeter in conjunction with Calch Ty Mawr is beginning the process of validating some practical conservation courses, and might provide a venue for training. Such courses have been held for English DAC secretaries at West Dean.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to providing practical conservation training for DAC secretaries.
The Diocesan Advisory Committee
Generally, it has been emphasised that more consistency between the practices of the six Welsh DACs would be helpful to everyone.
Recommendation: There should be more consistency between the practices of the six Welsh DACs.
Newman pointed out that ‘given the pastoral care archdeacons have for parishes, it is surprising that four out of six DACs are at present chaired by archdeacons. Since the DAC is the forum in which balance between pastoral and conservation concerns must be weighed, an archdeacon in the chair will experience a conflict of interests’. He recommended that archdeacons should not chair DACs. This recommendation was rejected, on the grounds that ‘the DAC only advises the Diocesan Court’. However, it is also argued that chancellors make their decisions only after receiving the advice of the DAC. There is an uncomfortable circularity about this argument, about which more is said below. It is also argued that the chief requirement for a chair is expertise in chairing, and that archdeacons generally are good at it. When this review began, archdeacons chaired five out of the six DACs. It appears that one of these is likely soon to have a lay chair. Some evidence has been provided to suggest that the conflict of interests feared by Newman does occasionally arise, though not often. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency, it would be preferable for archdeacons not to chair DACs. Their role in granting permission for emergency works provides another reason, as does the fact that, when they appear at a Diocesan Court, they do so primarily in their role as archdeacon, rather than as DAC chair.
Recommendation: In the interests of transparency, it would be preferable for archdeacons not to chair DACs.
Archdeacon’s Certificates
The ‘Archdeacon’s Certificates’ which are used in England to permit urgent emergency works, or reversible liturgical experiments, are not used in Wales. The Rules of the Diocesan Courts of November 2002 allow for works to proceed with a faculty ‘when and so far as the works are:
A recent case illustrates how unsatisfactory this can be: the priest in charge telephoned the Archdeacon (who was also chairman of the DAC) to ask permission to deal with loose plaster which was falling from above the chancel arch. The parish then removed all the plaster from the wall around the arch, and also the plaster from the nave walls as far back as the centre of the window on each side, and then applied for a retrospective faculty. This was opposed by Cadw, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and a parishioner. A Court was held. The Chancellor made no reference to the matter in his judgment, but it seems clear that it would have been better had the parish’s requests and the Archdeacon’s permission been recorded on paper.
Recommendation: The Rules of the Diocesan Courts should be amended to require that requests to archdeacons and consents for emergency works should be made in writing and that, before consent is given, expert opinion should be sought.
Consultation
It should also be required that, before giving emergency permission, archdeacons should consult a professional expert. It needs to be pointed out that The Ecclesiastical Exemption (1994), at 6.0 (c), states that ‘in cases of emergency (i.e. in the interests of safety or health or the preservation of the building) advance notification is expected wherever practical as at (c) and (d) above (to the LPA, Cadw, the amenity societies, and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales) but on an appropriate shorter timescale’.
An anomalous situation has arisen with regard to the consultation of Cadw, the LPAs, and the national amenity societies. Responsibility for this now lies with the DAC, rather than the parish, so it is not clear why the Faculty Petition form should include a section (9) asking whether the various bodies have been consulted. This is said to be simply an enquiry as to whether the parish happens to have made any such consultation, but it sometimes leads to confusion, and clarification is required.
Recommendation: The Faculty Petition form should be reviewed with a view to clarifying any confusion in procedures for consultation.
The DAC secretaries take this consultation seriously, but they find it a burden having to consult so many bodies. Sometimes they adopt a selective approach, only consulting the amenity societies to which they think the petition is relevant. This is potentially unsatisfactorily. There have been complaints of a lack of response from the consulted bodies. Although these bodies are all under-staffed and overworked, it remains clear that they do sometimes fail to respond, even when the petition involves substantial work to a building for which they have statutory responsibility. It would be desirable for them to improve their rate of response.
Recommendation: Amenity bodies should improve their rate of response to consultation.
However, there is a lack of clarity about what constitutes ‘consultation’. It often takes the form simply of sending the agenda and minutes. Overworked caseworkers at the amenity societies may well find it impossible to go through these and decide, on the basis of the elementary information provided, whether they need to respond. If the DAC secretaries want a satisfactory response, they need to send sufficient documentation, and this is in any case recommended by The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 6.0 (c), note 6. It is particularly important that the list description should be included.
Recommendation: Consultation requests should be accompanied by full documentation, including the list description, and the six DAC secretaries should meet the amenity society caseworkers to discuss the matter.
It has been suggested that, at least with larger schemes, it would be advisable for community councils to be consulted, in addition to local authorities, in order to ensure that groups concerned with local heritage are aware of proposals.
Recommendation: Community councils should be included in consultations, at least on larger schemes.
The British Institute of Organ Studies has asked that it should be added to the list of consulted bodies, on any proposal affecting an organ (it is already included in the list in question 9 of the Faculty Petition form).
Recommendation: The British Institute of Organ Studies should be added to the list of consultees on any proposal affecting an organ.
Consultation before a faculty petition is submitted is provided for in the Faculty Procedural Rules. Sometimes known as ‘Stage 1’, it is dealt with in Part II, section 6: ‘Application for a faculty shall be by petition which, in the first instance, shall only be sent to the committee for their consideration’. In practice this stage appears to be sometimes omitted, and it has been suggested that parishes do not always appreciate the difference between this form (Form 1 - Part 1) and the actual petition (Form 1 - Part 2). This needs to be clarified, but further amendment would be useful. It is now common practice in England for DACs to encourage parishes that are considering drastic schemes of alteration to consult English Heritage, the local authority, and the relevant amenity societies in advance. This is rarely done in Wales, where the preliminary consultation usually goes no further than the DAC, and a recent case has shown that, had such consultation taken place, much time and effort would have been saved.
Recommendation: DACs should involve Cadw, the local authority and the statutory amenity societies in the ‘Stage 1’ consultation, where appropriate.
It appears that official site visits by DACs to churches that make applications for major works do not always take place. Site visits are of the greatest importance, and should be attended by as many members as possible. Representatives of the consulted bodies should be invited to attend where appropriate.
Cathedrals: Fabric Advisory Committees
In 1998 it was decided that cathedrals in Wales should come under the same faculty system as parish churches. This was an economical and sensible change, and seems generally to work well. One cathedral - St David’s - retains its Fabric Advisory Committee, and it is clear that this performs a useful function in advising on the largest and most complex Welsh cathedral.
