B: REDUNDANT CHURCHES
38. Having taken account of responses to our initial consultation we are seeking:
To facilitate wider use of church buildings open for worship

To ensure that decisions on the future of churches no longer needed for worship are taken as quickly as practicable, and to simplify the process
for their disposal

To take account of the wider public interest in redundant churches and to help secure the future of those of architectural or historic interest either
through alternative use or preservation
39. There are over 16,000 church buildings in use serving the Church of England and the community. The majority are listed and churches form the largest
single group of Grade I listed buildings. There is a wide public interest in what happens to churches which are no longer needed for worship, which is
partly why the arrangements for dealing with redundant churches are seen as part of the wider Church: State arrangements for the Church's built heritage.
40. While settling the future of many historic redundant churches is always likely to be difficult and constrained, we believe nevertheless that there is scope
to simplify and speed up the current procedures. However, we also feel that different procedures may be needed for dealing with churches in the
redundancy process from those for other matters of pastoral reorganisation, and that there should continue to be a national body at the centre of the
decision making process with the final say on the future of redundant churches.
41. We have already indicated that the presentation and ordering of the Measure is overly complex and that this should be simplified. The current separation
of most matters relating to redundant churches (Part III) from the redundancy process (Parts I and II) can be confusing and a revised Measure should
bring together matters to do with church buildings and redundancy.
Q22 Do you agree with the approach set out in paragraphs 40 & 41?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
37 responses. 73% Yes; 27% Partly; 0% No view; 0% No
Others:
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
80
61 responses. 81% Yes; 13% Partly; 3% No view; 0% No
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
1
Partly
No view
No
FACILITATING EXTENDED USE OF CHURCH BUILDINGS
42. One of our key aims is to facilitate the extended use of church buildings without the current need in some cases to use the redundancy procedures as a
'device' to achieve this.
43. Many parishes are seeking to accommodate wider uses while retaining part of their churches primarily for worship. This is a matter of outreach and
response to social and community needs, but also a means of raising revenue to help maintain the building and support the Church's mission. Two
potential restrictions on the extended use of consecrated churches are the act of consecration itself (setting the building aside for 'sacred purposes') and
section 56(2) of the Pastoral Measure which prohibits the sale or lease of any part of a consecrated church other than under the Measure.
44. The latter is a greater bar in reality to extended use than the act of consecration itself. Wide interpretation of "sacred purposes" by some chancellors has
resulted in parts of churches being converted to provide various parish facilities and benefits, with tenure for non-parish groups being achieved by licence.
Making too hard a distinction between sacred and non-sacred is difficult, and new generations have different understandings. Our view is that it would be
helpful to have a clearer steer in the legislation on what can be achieved by extended use under faculty, while decisions in individual cases continue to
rest with the chancellor.
45. In some cases an extended use is only practicable if the new occupier acquires a legal interest in the area of the building in question. Licences may be
made under faculty but a leasehold or freehold interest can only be granted by declaring all or part of the church redundant. Imaginative schemes may
falter because of confusion and concern over the processes involved.
46. Following consultation with ecclesiastical lawyers we recommend as a matter of urgency an amendment to Section 56(2) to allow a lease of part of a
church in use. (A lease of the whole of the building or freehold disposal would still require the redundancy process). One of the concerns about a lease is
that it confers a legal right of occupation coupled with the possibility of the tenant acquiring rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act as a business
tenant. It would therefore be prudent to include a proviso in an amendment to section 56 (2) that any such lease must fall outside the security of tenure
provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or other legislation. (As a matter of good practice a covenant should be included in the lease that all
disputes and questions of enforcement for both parties will be referred to and determined by the Consistory Court.) Because we believe this might assist
in enabling churches to remain in use we have proposed this as a matter for inclusion in the current draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure with a view
to implementation in 2004.
2
Q23 Do you agree with this approach?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
37 responses. 86% Yes; 11% Partly; 0% No view; 3% No
Others:
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
64 responses. 84% Yes; 8% Partly; 5% No view; 3% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
3
Partly
No view
No
Extent of Redundancy
47. The average number of redundancies in recent years has been at the historically low annual figure of around 25-30 (with inner city and very rural areas
often bearing the brunt). Redundancy has usually been pursued as a 'bottom up' process at the request of an individual parish but the Measure enables a
more strategic review of building needs as part of the DPC's oversight of the provision for the cure of souls in the diocese as a whole.
