If we are to preserve the past we need buildings fit for the future
So Liverpool Council's planning committee decision to reject a visionary plan to add a Rotunda to All Saints Church in Childwall is a clearly blow for the church council. But it also highlights a massive issue facing many parishes, not just in the Diocese of Liverpool, but also across the Church of England. Just how are we supposed to create a future for our church buildings? The diocese knows the value of its heritage - we are the greatest preservers of historic buildings in our area after all. But we also need buildings that will work for this, and future, generations. In most cases we do this without any significant funding, relying on the dedication and generosity of church members to maintain ageing edifices.
Yet our church leaders have to tread a difficult line. They are not just custodians of a building - a tourist attraction or place for others to admire the architecture. They are in charge of worshiping communities, people who wish to serve their wider community. And frequently the building they have just doesn't work.
Yet any time they try to make changes that make their building fit for purpose they risk a welter of objections, often from people who don't want change made but can offer no solutions.
It still surprises me that, since I started dealing with media relations for the diocese, the biggest issue I have faced has been around buildings. I simply hadn't realised how emotive a subject it is for people. But, oh boy, emotive it is.
I have learnt to understand that people feel emotionally attached to buildings. It may be it evokes a personal memory; has the great weight of history attached to it; or specific unique features but, whatever the reason, any attempt to change the building can bring forth a wave of protest. That is fine, and everyone is entitled to their views, but it is the local church that is often faced with big decisions around the future of their buildings. They are frequently on the horn of a dilemma. They have a building that doesn't work for the purposes of a twenty first century church yet to change it in any way will bring a storm of protest.
I do wonder if sometimes society forgets that the historic buildings we have today have not been passed through generations intact and untouched. The church I worship in is a historic building but it has had numerous additions over the years. This, in my view, enhances and improves the building. Yet, as a place for modern worship it is a nightmare. It doesn't help us do what we want to do to make us an attractive place to be. And if we don't do something about that then we will attract less people and have fewer able and willing to maintain what's there. Ultimately I fear that would end up in the decay of the building.
So we have to come to a new understanding about our built heritage. We have to recognise that we shouldn't ride roughshod over past architectural delights. But we also have to make our church buildings living breathing centres of the community, able to be useful for modern living. And where we can't or where the church building has no merit we have to question if it is worth preserving? But we can't achieve this in an atmosphere of criticism and preserve at all costs. Our buildings need to be living, breathing places and that can only happen if we adapt them for today and tomorrow.
Change done thoughtfully and respectfully can be positive. Yes there may be a danger of going too far and we need to be on our guard for that. So we need a better dialogue between all interested parties about how we can make sure we preserve the best of the past to the benefit of the future.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
A great article that summarizes the complex difficulties facing churches at the moment. Thank you.
There appears to be something seriously wrong with the management of All Saints if the vicar and the parishioners involved with the proposed extension can risk such a large sum of money fighting something that did not have the backing of all the congregation or residents of Childwall nor and more importantly the Soc for the Protection of Ancient Building. A quick enquiry to them would have given the vicar an idea whether his proposals would be acceptable. Did they try to get this through with full consultation one asks?
While you make some reasonable - although you generalise horribly - this proposal had to be seen to be believed and in the context of it being attached to Liverpool's only surviving Medieval Church - I would urge you to visit the church to experience it for yourself, there is really nothing like it.
If you do, and as you walk into the main porch look up into the four corners, you will see the four apostles and then bear in mind that the Vicar was going to completely close this entrance - that has been used for 800 years - and use it as storage!!
This wasn't just about an old building - this was about the unnecesary destruction of the church and its history
It should also be understood that the Church already has agreement to double the size of the already substantial Church Hall over the road - which will provide everything the Rotunda was going to provide - kitchen, toilet and offices.
As for Edward's point, this is very interesting to us all. The Vicar and PCC have thrown their weight behind this.
The bad feeling has come from the way the Church has gone about this - secrecy, lies, not contacting ALL grave owners whose graves would be built over,the vicar being witnessed tearing down notices of planning from the lamposts and elsewhere.
Also, this church is connected to 4 very popular church schools where the Vicar has to support parents applications - come to your own conclusions on that one and hence the lack of oposition.
Thanks for your comment Edward. I am not close enough to the project to comment on the level of consultation but the church has received a great deal of backing. Clearly, the Planning Committee felt the objections had more weight than the proposal and it will be down to the church council to consider what they do next.
Thanks Tom. My intention with this piece was not to talk about the specifics of the All Saints case but to use it to highlight the wider issues a case like this raises. I am very keen that, as a diocese, we get into a position where all interested parties can discuss the future of our buildings. The church doesn't want to ride roughshod over the vast historical legacy entrusted to us but we also don't want to burden future generations with increasing costs and diminishing sources of income. The problem is recognised acutely by many of our churches as they live in these buildings (and dare I say make these buildings live). This is never going to be easy and my view is that all interested parties need to find better ways to find solutions together.