Recommendation: Where appropriate, consideration should be given to reinstating the other Fabric Advisory Committees.
The Cathedrals and Churches Commission
One result of the change is that it has left the Cathedrals and Churches Commission (CCC) without a clearly defined role. It is supposed to provide advice on cathedral schemes, and on substantial schemes affecting listed churches, but both its practice and its authority are poorly defined. Some of those consulted have expressed the view that it is so ineffective as to be virtually useless. Some DACs say that they have almost never had any dealings with the CCC. Newman recommended that the next review for the exemption ‘should in particular examine whether the CCC is proving effective’. The current review suggests that it is not. The recent appointment of a new chair provides the opportunity for a reconsideration of the role of the CCC.
Recommendation: The role of the Cathedrals and Churches Commission should be reconsidered.
The Role of the Chancellor
DACs are, as their name indicates, only advisory bodies. Decisions on faculty petitions are taken by diocesan chancellors. These are lawyers who, unlike the inspectors appointed to hold Planning Inquiries, have no training in architectural matters. Newman suggested that chancellors ‘could be assisted … by either Lay CoJudges or by Lay Assessors’. This suggestion was perhaps impractical, and was rejected by the Representative Body, which emphasised that the chancellor ‘is able to call upon the advice of a wide range of specialists’. However, I consider that it is remarkable that chancellors sometimes take decisions that go against such advice. Some of those instances that have come to my attention are comparatively minor, involving memorial stained glass windows, or a commemorative plaque. On the other hand, in one case where a DAC had recommended that the external render of a church should be of a particular colour, the chancellor decided on a different colour. At Llandaff the Deputy Chancellor decided to allow the proposed new paved area at the west front of the Cathedral, against the repeated advice of the DAC (see Annex 3).
It might be argued that decisions on faculty petitions should be made by DACs, but that a chancellor would still be needed to preside over the Diocesan Courts which consider appeals against decisions on faculty petitions. If this were to be the case, at least the chancellor would not be hearing an appeal against his decision. However, the evidence that has been available suggests that here too chancellors lack the historical and technical expertise to enable them to make satisfactory judgments on matters concerning listed buildings.
On the other side, it is argued that judges are trained to assess evidence in matters where they have no technical expertise, and to balance conflicting arguments. There is, however, evidence to suggest that chancellors are inclined to favour arguments based on ‘mission’, or even on the preferences of the current congregation, over the demands of historic preservation. An article by Teresa Sladen was published in Churchscape: The Annual Review of the Council for the Care of Churches in December 1999, entitled ‘The Consistory Court and the Public Inquiry: a false analogy?’ She compared the findings of the fourteen Consistory Court hearings (in England) at which the Victorian Society had appeared between 1990 and 1999 with those of the twenty-six public inquiries at which the Society appeared between 1990 and 1998. She concluded that Consistory Court decisions were far more likely to take the form of a compromise, and that ‘in no case did the chancellor find that the importance of the church as a historic building altogether outweighed the stated needs of the parish’. At the public inquiries, by contrast, the decision went in the Society’s favour in sixteen cases, as against nine, and in only one case was the decision a compromise.
Diocesan Court procedure should be more closely modelled on that followed at public inquiries. At a public inquiry, each side states its case and calls its witnesses. Any written representations have to be made available to all present. Site visits are made by inspectors only when accompanied by both parties. At one recent Court, the Chancellor ‘discouraged those who wanted to repeat what they had said to him’, according to the Registrar, who explained that the Chancellor saw the court as an ‘opportunity [for] those who find it difficult to put their thoughts on paper to speak to the matter in an open forum’. This means that the hearing is only in a limited sense ‘public’, as recommended by the Newman Report. For it to be truly public, all the evidence on which the decision is to be based should be available to all those who attend, whether in the form of written or spoken evidence, as at a public inquiry.
In his judgment, the Chancellor should – as an inspector would – identify the policy framework within which he makes his decision. In Wales this would in the first instance be Circular 61/96 (and for archaeology 60/96): the Representative Body (as mentioned above) circulates this to DACs. They should also take care to deal with all submissions of substance: at present, this does not always happen. The DCMS consultation paper calls for more ‘transparency’ in the procedures of the exempt denominations: it is essential that, if chancellors are to retain their existing role, that they should produce more detailed, and indeed more judicious, judgments.
Recommendation: It is not easy to suggest a solution to the problems outlined here, and raised by certain cases but the Church in Wales needs to recognise that the problems exist, and should actively consider whether DACs should continue to be simply advisory bodies and not the decision maker.
Award of Costs
The fact that Diocesan Courts in Wales are not courts of law means that their procedure is not as confrontational and intimidating as can be the case in England, which is a great advantage. Another advantage is the fact that, although it is open to chancellors to award costs against objectors, or petitioners, at their discretion (see The Ecclesiastical Exemption, B.6), this is never done, and, it is said, would never be done unless the objector was clearly acting in a vexatious manner. There would in any case apparently be no way of legally enforcing the payment of such costs. When a person contacts a diocesan registrar in England to indicate his or her intention to appeal against the decision of a chancellor on a faculty petition, there will usually be a warning that this carries the risk of incurring costs. Although it is, in the circumstances (legally enforceable costs having been several times awarded against objectors), right for the Registrar to do so, this often has the effect of deterring potential objectors. Such warnings are not issued in Wales. There is the possibility of appeal against the decision of a Diocesan to the Provincial Court, although this has never been done in the case of a faculty petition. Although there seems to have been some misunderstanding about this (see below at Llandaff), I have been assured that it is equally unlikely that costs would ever be awarded against anyone making such an appeal. Neither the Faculty Procedural Rules nor the Parochial Administration Handbook state that the time limit for such an appeal is six weeks from the date of the Judgment. This information should be made readily available.
It is therefore anomalous that the Faculty Procedure Rules include the requirement that an objector ‘shall either lodge with the Diocesan Registrar as security for costs such sum as the Chancellor may determine, or execute a Bond’ (section 24), to follow a specified form (Form 7). This form is, I am told, never used. It should be done away with, and section 24 deleted.
Recommendation: Form 7 should be discontinued and section 24 of the Faculty Procedural Rules deleted.
Timescale for Decisions
According to section 16 of the Faculty Procedural Rules, the chancellor must make his decision on a petition within 28 days of receipt. Some chancellors have been taking anything up to a year to make their decision, which has led to serious difficulties for petitioners, as estimates lose their validity and building costs rise. I have been assured that these chancellors have greatly improved their practice, but this kind of laxity has been used to strengthen calls for decisions to be left with DACs.