48. We considered whether a national dimension was needed, for example with diocesan strategy plans being prepared with reference to national strategy
guidance. On balance we feel this is more appropriately a matter for the Code of Practice than the legislation itself, but that there is scope for providing
national guidance on e.g. buildings audits.
Q24 Do you agree that consideration of redundancy should continue to take place within the context of diocesan policy and assessment of building
needs?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
36 responses. 97% Yes; 3% Partly; 0% No view; 0% No
Others:
100
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
120
61 responses. 82% Yes; 8% Partly; 10% No view; 0% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
4
Partly
No view
No
Diocesan Committee Infrastructure
49. We believe there is scope to simplify and make more flexible the diocesan committee structure for dealing with redundant churches. Indeed, in some
aspects the current arrangements can be unhelpful. An example is the separate responsibilities of the DPC and the Dioceses Redundant Churches Uses
Committee (DRCUC) which may inhibit use of the one stage process whereby a use is identified before redundancy and provided for at the time the
church is closed.
50. An alternative model to promote a more integrated approach and provide more support for parishes exploring extended use of their church buildings
could be to develop the role of the DPC in maintaining an oversight for the provision and deployment of church buildings generally. Particular
responsibilities might be exercised through a Church Uses (Sub) Committee drawing on the expertise of the DAC and also offering support and advice on
funding and management as well as providing a better focus to take a more strategic view of building needs. It could also take on the narrower role of the
current DRCUC in seeking alternative uses following redundancy.
51. However, our main aim is to identify the functions rather than prescribe a rigid committee structure for carrying these out, so that diocesan synods are
able to devise the practical arrangements which best suit their circumstances.
Q 25 Do you agree that the Measure should identify and define the relevant diocesan functions in respect of church buildings, but not prescribe
committee arrangements for carrying these out?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
37 responses. 97% Yes; 3% Partly; 0% No view; 0% No
Others:
100
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
120
61 responses. 80% Yes; 5% Partly; 13% No view; 2% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
Yes
No
5
Partly
No view
No
Q26 Would a diocesan churches uses (sub) committee as described above offer a suitable model both for supporting extended uses proposals and in
respect of seeking alternative uses for (potentially) redundant churches?
 Yes
 No
Dioceses:
33 responses. 73% Yes; 37% No
Others:
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
80
47 responses. 85% Yes; 15% No
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
CHURCHES NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP
52. It was felt that the term 'redundant' was regarded as unhelpful and potentially misleading, particularly in relation to the sort of extended use cases
described above, which are often able to achieve the opposite to redundancy by bringing new life to a church where part at least of the building continues
to be used for worship. Reference to a redundant building rather than a redundant church would be helpful. Finding more satisfactory terminology is
proving difficult but we suggest that the following possibilities might be considered:-




Extended use – where a continuing public worship element is to be retained in part of the building
A church should be closed for public worship rather than being declared redundant
Replacement scheme could refer to those cases where an unsuitable church was to be demolished and replaced by a new place of worship
Buildings could be transferred to secular uses via change of use schemes.
6
Q27 Is this general approach favoured?
 Yes
 No
Dioceses:
35 responses. 94% Yes; 6% No
Others:
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
56 responses. 93% Yes; 7% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No
Yes
No
53. Our starting point was to seek ways of facilitating extended use but there are of course buildings no longer required for any ecclesiastical purposes. For
these we seek to simplify and speed up the process, devolving matters as appropriate but also addressing wider public interest and heritage concerns.
Miscellaneous Provisions Measure: Proposed Changes
54. The current draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure includes various legislative changes (felt to be non-controversial) designed to improve the current
arrangements for redundant churches, including:



Removal of 6 month delay before a scheme can be published vesting a church in the Churches Conservation Trust following redundancy (section
49(1))
Empowering DBF to carry out authorised demolitions (section 51(4))
Simplifying arrangements for funding CCT and Redundant Churches Temporary Maintenance Account (sections 52 and 53)
7

Requiring dioceses to have regard to Code of Recommended Practice to the Measure
Additionally, as indicated above, we have proposed that the confirmatory role of the Privy Council in respect of pastoral and redundancy schemes should
be removed.
