IT MAY not surprise you to learn that, of all the complaints that arrive in an archdeacon’s inbox, faculties top the list. Terrifying bedtime tales told to the grandchildren of churchwardens must feature an all-consuming, always expected, but never quite arriving monster, known only to those unsleeping youngsters as the dreaded “Deeayesea”!
I spoke recently at a conference organised by the amazing team of church-buildings officers (CBOs) in Oxford diocese. It was an excellent day. It did a great deal to demystify and explain the whys and wherefores of the complex and challenging world of faculties and church development projects. I showed the officers a rather crude picture. It showed a room in our most glamorous local National Trust property, Waddesdon Manor. Into this room, I had unceremoniously dropped a compliant lavatory, a kitchenette, and a children’s play area.
Of course, it would never happen — and imagine the furore if it did. But something like it is what happens in many of our listed church buildings. The reason that development can happen is that churches are exempt from secular planning legislation and the requirement to get listed-building consent. This exemption, known as the “ecclesiastical exemption”, is the foundation on which all our church building projects rest. Without it, it would be virtually impossible to justify harming (in the planning officer’s use of the word) a church to improve its facilities.
The exemption exists because the Government recognises that churches are not just relics to be preserved at all costs from the developer’s wrecking ball. Churches have a purpose, a reason for being, which is more important than their beauty and their heritage value. A church must work as a church, first and foremost.
So, lavatories, kitchens, children’s areas, and all the other things that we need can happen; and, most important of all, they can happen in the church building itself. Country houses have stable blocks and outbuildings. Very few churches do. Hence, we are often trying to do a version of exactly what my crude picture showed.
BUT this freedom comes with a heavy price. We are required to operate our own alternative planning system — and it has to be just as rigorous as the secular system. This is a legal requirement that dioceses must demonstrate to government. If we lost the exemption, all our development projects would cease, and our churches would become museums.
Not many of us have tried to get listed-building consent outside of the church system. Country houses and hotels spend a fortune on highly paid professionals to help them to navigate listed-building consent. Just to find out from the council if you need consent costs £175 and takes four weeks. Any time spent on your case by council officers after that first initial hour’s work is charged at £169 an hour — and that is not consultancy to help you to get your consent: it is just the time spent dealing with your case. The consultants are much more expensive.
All this is provided for free under the church system; and our CBOs are not just the equivalent of council officers, processing paper. They offer advice and guidance. They are experts in their field and have a wealth of knowledge of what has worked, and what will work. They understand how churches must present their plans to get permission, and they make all this knowledge available as part of their service. If we had to pay for this ourselves, it would add a good percentage to the cost of projects and put many of them out of reach.
IN THE Church of England, our equivalent to the council’s planning committee is the diocesan advisory committee (DAC). This is made up of experts and professionals who give their time for free to keep this system working. The volume of work processed is quite extraordinary. Last year, in Oxford diocese, there were more than 200 new or resubmitted applications every month. That means that each one of the five CBOs was working on more than 40 new applications each month, in addition to the casework that it already had.
Is this healthy? Clearly not; but it is funded out of parish share, and so the pressure to keep costs down is immense. Are there delays? Yes, and often far too long, with implications for all our projects. Can’t we just water down these silly regulations? Not unless we want the Government to take away our ability to develop churches.
The sensitive and well-thought-through development of our churches (none of them looks anything like my desecration of Waddesdon Manor) is a testament to the dedicated people who persevere with a system that is creaking under its own weight. That much we can all agree on.
But, please, do not take out your frustration on CBOs or archdeacons. They all go above and beyond, as does everyone in their churches who is involved in these projects. If you are one of those people, you are keeping our churches true to their purpose as houses of worship and mission, despite the challenges. Thank you.
The Revd Deiniol Heywood is a member of Oxford DAC and an archdeacon’s commissary in the Buckingham archdeaconry of the diocese of Oxford. He offers coaching for clergy and others, and can be contacted at: dheycoach.wordpress.com
A version of this article first appeared in Visitation News, published by Oxford diocese.