Recommendation: Chancellors should make their decisions on petitions within 28 days of receipt.
Redundant Church Buildings
At a time when more and more churches are going out of use, it is essential that redundancy procedures should be clear and efficient. A serious problem in recent decades has been a lack of certainty about which churches are actually still in use and which are not. Cadw carried out an informal survey in the 1980s that established that the information held by the Representative Body was not entirely accurate. It would be advisable for this survey to be repeated now. Each diocese should be urged to keep the matter constantly under review, so that the sudden closures which have occasionally happened in the past can be avoided, and proper planning for the future ensured. This is all the more important now that the arrangement by which outstanding redundant churches are taken into care by the Friends of Friendless Churches is well under way; it is obviously essential for them to be able to plan ahead.
It is a great advantage that in Wales the exemption ceases to apply as soon as a church is declared redundant, and that (unlike in the Church of England) it does not come into effect again should a scheme for demolition arise under the Pastoral Measure 1983 (as amended).
One matter that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved is protection for the contents of closed churches. As these are the property of the Representative Body, it is the responsibility of the Body to ensure that they are looked after, and, if necessary, that they are responsibly disposed of. In practice, this does not always happen, and reference has even been made to closed churches being ‘pillaged’.
Recommendation: There should be a survey of churches actually in use that should be under constant review by each diocese.
Co-ordination
It is clear that the Church in Wales is not large or prosperous enough to support an organisation equivalent to the Church of England’s Council for the Care of Churches. One function of the latter is the organisation of an annual conference for DACs. In Wales, the chairs and secretaries of DACs meet twice a year, led by the chair of the Cathedrals and Churches Commission. There is surprisingly little Welsh participation in the English Council’s conference. It would be good if the Council could be encouraged to invite officers and members of the Welsh DACs to attend. Occasional seminars and training days are held on a countrywide or diocesan basis on such subjects as Health and Safety or the Disability Discrimination Act. The Bangor Diocese holds an annual conference for architects working on its churches, which is said to be very helpful, though its budget makes it hard to invite guest speakers. The Diocese of Monmouth recently held a training day for churchwardens and others, also said to have been very helpful. Such initiatives should be encouraged and imitated elsewhere.
Recommendation: The Church of England’s Council for the Care of Churches should be encouraged to invited Welsh DACs to its annual conference and training initiatives should be considered in Wales.
The Council for the Care of Churches also produces advisory publications, but these appear rarely to reach Welsh dioceses. A recent example was a paper on church seating - a topic of urgent current concern - but I have come across no reference to it by a Welsh DAC. Some English Heritage publications are also helpful, not only technical ones, but also the recent booklet on New Work in Historic Places of Worship (2003).
Recommendation: Every effort should be made to bring relevant publications to the attention of those responsible for churches in Wales.
The Council for the Care of Churches gives consultancy advice to the Heritage Lottery Fund on grants in Wales through its Conservation Committee. Another link is provided by the fact that a member of the Llandaff and Monmouth DAC is the SPAB caseworker for Wales and is also a member of the Council for the Care of Churches.
The Church in Wales does make use of the Council for the Care of Churches in one rather surprising way, which is that DAC chairs are ‘appointed from among the members by the bishop, after consultation with the Diocesan Conference, the Chancellor, and the Council for the Care of Churches’.
Recommendation: Fuller use should be made of the Council for the Care of Churches.
Grant Assistance
Problems arise when parishes apply for grant aid before the works have received faculty consent. Sometimes DACs are not informed that grant aid is being applied for. The grant aid may be put at risk if the Diocesan Court requires changes to the proposed scheme.
Planning Permission
There seems to be no common practice as to whether parishes which propose works requiring planning permission as well as a faculty should apply for planning permission before or after the faculty has been obtained. The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 9.0, states that ‘applications should normally be made to the Local Planning Authority before a faculty is sought’. This should be the regular practice. At Llandaff Cathedral the Deputy Chancellor took advantage of the word ‘normally’ to decide that it was not a requirement.
It is now a requirement for a faculty petition in England that it should be accompanied by a Statement of Significance and a Statement of Need. These are extremely helpful to the bodies consulted, as they explain the significance of the building and furnishings affected by proposals, and also explain why the parish feels the need to alter them. Such information is required by Listed Building Control (Circular 61/96; it should be noted that the Representative Body circulates this document to DACs ‘as a basis for advice’). It is required by the Roman Catholic Historic Churches Committee for Wales and Herefordshire, and by the Methodist Church.
Recommendation: Statements of Significance and of Need should be required for all faculty petitions affecting listed buildings. The Council for the Care of Churches ‘Guidance for Parishes’ produced in October 2002, with a check-list and two specimen examples, should be used in Wales.
It has been suggested by one local authority officer that, when an exempt denomination grants permission for works to which objections have been raised, it should inform the objector of the reasons for its decision. Although this would increase the amount of bureaucracy involved, it is a suggestion worthy of consideration.
Recommendation: When an exempt denomination grants permission for works to which objections have been raised, it should inform the objector of the reasons for its decision.
The Diocese of Llandaff holds regular ‘quality audits’ of quinquennial reports: the technical members (i.e. architects) on the Church and Pastoral Committee and the DAC look at one report from each architect. This is clearly a good practice.
Recommendation: The diocesan procedures for approving architects should be strengthened.
Quinquennials are not always understood by parishes, which sometimes assume that the report can be used as the ‘specification’ for works to be carried out, or even that a faculty is unnecessary for such works. They do not always realise that an architect or surveyor needs to be appointed. Parishes need to be put right on these matters.
Recommendation: Clearer guidance needs to be given to parishes on the purpose of quinquennial reviews and, particularly, the need to appoint an architect or surveyor to carry out recommended works.
Monitoring
The Faculty Procedural Rules (Part II - section 31) lay down that ‘upon completion of the works authorised by the Faculty … the Petitioner shall send to the Diocesan Registrar a Certificate (countersigned by the architect, chartered building surveyor or other professional adviser, if one has been engaged) to the effect that the works have been executed in accordance with the terms of faculty and, at the same time, they shall send a copy of such Certificate to the Representative Body and to the Secretaries of the Committee and of the Commission, if the latter be involved’. This procedure needs to be scrupulously observed, and the forms carefully checked. The Representative Body states that Archdeacon’s and Bishop’s Visitations and annual church-wardens’ reports should also be used to identify any problems in completing work, and that payment of grants by the Representative Body for repairs only occurs after presentation of the architect’s certificate.
