Ecclesiastical Exemption

---

David Hall
Architecture and Historic Environment Division
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH

27th May 2004

Dear Mr Hall

The Future of the Ecclesiastical Exemption.

The Standing Conference on London Archaeology (SCOLA) was set up in 1992 to promote the practice, study and public awareness of archaeology in London. Membership is open to all those who share our aims, and currently includes consultants and contractors, archaeological societies, local authorities and individuals.

We are grateful for the opportunity of responding to the consultation on the Future of the Ecclesiastical Exemption. We support the principle of making the system more open and flexible, but are cautious about proposals to simplify the process since the problems involved are inevitably complex. The document fails to address the severe problem of enforcement or to recognise that incumbents and congregations responsible for listed places of worship do not always have a knowledge of, or interest in, the historic asset. Nor does it honestly and fairly consider the question of cost, either to the churches or to the monitoring authorities, whether English Heritage or any other. That is a major weakness in the paper as published, and we ask the Department to address it and make a proper financial and resource assessment publicly available before taking the consultation further.

Question 1

The proposal for single, high-level management agreements, entered into with each denomination, does not seem the right approach. There are, for instance, just too many denominations and the chains of control within several denominations are too tenuous.

Management agreements for historic assets can only be effective if based on a good and sufficient understanding of the significance of the historic sites involved, especially within their contexts. Therefore, agreements, whether by denomination or by site, will have to involve both the appropriate scholarship and the individual church's management at local level. Involvement of a wider local community in the preparation of management agreements is also desirable. Management agreements, therefore, are only likely to work effectively if they are drawn up on a site by site basis, with a thorough analysis and understanding of the specific assets involved.1 There is then a great danger that the whole exercise will become intellectually and administratively overwhelming.

There should, of course, be scrutiny of local agreements at a high level. A holistic approach to each site is desirable but this need not be translated into a unified approach to all sites and assets, regardless of their individual characteristics (such an approach is, indeed, rejected by para 21, first bullet point, of the document). The need for consistency could probably be achieved through robust guidelines backed up by the monitoring of agreements by high-level bodies involving both English Heritage and each separate denomination. The possibility of model framework agreements that could be tailored to each church should also be explored. As an incentive, individual churches should be subject to normal secular controls until they have a working management agreement in place.

Question 2

There is an important role for EH to play in securing a consistent approach to all listed places of worship. This should be advisory as well as regulatory. But it is essential for EH to have the resources to carry out the task. Are there sufficient suitable scholars with planning experience (or planners with scholarship) available to be recruited for the work?

Question 3

Agreements should follow an holistic approach to each site and should embrace archaeology, nature conservation, churchyard management, etc. We emphasise that 'archaeology' cannot be separated from the building. The structure as well as the site needs to be perceived archaeologically. There must be provision for archaeology in any management agreement - for the archaeology of the building,.for the archaeology beneath the building, and for the archaeology of its curtilage. Important archaeological data is being lost as cemeteries are disturbed without sufficient archaeological input for their excavation (c.f. St Pancras).

Question 4

Anglican cathedrals do not form an homogeneous class of historic asset: several 'great churches' (Westminster Abbey, for example) are of greater complexity and significance than some cathedrals. A site specific approach (see our reply on Q.l), would lead to cathedrals being treated on their merits just like other complex ecclesiastical site. Individual management agreements would need to define and take into account the special significance of the individual cathedral concerned.

Question 5

Experience within the Anglican Church shows the breach of 'ecclesiastical exemption' rules to be an ongoing problem exacerbated by the lack of sanctions currently available to the ecclesiastical authorities. Nevertheless, it is in individual cases that breaches occur and it would seem inappropriate, or at least disproportionate, to penalise a whole denomination because of a problem in a small proportion of its churches. This adds further support for a more site-specific approach, possibly with action in the face of a breach resulting in the loss of ecclesiastical exemption by the particular defaulting church. It must be remembered, however, that even under the secular system enforcement is an expensive, time-consuming legal minefield that many Local Planning Authorities are unable or unresourced to tackle satisfactorily.

Question 6

All listed places of worship should ideally be subject to the same system of listed building control but not all denominations or faiths operate the kind of hierarchical mechanism that will provide the checks and balances in the Church of England.

Question 7

There seems to be little justification for peculiars to be exempt from listed building controls, particularly if they fall within sites otherwise subject to a range of 'heritage' designations.

We have two additional points, not covered by the questions posed:-

1. Before any extensive changes are implemented, thought should be given to undertaking one or more fully monitored pilot studies. Alternative proposals could possibly be concurrently piloted in different areas. There would obviously be difficulties in this, as the geographical boundaries of the various religious and secular authorities are seldom coincident.

2. The outcome of Historic Scotland's recent pilot study, where ecclesiastical exemption was removed from works to the exterior of listed ecclesiastical buildings, bringing these within secular control, should be considered, along with comments received in response to the Consultation Paper, before any decision is taken on whether or not to retain ecclesiastical exemption or modify its application. The Scottish experience is not, of course, directly applicable to England because of legal and administrative differences and differences in the cultural span of Scottish ecclesiastical buildings, but there may be lessons to be learnt.

Yours sincerely

 

Peter Pickering