55. However we now propose other, more extensive, changes to the current arrangements.
Advisory Function
56. We believe there is considerable scope for rationalising the current national 'heritage' advisory function regarding redundant churches.
57. The statutory provision of information and advice first arises when redundancy is under consideration and is threaded throughout the subsequent process.
In addition to the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) there are two national advisory bodies currently involved at different stages- the Council for the
Care of Churches (CCC) and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC). Their responsibilities under the Measure stem from the Bridges
Commission Report in 1958-1960 when a major concern was that decisions were being taken about the closure, disposal and especially demolition of
historic churches without necessarily taking into account their aesthetic and historic value. Subsequent developments, including the development of the
role of English Heritage and local planning authorities, and the introduction of non statutory public inquiry arrangements for certain non-contested
demolitions, have called into question whether a national 'Church' source of information and advice is needed and who should provide this.
58. Before a diocese can make formal redundancy proposals the DPC has to ascertain the views of the local planning authority and obtain a report from the
CCC. The purpose of the latter is to ensure that any proposals are only put forward in the light of adequate information about the historic interest and
significance of the church in question and other churches in the area. How often this information is influential it is difficult to assess but arguably pastoral
and financial factors are usually and perhaps always the deciding matters. The Commissioners also have to seek the ABRC's advice at various stages
when determining the future of the building, notably when structural alterations are proposed or preservation in the CCT or demolition is being
considered.
59. In neither the witness evidence nor the wider consultation was a case made for maintaining the status quo, or a defence against perceived duplication or
overlap in the current roles of the CCC or the ABRC. There was felt to be a need to review the type and supply of information needed, for example so
that a conservation plan/seller's pack could be available at an early stage. The extent to which a separate Church source of advice was needed on
conversion plans was queried, since where new uses are concerned the secular process is determinative.
8
60. We hope it will be increasingly possible to build on Statements of Significance as a useful starting point, but early advice from English Heritage and local
planning authorities on possible alternative use is also important. But there remains a case for a modified national 'Church' source of information and
advice. An expanded report building on that currently provided by the CCC but also including the ‘early advice’ currently supplied by the ABRC could
both facilitate use of the one stage process and encourage a speedier and better informed use-seeking process. There also continues to be need for advice
to the central body on which churches for which a suitable use cannot be found are worthy of preservation.
61. We have given some thought to how best to provide for this modified national source of advice, given that it seems sensible that the advice function
should cover, where appropriate, advice on extended use proposals. At diocesan level a wider based Churches Uses (Sub) Committee would relate closely
to the DAC. The national body the DAC relates to is the CCC, on a voluntary basis or if the chancellor cites the latter. Taking all this into account we
suggest that the CCC would be the most suitable body to fulfil the roles identified above (although there will be membership, constitutional, staffing and
financial implications to consider). In reaching this view we have taken into account the view of the DCMS assessor to the Redundant Churches Sub
Group that the State's concern is that there should be a proper advice process in place rather than with the detail of which body undertakes this. We
expect that such a rationalisation will result in modest overall savings.
Q28 Do you agree that there should be a single national Church source of 'heritage' information and advice under the Measure?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
37 responses. 97% Yes; 3% Partly; 0% No view; 0% No
Others:
80
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
120
63 responses. 76% Yes; 11% Partly; 6% No view; 6% No
80
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
9
Partly
No view
No
Q 29 Do you agree that the CCC should provide the advisory role described above to dioceses and to the national body?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
37 responses. 73% Yes; 14% Partly; 5% No view; 8% No
Others:
80
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
80
63 responses. 68% Yes; 6% Partly; 16% No view; 10% No
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Identical treatment for all church buildings?
62. The Measure makes no distinction between the treatment of listed churches (or those within a conservation area) and unlisted churches. We propose that
the latter should no longer be subject through the Measure to greater protection than unlisted secular buildings. In practical terms this involves removing
the a priori requirement to seek alternative uses before demolition can be considered. In future, dioceses should be able to propose the demolition of
unlisted churches outside conservation areas at the time of closure ie a one-stage process without having to demonstrate that no suitable alternative use
can be found. Potential benefits would be to:




facilitate local strategic planning for church buildings
shorten and simplify the process for dealing with undistinguished buildings
concentrate use seeking efforts on churches of architectural and historic significance
enable dioceses in some cases to achieve the development potential of valuable sites
10
Q30 Do you agree with this proposal whereby the demolition of unlisted churches (outside conservation areas) could be authorised at the time of
redundancy?
