FOR historic churches to function as centres of witness and worship, they often need to be adapted so that they can be put to community use. Too often, however, the faculty process is no friend to making changes to church buildings for community purposes: concerns about preservation outweigh how a building could be used for the public benefit, and the process is prone to unreliable conclusions.
A radical solution to this problem would be to transfer responsibility for changes from chancellors advised by diocesan advisory committees (DACs) to local planning authorities (LPAs).
In parishes, the importance and nature of public benefit is well understood: we may speak of it as “service” or “mission”. It is a core area of experience and expertise of the ministry team in a parish. All PCCs must reflect on it, as the Charity Commission requires the PCC annual report to account for resources held and spent in terms of public benefit.
In a faculty application, however, building considerations dominate and public benefit is too often an overlooked poor relation. This was clear to me through an application in a former parish. It was turned down, and the judgment did not mention that the village had no meeting place, or that there had been public consultation that had shown strong support for the proposed changes.
The chancellor noted our lack of hard data on demand (inevitable, since there was not yet any facility) and ruled out our success with similar ventures elsewhere as evidence for public benefit. In contrast, the District Council gave me a community award for linking church to village need. I have no doubt that a local authority would have seen a prima facie case for benefit to a village in having a community resource.
ONE of the problems is that DACs are required to have several members who have building-related expertise, but they are no longer required to have a local-authority representative (this requirement was deleted last year, but I see from a scan of a sample of DACs that about half still do have someone with that role). Also, no one appointed to a DAC to focus explicitly on the community benefit of proposed changes. Inevitably, this, together with the building focus of amenity societies and the Church Buildings Council (CBC), focuses the minds of chancellors on buildings rather than on public benefit.
The local authority, in contrast, has a wealth of understanding and knowledge about community projects and public benefit generally (its reason for existence is public benefit). It has a grasp of local need and issues, can bring expertise and resources to bear, and is locally accountable.
The LPA comprises a substantial body of professional staff who advise applicants and the elected members of the council on the planning committee. It has more robust systems than the DAC. Planning officers assess all the evidence and are responsible for making recommendations against the criteria for a decision. The officers have the benefit of advice from colleagues, and sit within a context of expected standards, oversight, and performance-management. This reduces the risk of errors and misunderstandings of the case, as does the briefing of members by the lead officer and the process of exchanges between them to deal with queries.
The constitution and function of the DAC is very different, with periodic gatherings of clergy and volunteers with expertise. It advises the parish and the chancellor on proposals, but it is just one source of advice to the chancellor among several. It gives its own perspective and does not package the case against criteria for approval, leaving the collation of evidence with the chancellor. There is no briefing of the chancellor in person or interaction to deal with queries. The advice to parishes is not as focused and developed as it might be, and there is a much greater risk of errors in judgment.
I DOUBT there will be a radical shift of responsibility to the local authority any time soon, but there are steps that could be taken to redress some of these weaknesses.
First, local-authority and community-benefit expertise could be firmly included in DACs and the CBC, and specific consideration given to public benefit in any application, as is now expected regarding environmental concerns.
Second, one or two members of the DAC might work closely with a parish on any complex or contested proposal to improve the understanding of all parties as a proposal progresses.
Third, the DAC might shift its brief to that of assembling and assessing a case in its entirety and making recommendations to the chancellor on the basis of the criteria for a decision. It might do this by one or two members’ taking on the task, or through a volunteer reporting to the archdeacon and feeding into the DAC.
Fourth, the chancellor might ask for queries to be addressed rather than struggle with an apparent oddity, and consider some means of having a draft judgment reviewed before finalising it.
Some might see transferring approval for changes to church buildings to LPAs as too radical. But improvements and changes to the process must be considered, given the huge investment of time and energy that parishes put into applications, often over several years, and the opportunity cost of doing so. It is time to enable churches to fulfil their mission to be for all the people of the parish.
Alan Currer is a Reader and former lay chair of a deanery synod. He worked in services to children, in health and social care, and as a management consultant.