Recommendation: The Faculty Procedural Rules concerning monitoring of completed works need to be scrupulously observed, and the forms checked carefully.
Churches and their contents are the property of the Representative Body. As a result, the Parochial Administration Handbook states (p. 6): ‘The Faculty Rules are legally enforceable by the Representative Body in the civil courts. A successful legal action would result in the person wrongfully carrying out works to a church having to pay to rectify the situation. Breaches of the Rules could result in the Church in Wales losing the ecclesiastical exemption. Further, breach of the Rules may result in the Representative Body withholding from parishes grants for churches’.
It is essential that enforcement should be taken seriously, bearing in mind that breach of listed building control is a criminal offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Recommendation: Enforcement of the Faculty Rules should be taken seriously, bearing in mind that breach of listed building control is a criminal offence.
It has been suggested that, where works have been carried out without consent, and are not approved by the DAC, and - in particular - where the works cannot be reversed, the ultimate sanction might be for Cadw to remove the exemption from that particular building (see The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 9.0). This might be impossible, both legally and practically, but the problem needs further consideration.
Recommendation: As an ultimate sanction Cadw might remove the exemption from a specific building where works have been carried out without consent, and are not approved by the DAC.
The DCMS Consultation Paper suggests (30) that, in the case of ‘sustained breaches of any management agreement’, the whole diocese might lose the exemption, but this seems even less practicable. In any case, the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies has pointed out, in its response to the DCMS paper, that, as the secular listed building system is less comprehensive than the faculty system, it would hardly be an appropriate sanction for a church to revert to it. Some other sanction needs to be devised.
Churchyards
Churchyards present particular problems because of the overlap between faculty control, listed building control, and conservation area consent. The vexed matter of ‘dual control’ results from the listing of curtilage buildings and objects in their own right, which brings them within the control of the local authority. The Newman Report pointed out that this ‘can lead to conflict and indeed to a lack of control, and is in principle unsatisfactory’. There is an extra dimension to the problem in Wales, since Cadw, having taken legal advice, says that any items attached to the fabric of a listed church (eg telecommunications equipment) - which are not required for or on behalf of the congregation itself should be the subject of separate listed building applications. The Church in Wales argues that the faculty procedure should be applied equally to items within the curtilage or attached to the church. The matter has not yet been resolved, but it should be.
Recommendation: There should be resolution of the problem of ‘dual control’.
Particular problems have arisen in churchyards because of Health and Safety concerns. The Ecclesiastical Insurance Group (EIG) has been holding meetings in various parts of Wales at which the participants have been warned about the dangers posed by the railings around monuments and by upright headstones. The EIG has been told by the Representative Body that it must always make it clear that a faculty must be obtained before works to such objects are carried out, but it is clear that this is not happening. For example, the EIG Guidance Notes for Churches, Section 3, Health and Safety, state (p.6) that ‘stones in a dangerous state should be carefully laid on the ground’, and then go on to say that ‘any reordering of the churchyard, or extensive work on individual tombs may necessitate a faculty’. In my view, this is far too vague, and leaves the way open to abuse. It is particularly reprehensible that it is not pointed out that individual tombs may be listed. The same Notes state that ‘boundary walls and railings should be stable and in a good state of repair’.
An unfortunate situation arose in 2002 where railings were removed from a number of 18th and 19th century tombs in a churchyard, after representatives of the parish had attended a local EIG ‘road-show’, where these dangers were emphasised. The removal of the railings was brought to the notice of the local authority, which contacted the Diocesan Registrar. He at once asked the incumbent to try to recover the railings, but it was too late. A Court was held. The Chancellor ‘formally reprimanded the incumbent’ for carrying out work without a faculty, and reported his conduct to the bishop, but granted the retrospective faculty. Unfortunately he stated that he would have granted it if application had been made at the appropriate time, dismissing the possibility of the restoration of the railings. Far more tomb railings survive in Wales than in England, and some are particularly fine: restoration should be the aim and this has been done successfully elsewhere, for example, by the Friends of Friendless Churches at the redundant Manordeifi church.
Recommendation: Clear guidance is needed to cover health and safety issues in churchyards. Tomb railings should be restored wherever appropriate and possible.
The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) complains that notification by DACs is ‘patchy’, and it has considerable concern about the adequacy of the levels of recording which DACs require. It is also concerned about the failure to deposit records in the National Monuments Record, ‘because records are important in their own right, and because they can inform decision-making in the future’. It points out that current practice of DACs does not mirror the generally effective working arrangements that the RCAHMW has with local planning authorities in Wales.
Recommendation: DACs practice of notifying the RCAHMW should mirror that of local authorities.
Recording
Provincial and diocesan records (non-current) are deposited in the National Library of Wales (NLW), and parish records are deposited in either the NLW or the local record office. The arrangements are under review, and parish records will be transferred from the NLW to local record offices, which will be designated for a whole, or part of, a diocese. Furthermore, the flow of records from provincial and diocesan offices to the NLW will be improved. The Provincial Archives Adviser to the Church in Wales intends to carry out a survey of each diocese. He will ask about record-keeping arrangements in respect of alterations to church buildings, and will look at the records for a sample diocese (St David’s). The NLW and the Adviser propose to produce a guide to good practice for the province, the dioceses, and the parishes.
Background
All listed Roman Catholic (RC) churches in Wales should come under the control of the Historic Churches Committee for Wales (HCC) and Herefordshire. At present 36 do so. This committee, which meets three times a year, has 24 members, of whom 12 are ‘church members’, and the remainder are ‘independent members’. This seems a large number, but the committee serves three dioceses, and has to cover part of England (because the Archdiocese of Cardiff includes Herefordshire), and so it has members appointed after consultation with both Cadw and English Heritage, and members based both in Wales and in Herefordshire. The secretary is employed at the Finance Office of the Archdiocese of Cardiff, an arrangement that works extremely well. The committee has produced its own ‘Guide for Clergy and Parishes’ entitled Making Changes to a Listed Church (second edition, 2004), to supplement the Directory on the Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Consent published by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in 2001, the Guidelines for Appeals published by the Bishops’ Conference, also in 2001, and Some notes and guidance for those responsible for Listed Buildings under the Government exemption scheme, published by the Bishops’ Conference in 2004.
Procedures
Procedures have been greatly improved over the last few years. The committee now requires applicants to produce a statement of justification for proposed works: it would be helpful if a guidance leaflet with specimen examples of a statement of justification like those issued by the Council for the Care of Churches and the Methodist Church could be prepared. Site visits are regularly held, to which representatives of Cadw, the local authority and the national amenity societies are invited. When it seems appropriate, a sub-committee is set up to discuss matters on the spot in more detail, and report back to the committee.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to the production of a guidance leaflet on statements of justification.