 Yes
 Partly
Dioceses:
 No view
 No
36 responses. 97% Yes; 3% Partly; 0% No view; 0% No
Others:
80
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
120
61 responses. 74% Yes; 11% Partly; 2% No view; 13% No
80
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
Yes
Partly
No view
No
Yes
Partly
No view
No
One Stage Procedure: Settling the future of the building at the time of redundancy
63. We recognise that many of the concerns over the current arrangements arise because of the length and uncertainty of the use-seeking period. Where
possible we want to facilitate and encourage use of the one stage process to settling the future of a church at the time of closure. At present this is
achieved through a section 46 or 47 pastoral scheme.
Section 46 replacement schemes
64. Section 46 provides for the redundancy and replacement of a church (or part of one) which is unsuitable for present needs. While we regard the current
provisions as generally helpful they have become over-complex and there is scope for streamlining:
(a) The need to be satisfied that a new church or place of worship will be provided in the same benefice, and that a suitable building will be available
for worship during the interim period, should be a diocesan and not a national concern.
11
(b) The 4 conditions currently set out in section 46(3)-(6), one of which has to be fulfilled in order to provide for appropriation to alternative use or
demolition of the old building, should be subsumed into just one, along the lines of "following consultation with its statutory adviser the national
body is satisfied that the scheme should proceed".
(c) The benefits of section 46 (ie use of the whole net proceeds for the new place of worship) are already be available under the two stage procedure
where the intention to provide a replacement is known at the time of redundancy. We propose in such cases that an (extendable) time limit of 3
years be imposed for dioceses to bring forward a replacement proposal.
Q31 Please indicate if you agree with the above proposals.
(a)
 Yes
 No view
 No
(b)
 Yes
 No view
 No
(c)
 Yes
 No view
 No
Dioceses:
a) 36 responses. 97% Yes; 3% No view; 0% No
b) 36 responses. 83% Yes; 8% No view; 8% No
c) 37 responses. 86% Yes; 5% No view; 8% No
a)
100
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percentage (%)
100
Percentage (%)
120
Percentage (%)
c)
b)
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
12
No
Yes
No view
No
Others:
a) 57 responses. 79% Yes; 14% No view; 7% No
b) 56 responses. 68% Yes; 18% No view; 14% No
c) 57 responses. 79% Yes; 19% No view; 2% No
b)
a)
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
c)
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
No ivew
No
Section 47 schemes
65. Under section 47 the future of a church which is not to be replaced can be settled at the time it is closed either by direct vesting in the Churches
Conservation Trust (CCT) or by appropriation to alternative use. We hope that other changes we propose, for example to the diocesan infrastructure will
facilitate greater use of the second of these options. The proposal already outlined that there should be no requirement to seek alternative uses for unlisted
churches outside conservation areas, will, if accepted, enable schemes providing for redundancy in such cases also to authorise demolition.
Two Stage Procedure: Settling the future of the building following redundancy
66. There will remain churches whose future cannot be settled at the time of redundancy and which will be subject to the two-stage process. We are aware of
the disquiet at the length of time it can sometimes take to deal with redundant churches and seek to streamline and accelerate the process.
Use seeking period
67. At present the Measure provides that the future of a redundant church should normally be settled within a 3-year period. There is already flexibility to
shorten or extend this period, but in future we recommend the 'maximum' use seeking period should be reduced to 2 years. While any final decision will
13
depend on the circumstances of each case, this reduction in the length of the normal maximum period should help concentrate efforts and maintain the
momentum of use seeking.
Q32 Do you agree with this proposed reduction in the ‘maximum’ use seeking period?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 78% Yes; 5% No view; 16% No
Others:
80
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
61 responses. 70% Yes; 15% No view; 15% No
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
14
No view
No
68. To be consistent with paragraph 62 we also propose that the 6 month 'minimum' use seeking period (before demolition of a redundant church can be
proposed) should in future apply only in respect of a listed church or unlisted church in a conservation area, except where the national body responsible
for settling the future of the building is satisfied, after consulting its statutory adviser, that such a church is of such small historic and archaeological
interest or such little architectural quality or requires such extensive structural repair, that demolition in its view would not be objectionable.
