38
BCD Special Report on
Historic Churches
17th annual edition
Mind the Gap
the funding shortfall
T
he UK
has around 17,000
listed places of worship, and
over half of the home nations’
most important listed buildings are
churches, chapels or cathedrals. As
a result of demographic changes
which have led to many of our oldest
churches becoming isolated from
population centres, and as a result
of the general decline in church
attendance, too few congregations are
able to meet the cost of maintenance
and repair of these buildings under
current levels of grant aid.
In 2005 English Heritage’s
Fabric Needs Survey estimated
that £925 million of outstanding
repairs needed to be carried out
to all listed places of worship in
England over the following fve
years. At that time the estimated
expenditure of all denominations on
this work was £111 million annually,
indicating a likely annual shortfall of
£74 million. Similar research carried
out by the Church in Wales in 2007
estimated that its portfolio of 1,000
listed places of worship required
an expenditure of £60–70 million
over the following fve years. As
only £4–5 million is currently being
spent on Church in Wales places of
worship per annum, there would
appear to be an annual shortfall of
some £7–8 million. In other words,
more than half the work being
identifed by quinquennial inspections
in Wales is not being done.
Since these surveys were carried
out there has been some increase in
funding, including the Heritage Lottery Fund’s
recently announced £4 million increase for the
Listed Places of Worship Scheme. Nevertheless,
these increases cannot match the scale of need.
By focussing available funding on the most
pressing issues such as preventing roof leaks,
it seems likely that the churches will avoid a
major increase in the rate or signifcance of
redundancies, but we do not know for how long.
Te Caring for Places of Worship 2010
survey just completed by English Heritage (EH)
found that 11 per cent of the listed places of
worship surveyed were in a poor or very poor
state of repair. Te survey found the higher
grade listed buildings to be, proportionately,
in worse condition, with 14 per cent of Grade I
and 13 per cent of Grade II* places of worship
at risk, compared to 8 per cent of Grade II
buildings. Tis suggests that as many as one
in seven of our most signifcant historic
religious buildings could qualify as ‘at risk’.
EH is quick to point out that 89 per cent
of the buildings surveyed are in good or fair
condition and that this is a huge achievement –
one that owes much to the tremendous energy
and commitment of small groups of under-
resourced volunteers. EH is also providing
practical help and advice through its Caring
for Places of Worship resources. Nevertheless,
the funding that is so crucial to meeting the
huge outstanding repair bill on our listed places
of worship is far from secure, particularly in
view of impending cuts in state funding.
Over recent years many solutions have
been put forward for helping churches fnd
new uses and bring in alternative sources of
revenue. Many of these initiatives are explored
in the Northern Lights article by
Jemma Metcalfe-Gibson on pages
31–33. However, the reality is that not
all churches can fnd alternative uses.
In city centres there are too many
under-used historic churches competing
with each other. In rural areas essential
services may already be provided for,
while in other cases the church simply
does not lend itself to alternative uses.
Furthermore, the average expenditure
shortfall on maintenance and repair is
too great to be met by all but the most
commercial of redevelopments. Tis is
not to say that we should overlook the
need to fnd additional uses for historic
places of worship, but it is important to
realise that adaptation can play only a
small part in averting the potential crisis.
When the time comes would we,
as a nation, be prepared to accept
the demolition of a medieval gem?
What about a fne late 19th century
or early 20th century church that
contains magnifcent works of stained
glass and Arts & Crafts fttings? At
present the rate of closures is relatively
low, but if it accelerates it may well
be too late to do anything about the
backlog of unresolved problems.
While it is clear to all those involved
in conserving churches that we cannot
continue to rely on congregations to
meet the majority of the costs of repairs,
hard data is required to show how much
essential work is not being carried
out within the required time frame.
Overall fgures on the work identifed
by quinquennials provide a useful
indication of the scale of the problem,
but they include works which are not necessarily
essential to the integrity of the fabric. Further
analysis would help to predict how much more
money is required to maintain the status quo.
Congregations and conservationists will
need to lobby fercely in the coming years to
defend our religious heritage and to improve
the funding streams on which it relies, and
better analysis of the problem will certainly
help. Much has been achieved in recent
decades in terms of securing the future of our
most important historic places of worship
and in spreading the message of conservation
and careful maintenance; every efort must
now be made to protect that achievement.
Authors:
this article was compiled by
Historic
Churches
editors David Boulting and Jonathan Taylor.
A fne early 20th century stained glass window by Wilhelmina Geddes in
the Victorian Grade II listed parish church of Northchapel, West Sussex.
Because grant aid is focussed on Grade I and II* buildings, the treasures
of churches like this are often overlooked.