On completion of works permitted by Faculty, applicants must submit a form declaring that work has been carried out in accordance with the Faculty.
Quinquennial Inspections, which have not been normal practice in the RC Church until recently, are now regularly carried out in all three dioceses.
It needs to be emphasised that in the RC system it is the committee itself which takes the decision. In this respect, I believe that the Roman Catholic practice can serve as a model for other denominations.
Appeals
The appeals system is a unique feature of the RC arrangements. Either an objector or the applicant can appeal against the committee’s decision. Appeal tribunals are appointed by the Diocesan Bishop to act in his name. They consist of three members – a canon lawyer, a liturgist, and an architectural historian. They meet at the church and hear evidence from each party in private. This avoids confrontation, but it does not accord with the Newman Report’s recommendation that appeal bodies should sit in public. The judgment is accompanied by a statement of reasoning.
In the course of my review I looked at a specific case of church recording in the Archdiocese of Cardiff that led to an appeal. The appeal process was not entirely satisfactory in that the tribunal consisted of two priests from the Archdiocese. It would have been preferable if at least two members had been from outside the diocese, as is now the general practice. The judgment of the tribunal was rendered unnecessarily opaque by its reliance on obscure points of canon law, whose relevance was not easy to perceive.
Recommendation: Appeal arrangements should be kept under regular review to ensure fairness. Hearings should also be in public in the interests of openness and transparency.
Sanctions
One problem which has exercised the committee is the availability of sanctions when its decisions are contravened. The Directory on the Exemption allows for the Bishop to order work to cease, and for the building to be restored to its original condition. However, this is not possible when items have been destroyed.
Recommendation: Sanctions have to be a matter for ecclesiastical discipline, which should be rigorously applied.
Status
The Ecclesiastical Exemption, C.1, specifies that ‘the Order exempts buildings held in trust by the diocesan trustees of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church’: the implication is that any buildings not held in trust by the diocesan trustees should come under listed building control. In practice, however, the religious orders, who own their buildings, have also been regarded as exempt.
The status of a number of churches and chapels belonging to religious orders, and in use for RC worship, has been unclear. Recently the Abbey of Our Lady and St Samson, on Caldey Island, has applied to come under the HCC, and, as a result of my review, St David’s, Pantasaph, and St Beuno’s, Tremeirchion, have done the same.
Background
A Listed Building Advisory Committee (LBAC) advises the Property Committee of the Property Division of the Methodist Church, which is the body that takes decisions. It covers both England and Wales, and is based in Manchester. The committee has ten members, who cover a wide range of expertise. They include three architectural historians and an archaeologist.
Newman pointed out the anomaly that no members were appointed after consultation with the amenity bodies. The Stewardship Report states that ‘where new members are to be appointed, we write to the Amenity Bodies to ask for their views on any prospective appointment’. This is much less precise than the arrangements for DACs or for the RC HCC.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to more precise guidance on consultation with amenity bodies in appointing members to the Listed Buildings Advisory Committee.
Staffing
One great advantage of the Methodist system is the employment of a full-time Conservation Officer. The system seems to be working well. Where schemes are under consideration, the Conservation Officer will often visit for preliminary consultation. When a scheme is submitted to the LBAC, the usual consultations are carried out. The Connexional Property Committee notifies only the Ancient Monuments Society, the Georgian Group and the Victorian Society, on the understanding that in the rare cases where a chapel comes within the remit of another amenity society details will be passed on to do it. This seems reasonable. The Methodist Church reported that responses have generally been satisfactory, though in its view, those of the Georgian Group have been poor.
Statements of Significance and Need
Managing Trustees are required to prepare Statements of Significance and Need, and the information leaflets setting out how these should be prepared, and offering two specimen examples, are based on those issued by the Council for the Care of Churches in 2002. They are admirably clear and thorough. According to the Stewardship Report, ‘there has been positive feedback on the benefits of producing such statements, both from the consultees to whom they are copied, and also from the churches involved’.
Another information leaflet (dated April 2004) deals with Removal of Pews from Historic Chapels, and gives sound advice.
It is worth noting that current practice requires the retention of sample pews when re-seating is permitted.
These leaflets supplement the very lucid and helpful booklet Heritage and Mission, by the Revd Kenneth Street (Connexional Property Secretary 1985-2000) and Ian Serjeant.
Curtilage
The matter of curtilage buildings has caused some concern. In one case in England a Sunday School, which was a separate building within the curtilage, and referred to in the list description, was considered by the local planning authority to fall outside the exemption. The Property Committee disputed this, but a listed building application was made, and consent granted.
Recommendation: It would be helpful if the matter of curtilage buildings could be clarified.
Notification to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments is required by a check box on the monitoring database. The Statement of Significance covers archaeological issues.
The Methodist Church has a national Organ Adviser, and discussions are being held with the Council for the Care of Churches and the British Institute of Organ Studies.
Appeals
A formal appeal system has been adopted to allow Managing Trustees to appeal against decisions of the Property Committee. The appeal may be dealt with either in writing or at a hearing. In the latter case the amenity bodies may attend and make representations. Whatever process of appeal is adopted, all interested parties are notified. So far no appeal has proceeded beyond the initial stage of reconsideration by the LBAC.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to allowing appeals by objectors as well as applicants, as has been proposed in the secular system.
Record Keeping
Records of proposals are retained, but there is no identified requirement for records to be archived. The matter is under consideration, and needs to be resolved.
The system includes a ‘completion of scheme form’, submitted by Managing Trustees, with a signed declaration that works have been carried out in accordance with all approved plans.
There is a mandatory requirement for quinquennial inspections. The Property Committee urges Managing Trustees to appoint suitably experienced and qualified professionals to deal with schemes for historic chapels.
An annual report is produced, covering each year’s operation of the system, and is sent to Cadw and to the amenity bodies.
Redundant Chapels
With regard to redundancy, the Stewardship Report states that there is regular contact with the English Historic Chapels Trust concerning ‘outstanding’ chapels which have been, or are likely to be, declared redundant, and that informal discussions are held with English Heritage when appropriate.
Recommendation: For redundant Welsh chapels, regular contact should be made with the Welsh Religious Buildings Trust, and with Cadw.
Background
The United Reformed Church (URC) has twelve synods in England and Wales. Each synod has its own Listed Buildings Advisory Committee (LBAC), which advises the Provincial Property Committee (PPC). Since the Newman Report, its procedures have been amended, and the resulting document was produced in January 1999.