Q33 Do you agree that the 'minimum' use seeking period before demolition can be proposed should be restricted along the lines outlined above?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 95% Yes; 0% No view; 5% No
Others:
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
61 responses. 66% Yes; 20% No view; 15% No
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No
Yes
15
No view
No
Use seeking/Care and Maintenance
69. In response to the first round of consultation a large majority of dioceses felt that use seeking and care and maintenance during the use seeking period
should remain diocesan responsibilities. Two external national bodies suggested an alternative whereby these might become national functions, for
example by setting up a Building Preservation Trust (BPT) for this purpose. We looked at the financial and practical implications of pursuing such an
option but concluded that it was not one we wished to recommend. Unless an external source of significant 'new' finance were found, it is unlikely that
any such Trust would be able to take on more than a very small number of buildings at any one time. Individual buildings can already be and sometimes
are disposed of to local BPTs, but, while there is scope for enhanced guidance on working with BPTs at all levels, we are of the view that use seeking and
care and maintenance should remain diocesan responsibilities. We hope though that our other recommendations will encourage shorter and more
focussed and productive use seeking periods.
Q34 Do you agree that use seeking and care and maintenance should remain diocesan responsibilities?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 97% Yes; 0% No view; 3% No
Others:
100
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
120
61 responses. 77% Yes; 18% No view; 5% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
16
No view
No
70. A particular concern is the deterioration during the use seeking period in the condition of some highly listed redundant churches which end up as 'last
resort' vestings in the CCT, with resulting high repair costs. The Measure already permits the CCT to contribute towards the care and maintenance of a
church vested in the DBF prior to the making or coming into effect of a scheme, but this happens infrequently, usually only after a decision to vest the
building in the CCT has been taken. We wish to encourage wider and more frequent use of this power. While it would be difficult to make this
mandatory without providing additional funding for the CCT, we propose that the Code of Practice, and possibly section 44(8), might be strengthened to
improve liaison between the national body, the CCT, and the DBF on the repair of redundant churches identified as potential 'last resort' vestings.
Q35 Do you support this proposal for more liaison on the repair of highly listed redundant churches during the use seeking period?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 92% Yes; 8% No view; 0% No
Others:
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
61 responses. 87% Yes; 11% No view; 2% No
80
60
40
20
0
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
17
No view
No
Where a Use is found: Freehold disposal and residual liability
71. At present schemes can authorise leasehold disposal of redundant churches by dioceses or the freehold disposal by the national body. The initial
consultation showed that dioceses were evenly divided on whether they or the national body should in future be responsible for freehold disposal (and for
consequent covenant enforcement). Given the divergence of views, and in the interests of promoting greater flexibility, we propose that freehold disposal
by dioceses should be permitted on an optional basis. (The decision on whether freehold disposal is suitable should remain with the national body).
Q36 Do you agree that freehold disposal by dioceses should be an additional option?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 95% Yes; 0% No view; 5% No
Others:
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
61 responses. 62% Yes; 18% No view; 20% No
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No
Yes
18
No view
No
Where a Use is not found: Deciding the Future of the Building
72. The remaining options when a use cannot be found are permanent vesting in the DBF on specified terms (which happens very rarely), preservation in the
CCT, and demolition. The latter two options can only be considered when (at present) the Church Commissioners are satisfied that no alternative use is
available. We have proposed that in the case of unlisted churches outside conservation areas, demolition could be considered at the outset.
73. We believe settling the future of redundant churches and deciding between the remaining alternatives where no suitable use is found should continue to be
a national responsibility. This should take account of the various pastoral, financial, heritage and other considerations. Any decision on vesting a church
in the CCT also needs to take account of both quality and affordability. Proposals for vesting or demolition should also continue to be subject to public
consultation via a further scheme.
Q37 Do you agree that the decision between preservation and demolition should continue to be taken nationally and be the subject of public
consultation as indicated above?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
36 responses. 78% Yes; 6% No view; 17% No
Others:
80
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
61 responses. 72% Yes; 16% No view; 11% No
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
19
No view
No
Demolition
74. Exemption from listed building and conservation area control ceases on a declaration of redundancy taking effect but comes into play again in respect of a
Pastoral Measure scheme providing for demolition. Various checks and delays built into the Measure were designed partly to avoid any hasty demolition
of historic redundant churches and ensure the possibility of alternative use was fully investigated. A further significant safeguard was added in 1977
when as part of the agreement for introducing State Aid for churches in use the Commissioners agreed to the procedure whereby under certain
circumstances the Secretary of State has to be asked whether he wishes to hold a non-statutory public inquiry (NSPI) into contested proposals to demolish
wholly or partly, a listed redundant church or to demolish an unlisted church in a conservation area. The Commissioners have agreed to be bound by the
Secretary of State's recommendations following such an inquiry.
