PARISH CHURCHES? how do we keep our - Ecclesiological Society

HOW DO WE KEEP OUR PARISH CHURCHES? • CASE STUDIES: THREE DIOCESES 47
It was not the purpose of the 1997 survey to make #rm
proposals for the future. Nevertheless, of the listed
buildings it was suggested that ten (including three of
Grade I or II*) might be made redundant and that eleven
others should have efforts directed to solving the problem
caused by the building, usually by attempting to obtain
grants – the unstated implication being that otherwise the
building might be dif#cult to sustain in use. A further 25
listed buildings were identi#ed as being in need of repair
to continue with their work. Of unlisted church
buildings, the diocese at that time were looking seriously
at the future of about forty.
Thus in 1997 about 30% of churches were not in
satisfactory condition, regardless of grade. Thought was
being given to making as many as 12% of the listed
churches redundant, and perhaps one quarter of the
unlisted ones.
5.3 A mixed diocese: Chelmsford
The diocese of Chelmsford, which covers much of Essex,
is a mix of rural and urban communities, including #ve
London boroughs. In this respect it is a microcosm of the
wider CoE. The diocese has recently carried out a review
of its church buildings, on which this case study is based.
This is available on the internet, and provides a useful
study of the issues and opportunities arising from the
CoE’s historic stock of church buildings. Although
providing an overview of the situation, the report
emphasises that the future of church buildings lies with
local communities.
There are in the diocese some 530 parishes looking
after rather more than 600 church buildings, of which
61% are listed. The total seating capacity is 105,000,
averaging 175 seats per church building, roughly half that
of Manchester. Usual Sunday attendance (at all services) is
39,000, giving a seat utilization of some 37%.
Here as elsewhere the CoE has responded to changing
needs. Since 1968 more than 60 churches have been
declared redundant; conversely, since 1975 there have
been ten or more new church buildings, with six more
under discussion. Some congregations now worship in
schools or other rented premises, and there are many cases
of church buildings being shared with other
denominations, either formally or informally.
As discussed in Section 4.2, since the early 1990s, some
twenty other major redevelopments of existing church
premises have been, or are being, carried out, most or all
of them in urban areas. In total, more than one hundred
of the churches in the diocese have already introduced
adaptations, extensions and re-orderings of the buildings
for wider community use, and a further 30 or so have
speci#c plans in hand. In this context, one third of the
parishes (33%) look forward to further development and
use of their building.
One worry is that in some places church halls are now
reaching the end of their useful life, thus removing a
source of income which is important to many parishes.
CHELMSFORD DIOCESE
Despite the energy of the faithful few, the tears of the
local population, and the indignation of the
preservationists, it seems inevitable that many of these
church buildings [with rural congregations less than
twenty people] will close for worship in the next twenty
years. This will probably happen with a depressed
resignation rather than a positive approach to
re-grouping and renewal, which is a tragedy.
***
The huge restoration programme...isbringing back
into use the Norman church of [...]...Thestruggles
with the heritage bodies, the huge fund-raising, and the
vision for community use and outreach are quite simply
enough for any deanery, let alone a single congregation!
Source: Chelmsford, Review
The extent of this is not quanti#ed, but anecdote suggests
this is repeated elsewhere in England.
As stated above, the average seat usage on Sundays
is 37%. But this hides very wide regional variation within
the diocese, which can be explored by looking at
the 27 deaneries, each of which usually has around twenty
churches. Some deaneries, typically the urban ones, have
average seat usage of well above 50%, whilst others, in
more rural areas, have an average seat usage as low as 15%.
Some 104 churches are in deaneries where the average
seat usage in their deanery is less than 20%. On the other
hand, 123 churches are in deaneries where average seat
usage is higher than 50%. In other words, parts of the
diocese are more ‘over-churched’ than others, when
measured by seat utilisation. This can be seen in
Graph 5.7, which shows the average seat usage for the
#fteen deaneries in West Ham (the most urban
archdeaconry) and Colchester (the most rural). For
example, churches in the urban deanery I have called
‘WH1’ have average utilisation of 51%, whereas at the
other extreme, those in ‘COL10’ average only 15%.
One of the main reasons for this discrepancy is simply
that for historical and other reasons, some areas have
fewer church seats per head of population, and thus #nd it
easier to #ll them.
For example, the #ve London boroughs making up the
West Ham archdeaconry have the fewest seats per head of
population, with roughly 2% as many seats as there are
people living in the area. Here there are 126 church
buildings amongst a population of more than one million.
In contrast, in the more rural archdeaconry of
Colchester the number of seats per head of population is
about four times as great (8%), with nearly twice as many
churches (227) as the London boroughs despite having
only half their population (half a million people).
Although to a certain extent the excess of rural seats is
cancelled out by the tendency for people in rural areas to
be more loyal in attendance, this is not enough to make up
for the underlying difference in number of seats per head
of population. As a result, the London boroughs have
fuller churches than those in the Colchester area.
Graph 5.8 demonstrates this for each deanery. The urban