Applications are made to the PPC, which seeks the advice of the LBAC before taking its decision. The LBAC for Wales has eight members, plus two paid officers. The committee includes members appointed after consultation with Cadw, the local authorities, and the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies. It meets at irregular intervals, according to the applications received. This is helpful to applicants, but it would assist in ensuring a good turn out of members if meetings were arranged well in advance, at fixed intervals.
Recommendation: Meetings of the LBAC should be arranged well in advance and at fixed intervals to ensure good attendance.
Half-yearly meetings are held for the English and Welsh LBAC chairs and secretaries (who are volunteers).
Appeals
There is an appeal process, by which applicants’ appeals would be heard by a specially convened body appointed by the General Assembly. So far, no appeal has been made against a decision made under the exemption system.
Recommendation: Consideration should be given to allowing appeals by objectors as well as applicants.
Breaches of Procedure
The arrangements for dealing with breaches of procedure did not ‘satisfy’ Newman, who recommended that they should be reviewed. He felt that the proposal to ask the Secretary of State to consider removing the Exemption from buildings whose congregations had carried out unauthorised work ‘introduces an awkward hybrid element into the system’. (I note though that it does correspond to The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 9.0.). The URC reports that it knows of no cases where a church has ignored the Provincial Property Committee’s decision.
Recommendation: Arrangements for dealing with breaches of procedure need to be kept under regular review.
Redundant Churches
Newman’s suggestion that the local authority should be informed when a church goes out of use now forms part of the URC’s procedure.
Recommendation: As with the Methodist Church, regular contact on the subject of redundant churches should be made with the Welsh Religious Buildings Trust and with Cadw.
Proposed Works
The URC’s response to the DCMS paper states that informal guidance is given by the LBACs at the outset, and during the process, and emphasises the importance of this. Site visits are held quite often, and are clearly very useful.
The LBAC is currently making efforts to ensure that churches obtain suitable professional advice when proposing works.
A copy of the decision notice is sent to the RCAHMW in cases of demolition or alteration affecting the special architectural or historical interest of the church. Synods are expected to keep records of works proposed and carried out, and to make monitoring arrangements to ensure that work is carried out in compliance with consent. Quinquennial inspections are required.
So far no applications have been identified as having archaeological implications, but it is assumed that the ‘technical members’ would warn the LBAC if any such cases arose.
Although the system seems acceptable on paper, problems have been identified as far as Wales is concerned. Applications tend to be made when tenders have already been received. It is difficult for a committee based in Cardiff to exercise control over the whole country. The committee has not been strong or active enough. However, the recent appointment of a new chair and a new secretary should result in improvements.
Recommendation: The URC Listed Buildings Advisory Committee needs to be stronger and more active.
Background
The Newman Report concluded that ‘the Baptist Union’s system is not yet providing an adequate substitute for Listed Building and Conservation Area controls’, and recommended that it should be subject to an emergency review by the DCMS and the then Welsh Office after one year. This formed part of the ‘follow-up’ process to the Report.
The Baptist Union of Great Britain covers churches that are both in membership with the Baptist Union of Great Britain or the Baptist Union of Wales, and whose trustees include one of the recognised Baptist Trust Corporations. It needs to be borne in mind that not all of these churches include the word ‘Baptist’ in their name, and that not all churches which do include ‘Baptist’ in their name fulfil the criteria. Those which do not, come under listed building control. Details of listed churches and buildings have been circulated to the Baptist Associations, whose boundaries were reorganised in 2001.
The Baptist Union, which is based in Didcot, has a Listed Building Advisory Committee (LBAC), which meets four times a year. It differs from those of the Methodist and United Reformed Churches in that it does not advise a decision-making body, but takes the decisions itself. In 2001 a Deputy Manager was appointed, to act also as secretary to the LBAC. In 2003 the Deputy Manager succeeded as Manager, but no successor to the post of deputy had at the time of writing been found. The appointment of a full-time officer to act as secretary to the LBAC goes some way to meet the concerns expressed in the Newman Report (10.14). He recommended the appointment of a Conservation Officer, and the Follow-Up Report states that progress on the matter will be assessed in the next review.
Recommendation: It would be an advantage if the Baptists, like the Methodists, employed a trained Conservation Officer, and the matter should be kept under consideration.
Expert Advice
The LBAC has been enlarged and strengthened, in line with Newman’s recommendations, and it has a fixed quorum of four. It currently has eleven members, with a vacancy for a local authorities representative – a vacancy which efforts are being made to fill. The members include ‘representatives’ of the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies (though the person lately filling this role has resigned, and - at the time of writing - has not been replaced) and of English Heritage, but it is notable (especially when its membership is compared with that of the Methodist LBAC) that no other member is an architectural historian, and there is no archaeologist. Circular 61/96, 142, makes it clear that the body approving proposals for exempt churches ‘should include, or have arrangements for taking advice from, people with expert knowledge of historic church buildings’: it is not clear that the Baptists are properly meeting this requirement.
Recommendation: The membership of the LBAC needs to be strengthened to ensure that sufficient expertise on historic church buildings is available.
Appeals
There is an appeals procedure (approved by the DCMS in 1999). Appeals would be made to the Legal Committee, and a hearing would be held in public. None has so far been made.
Redundant Churches
Notification of churches closed for worship is done by the local Trust Corporations. It is not clear who is notified, but the relevant bodies should include the local authority, Cadw and the Welsh Religious Buildings Trust.
Recommendation: The relevant bodies should be notified of churches that become redundant.
Sanctions
With regard to sanctions, the Listed Buildings Guidelines leaflet states that ‘breach of Listed Building Control is a criminal offence’, but this is misleading: breach of an exempt denomination’s procedure would not be a criminal offence. It is not clear that there is any system of sanctions for breaches. The LBAC Secretary states that on the rare occasions when unauthorised work is carried out the committee and staff insist that the work is reversed. It has, however, to be asked what would be done if the work were irreversible.
Recommendation: A system should be put in place to address breaches of procedure, which should be kept under regular review.
The LBAC requires that proposals concerning listed buildings should ‘have been considered on behalf of the church by an architect or building surveyor who is suitably qualified and experienced in working with Listed Buildings’.
Quinquennial Inspections
Quinquennial inspections seem to be expected, but it is not clear that they are required.
Recommendation: Quinquennial inspections should be required.
Process
Members of the LBAC make site visits to discuss proposals before applications are made. Local authority conservation officers and representatives of the amenity societies are invited to attend where appropriate.