75. We have considered whether there is a case for removing the exemption from listed building and conservation area control of demolitions pursued under
the Pastoral Measure, and for making these subject to the normal listed building and conservation area control procedures. On balance however we feel
that the current arrangements should be retained as the scope and terms of reference of NSPIs enables factors other than purely heritage to be brought into
consideration.
Q38 Do you agree that the exemption from listed building and conservation area control procedures for demolitions should continue and that the
current arrangements for NSPIs should remain?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 92% Yes; 5% No view; 3% No
Others:
80
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
62 responses. 71% Yes; 23% No view; 6% No
80
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
20
No view
No
PROCEDURE
One Stage Process and Pastoral Schemes involving Redundancy
76. Earlier we proposed that dioceses should draft and publish pastoral reorganisation schemes (following validation of the draft by the national body). While
the argument of consistency might suggest the same approach for schemes involving redundancy and/or settling the future of redundant churches we
believe these require a different approach, involving as they do other considerations and wider interests.
77. We have already indicated that we envisage a continuing role for a proactive national body to balance pastoral, financial and heritage issues, and make the
final decision on redundant churches. This includes approving vesting churches in the CCT and approving and, if necessary, defending demolition. We do
not favour a mixed economy for schemes involving redundancy or redundant churches, in which dioceses publish some categories of schemes and the
national body others. Instead for the sake of a consistent approach and because of the interface with various external agencies we consider the national
body should be responsible for drafting and publishing all schemes involving redundancy or settling the future of redundant churches.
Q39 Do you agree that the national body should continue to draft and publish schemes involving redundancy or redundant churches?
 Yes
 No
37 responses. 65% Yes; 5% No view; 30% No
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Others:
61 responses. 80% Yes; 15% No view; 5% No
100
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
Dioceses:
 No view
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
No
Yes
21
No view
No
Two stage process
78. At present, following a section 28 pastoral scheme declaring a church redundant, a further redundancy scheme is required to authorise either disposal for
an alternative use (unknown at the time of redundancy), preservation by the CCT (other than by direct vesting) or demolition. In order to streamline the
current process we are considering the practicalities of the initial pastoral scheme authorising disposal of the redundant church for an (as yet unidentified)
alternative use. This would be subject to the approval in due course of the national body but without the need for a redundancy scheme and further stage
of public consultation. (This would not preclude some level of local consultation with the incumbent and PCC on any churchyard related matters.)
79. However, we have identified various practicalities which need further consideration, including the potential difficulties of dealing with churchyard issues,
especially where part remains open for burials, and determining what area of land may be required to support the eventual use. One way of dealing with
this might be to include powers to authorise in the pastoral scheme disposal for an unspecified use (to be approved by the national body) on a permissive
basis, so that this could be used where there were no churchyard or title issues to resolve, or introducing (separate) 'lighter touch' procedures for dealing
with churchyard disposal.
80. The implication of this is that the wider public interest in the building could only be pursued through the planning and listed building consent process, as
applicable (which could cause concern if the use was controversial in church but not in planning terms). Otherwise the need for a second stage
redundancy scheme would be preserved for cases of proposed vesting in the CCT or demolition.
22
Q40 Would you support in principle the possibility of a one stage procedure authorising disposal of a redundant church for an (unspecified)
alternative use?
 Yes
 No view
Dioceses:
 No
37 responses. 89% Yes; 3% No view; 8% No
Others:
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
No view
61 responses. 59% Yes; 21% No view; 20% No
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No
Yes
No view
No
Q41 Please outline any possible difficulties in using the one stage procedure in such circumstances and how these might be overcome.
Comments along the lines of: People are more likely to make representations if they don’t know the use out of fear of the unknown, there also may be even
greater fears about the future of the churchyard, careful consultations with locals will be needed to reassure them
***********
23