The Baptist Union has produced a series of listed building guideline leaflets to make the procedures better understood. These include guidelines for Regional Trust Corporations, intended to meet Newman’s doubts about whether these fully appreciated the importance of listed building procedure.
Responses to consultations are copied to LBAC members. Consultation with the amenity bodies is said to have improved since the Newman Report, but there is reason to suppose that it is still not entirely satisfactory.
A ‘Certificate of Practical Completion’ is required to be signed by the architect or surveyor, asking the church to confirm that work has been completed in accordance with the consent. It seems that this does not always take place: it should do.
Recommendation: Arrangements for consultation with amenity bodies should be reviewed on a regular basis. The appropriate architect or surveyor should always sign a ‘Certificate of Practical Completion’.
The LBAC requires as a condition of works of alteration that photographs (before and after) should be provided for the LBAC, the church’s archives, and the local record office.
Churches applying to the LBAC for consent have to pay a fee, whereas applications for listed building consent are free. Newman recommended that consideration should be given to whether some of the costs could be borne centrally. This turns out to be procedurally impossible, but ‘where appropriate the Committee would accept reduced fees from small churches’.
Each application is required to be accompanied by a copy of the list description and a ‘statement from the church of their reasons for wanting to make the changes’, as well as photographs, drawings etc. It does not appear that the list description does in fact always accompany consultation papers, nor are the ‘statements of need’ accompanied by statements of significance. These should be as comprehensive as those for Methodist church.
Recommendation: List descriptions should accompany consultation papers, and statements of need should accompany statements of significance.
Consideration of the minutes of recent LBAC meetings suggests that consent is being readily given for drastic schemes involving the removal of pulpits, organs and pews. This suggests that there are still grounds for the anxiety expressed by Newman that ‘pastoral needs … are bulking unusually large in the LBAC’s thinking’. Serious thought needs to be given to achieving a better balance.
Recommendation: Consideration needs to be given to the balance between pastoral needs and the character of the listed building when drastic internal reordering schemes are proposed.
Finally, it has to be said that the exceptionally complicated structure and bureaucracy of the Baptist Union do not help to ensure effective procedures to protect listed churches. The remoteness of the administration from Wales can only add to the problems.
The Nonconformists – some general points
It is not clear that all local authorities are fully aware which Nonconformist churches or chapels in their areas are exempt, and which are not.
Recommendation: Each local authority should be required to make certain that its information on each listed chapel is accurate.
One local authority officer reports that his authority rarely receives official notification of proposed works to Nonconformist buildings. It is more common for the chapel elders to contact it, whereupon they have to be informed that the exemption applies.
Organs form another category that is not sufficiently provided for in Nonconformist, or RC, procedures. Expert advice is sought in appropriate cases, but clear guidance needs to be introduced by all the exempt denominations.
Recommendation: Clear guidance needs to be produced on organs.
The problem of redundancy is even more acute in the case of Nonconformist chapels than it is with the Church in Wales. In 1999 Cadw published the illustrated booklet Chapels in Wales – Conservation and Conversion, which is a useful contribution on the matter. A highly commendable local initiative was the report Churches and Chapels in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, issued in May 2003 by the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority Policy Committee. The Welsh Religious Buildings Trust suggested that this should be used as a model of ‘best practice’, and this is a suggestion which I endorse. It should be noted that it covers all churches and chapels, whether listed or not.
Recommendation: The report "Churches and Chapels in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park" should be used as a model of best practice.
The Welsh Religious Buildings Trust (WRBT) was established in 1999 with the aim of generally ‘providing assistance to those responsible for caring for the religious built heritage in Wales’, and more particularly taking into care some redundant non-Church in Wales places of worship, in parallel with the scheme set up by the Representative Body and the Friends of Friendless Churches to take into care redundant Church in Wales places of worship. The Trust has ten Trustees, and one employee, who is Trust Manager and Company Secretary. At the time of writing the Trust owns one chapel, and is in the process of acquiring two others, while another is under active consideration. Its aim is to increase its portfolio of acquired buildings by at least one per financial year.
The Trust has made a good start, and deserves the fullest support. It is particularly crucial that the Welsh Assembly Government should continue to provide the necessary financial underpinning. The chief problem of the Trust is the nightmarish bureaucratic and legal tangle which has to be resolved before a chapel can be acquired: if there is any way in which this can be simplified, it would be of immense benefit.
Recommendation: The Welsh Assembly Government should continue to support the WRBT.
Appeals
It should be noted that the three exempt Nonconformist denominations allow for an appeal only by the applicant, when an application has been rejected. The Church in Wales and Roman Catholic systems allow for appeals by objectors when applications have been permitted. The DCMS Consultation Paper suggests (25) that it ‘would be desirable’ that each denomination should provide ‘a more transparent and independent form of appeal where proposed works are both permitted and rejected’. The Nonconformist denominations should revise their appeal procedures accordingly.
Recommendation: The Nonconformist denominations should revise their appeal procedures to allow for more independence and transparency and for appeals both for rejected applications and by third parties where works have been permitted.
Responses to consultations by local authorities appear to vary widely. Some are excellent, some the opposite. They should be encouraged to take an interest in the ecclesiastical buildings in their areas. They should be invited to attend site visits, and they should take up the invitations. They should be invited to attend, and to address, training days and conferences.
Recommendation: Local authorities should take conservation seriously. They should be invited to attend site visits and also to attend and to address denominations’ training days and conferences.
It is vital that each local authority should be clearly aware which of the ecclesiastical buildings in its area enjoy the Exemption, and which do not. It has not become clear to me that, in general, they are ensuring that those which are not exempt are submitting listed building applications when necessary.
Recommendation: Each local authority should ensure that they are fully aware of the ecclesiastical exemption regulations and procedures and must ensure that the correct procedures are being implemented.
It is a great advantage that Cadw has almost completed its listing re-survey of Wales. Descriptions are generally fuller than in England, and make clearer which are the outstanding features of each building. Assessment of grading is more reliable.
One way in which Cadw could help to make the exemption procedures work more smoothly would be to provide electronic access to the list descriptions of individual buildings. In England, this can be done quickly and simply on the Internet, but this is not yet the case in Wales, where much time can be wasted in searching. This is partly due to the problems of Welsh topography, where parish names and village names do not always coincide, but it is desirable that efforts should be made to improve the situation. One DAC secretary tells me that she has the list descriptions of all the churches in the diocese on disc. This makes it easier for each consultation to be accompanied by the list description, as recommended by The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 6.0 (c), note 6. This should be standard practice for all denominations.
Cadw tells me that list descriptions are available on request and can be provided in hard copy or by e-mail. Cadw is not the only source of this material since local authorities, for whose guidance the lists are prepared, will have them too. Cadw will, however, contact each of the exempted denominations and review with them what details they have and how access to Cadw's listing information might be improved.
Cadw’s responses to consultations by DACs are generally regarded, by the DACs, as satisfactory. However, they could sometimes be more substantial and more considered. They should also be clearer: there was considerable confusion over whether a letter about one recent application was to be regarded as an objection or merely a comment.
Recommendation: Cadw should ensure that responses are consistent and clear.
Cadw is represented at Diocesan Courts only when invited, although it ‘has the right to give evidence at such a hearing’ (The Ecclesiastical Exemption, B.6). This seems an unnecessary limitation, and it should consider whether it might appear more often.
Recommendation: Cadw should consider more regular appearances at the Diocesan Court
It was suggested to me that Cadw does not involve itself in pre-application consultation and that it often takes more than the statutory 28 days to respond to consultations. Cadw informs me though that it has sometimes taken part in pre-application discussions and that it has dealt with almost 90% of all faculty applications since 2000 within 28 days.
Each DAC has an archaeologist as a member, appointed after consultation with the Council for British Archaeology. It is understood that, when archaeological monitoring and recording of works carried out under faculty is required, the parish will pay for this to be done by a professional archaeologist.
It is not always appreciated that archaeology is no longer considered to be concerned only with what lies below ground, but covers entire buildings, with their fixtures and fittings, including any medieval inscribed and decorated stones. This needs to be borne in mind by all involved.
Recommendation: The archaeology of the whole church – above and below ground – needs to be borne in mind by the exempted denominations.
Cadw has sponsored the Welsh Historic Churches Project, a survey of all churches with medieval origins in the country, assessing the significance of each building and its contents. This was an admirable enterprise, but it was primarily designed to consider the medieval archaeology of churches and, therefore, did not cover the later periods in detail. Nevertheless, it should not be ignored.
Recommendation: The Welsh Historic Churches Project should not be ignored.
There need to be procedures to ensure that all decisions and works affecting the fabric of a church should be undertaken to acceptable archaeological standards. Within the secular system, monitoring and quality control are the responsibility of the Curatorial Section of the relevant Welsh Archaeological Trust, advising the Local planning authority. The same procedure should apply to the exempt denominations. Recording and monitoring should be required as a condition of faculty, to ensure that archaeological work is carried out precisely as required by the faculty, that it is carried out to recognised professional standards, and that the monitoring is carried out from the agreement of detailed specifications through to the deposition of the archive in the appropriate repository, and of the report with the regional Sites and Monuments Record and the National Monuments Record. The curatorial officers of the four Welsh Archaeological Trusts should work closely with the DAC archaeologists and archaeological contractors.
One body which undertakes a considerable amount of archaeological work on churches points out that such work can be difficult to organise, and, in particular, that there are often difficulties over funding. Furthermore, there seem to be insufficient sanctions to deal with unauthorised works affecting archaeological remains. Where the work is being grant-aided, the cost of the archaeological work should form an integral part of the grant application.
The DCMS Consultation Paper states that ‘further to the Newman Report of 1997, the Government is not satisfied that a sufficiently robust focus has been given by the exempt denominations to the impact of proposed exempted works on the archaeology of the place of worship and its curtilage’. It proposes that ‘agreed criteria for handling archaeological issues in liaison, for example, with local archaeological offices and the Council for British Archaeology should be applied consistently by all denominations’. This should be done whether ‘management agreements’ are introduced or not.
Recommendation: The Welsh Archaeological Trusts should work closely with the DAC archaeologists and archaeological contractors.
The DCMS Consultation Paper ‘The Future of the Ecclesiastical Exemption’
At the time of writing DCMS officials were considering the responses
– in England and Wales – to the proposals in its paper. It is therefore
difficult for me to comment on the proposals or to explore their potential for Wales.
However, there are issues of monitoring or validating on which I will comment from my
discussions.
According to the DCMS, ‘the Government believes that a significant weakness in the
present regimes for operating the exemption is that … there is no external body
validating the systems of internal control’. This has caused some surprise to
those who had assumed that it was the DCMS itself that filled this role in England.
However, the present proposal is that it should be filled by English Heritage. Many
problems have been pointed out, not least the fact that English Heritage has a part to
play within these systems, both as a body consulted about applications, and as responsible
for members of committee appointed after consultation with it. Cadw is in the same
position in these respects, although its status as a component part of the Welsh Assembly
Government differs from that of English Heritage, which is a ‘quasi-autonomous
non-governmental organisation’.
A distinction must be made between ’validating’ and ‘monitoring’. The latter must surely be the duty of Cadw, as a permanent process, even if only in the sense that it must watch out for breaches of the procedures operated by the various denominations. It was allowed for in The Ecclesiastical Exemption, 8.0, where it was assumed that it would be based on the recording of decisions as laid down at 6.0 (h). The process of providing grant aid for churches, with the conditions regularly attached to such aid, offers another opportunity for monitoring. ‘Validation’ is best left for a regular review carried out either internally, or by an outside consultant, such as John Newman or myself.
Peter Howell 2004
Annex A Acknowledgements
I have received considerable support in the production of this report, and my particular thanks go to the following organisations:
The Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies
The Exempted Denominations
The Representative Body of the Church in Wales
The Diocesan Advisory Committee Secretaries
The Registrars of the Dioceses of Swansea & Brecon and Llandaff
I am also grateful to all of those who contributed to this exercise by responding to the initial consultation, without whose views my work would be incomplete, and to all those who replied with patience and generosity to my enquiries.
Annex B Glossary of Terms
CBA – Council for British Archaeology
CCC – Cathedrals and Churches Commission
DAC – Diocesan Advisory Committee
DCMS – Department of Culture, Media and Sport
EIG – Ecclesiastical Insurance Group
HCC – Historic Churches Committee
LBAC – Listed Buildings Advisory Committee
NLW – National Library of Wales
PPC – Provincial Property Committee
RC – Roman Catholic
RCAHMW – Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales
SPAB – Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
URC – United Reformed Church
Annex C Case Study: Llandaff Cathedral
I was asked particularly to consider the matter of the recent works around Llandaff Cathedral, about which representations have been made to the National Assembly First Minister. My remit was not to comment on the merits of particular decisions, but to look at process and the systems operated in the context of my review of the exemption. My comments below should be considered in this context. It has been a lengthy and extremely complicated business, starting in 1998 and with the works only completed in 2004.
The three aims of the works were to repair dilapidated pathways, to improve access for disabled peop