Written evidence submitted by Dr Kate Jordan and Dr Julie Marsh

Authors

Dr Kate Jordan is a Reader in Architectural History and Theory in the School of Architecture and Cities at the University of Westminster. She is co-course leader of the MA Architecture and Sustainable Heritage and co-convenor of the Architectural Humanities Research Group. She has a background in built-environment heritage and a particular interest in the role of civic groups and statutory consultees, having been a trustee of a local amenity society and a member of the casework committee of a national amenity society. She has an MSc in Historic Building Conservation and a PhD in Architectural History. She has published widely on heritage, with a focus on modern and contemporary places of worship.

Dr. Julie Marsh is a Researcher at the Centre for Research and Education in Arts and Media (CREAM) and serves as the Research Lead for the Arts, Communication, and Culture Research Community at the University of Westminster. Her work is grounded in a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to arts-based research, addressing issues on both local and global scales. With a PhD from the University of the Arts London (UAL), her practice often involves site-specific interventions and partnerships, fostering meaningful connections between art, spatial agency and community empowerment. Additionally, she is an active member of HOMELandS (Hub on Migration, Exile, Languages, and Spaces) at the University of Westminster.

Executive summary

1.  This submission addresses the inquiry in relation to community identity; regeneration; financial, regulatory and practical barriers; and net zero targets. The evidence is drawn from a University of Westminster research project funded by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

2.  The project explores the repurposing of cinemas across England for use as black majority churches (BMCs); gurdwaras; mosques; temples and a Zoroastrian centre. There are an estimated 101 former cinemas in use as places of worship.

3.  We worked with stakeholders at different scales, producing a micro and macro picture of the reuse of cinemas that reveals the benefits and disadvantages of repurposing this building type. We discovered that this varies for different faith groups, with some forms of worship better suited to the spatial organization of former cinemas than others.

4.  We have worked throughout the project alongside Historic England (HE) to understand current policy and practical challenges. We have been assisted by the Cinema Theatre Association (CTA) in compiling a list of cinemas converted to places of worship (PoW).

5.  Religious communities sometimes choose cinemas over purpose-built PoWs and frequently maintain historic buildings to a high standard. This is often done without the support of grants, for which many communities are eligible but often reluctant to apply.

6.  Diaspora communities sometimes face opposition to reusing former cinemas and challenges in negotiating the planning system. HE is aware that some communities are suspicious of local authorities and arms-length bodies and dialogue is sometimes strained.

7.  The adaptive reuse of historic buildings will be vital as the built-environment sector responds to the government’s net zero targets. This may require a reappraisal of the way change is understood as a heritage value.

8.  Adaptive reuse can revitalise local communities and serve as a meaningful representation of cultural diversity and identity within the built environment. Policies should actively promote and support the integration of built heritage into community life, emphasising its role in fostering a sense of shared identity and belonging.

9.               A new wave of closures highlights the threat facing historic cinemas. Faith communities should be encouraged to reuse these buildings, especially those that are listed. Local authorities should be sensitive to the needs of worshipping communities and more positive about the potential benefits they bring to heritage assets.

1.Introduction

1.1 Research priorities

We are submitting evidence drawn from the ongoing two-year RIBA-funded research project, ‘Moving Pictures: Reusing Cinemas as Places of Worship in the Diaspora’ which explores the heritage, planning and community implications of this widespread practice. Key findings from the research address the inquiry in relation to community identity; regeneration; financial, regulatory and practical barriers; and net zero targets.

The Moving Pictures project was informed by a series of knowledge gaps and areas for consideration that were specifically identified by staff at HE. These include:

a)  Identifying where heritage value is increased because of material adaptation

b)  The need for more information on whether faith communities see their buildings as a constraint or as an opportunity

c)  To ascertain whether heritage policy and the process of advice and consent was clear

d)                Identifying the basic spatial needs of different communities

e)  To identify potential new listings or to update information through the Missing Pieces project (formerly Enriching the List).

f)                 Establishing why faith groups choose particular building types

1.2 Data collection

We have visited 25 sites in London, the South, and the Midlands. In addition, we have engaged photographers to visit and photograph 84 sites. We have compiled a survey and database of all of the former cinemas being used as PoW, which we have been adjusting throughout the project as we find PoW opening and closing. The photographs and database have been uploaded to a publicly available website (work in progress):

https://moving-pictures.info/

As well as producing a photographic record, the project has gathered information from unstructured interviews conducted during site visits with religious leaders and worshippers. We have also attended services and ceremonies to observe how the spaces are used. Several sites were selected for closer readings: the Zoroastrian centre, formerly known as Grosvenor Cinema; the Nanaksar Gurdwara Gursikh Temple; the former Star Picture Palace; and the Aziziye Mosque, which was previously the Apollo Picture House. Grassroots perspectives and insights were gained by actively involving each faith community through interactive workshops and peer to peer interviews. The Zoroastrian Centre was then chosen for a granular-scale exploration by employing the ‘site-integrity’ methodology.[1] This approach actively engaged members of the congregation in the capture and analysis of their cultural heritage through a series of co-created film installations. These site-specific artworks examined the role of built heritage in shaping community identity while opening it up to a broader audience to reflect upon and appreciate the evolving nature of this shared cultural asset. 

We held a workshop with the Head of Places of worship at Historic England; two senior policy advisors at HE; a pastor from a BMC in London; the Chairman of the board of directors at the Zoroastrian Centre in London. The workshop enabled dialogue between policy makers and community members who were able to share information on issues related to their buildings. We have given presentations of work in progress to HE’s Places of Worship Forum and received feedback, which has shaped the project. We have liaised with the CTA in compiling a list of cinemas currently in use as places of worship and attended a tour of cinemas led by the association.

2. Evidence

2.1 Survey

A preliminary desk study revealed that there are currently 101 former cinemas in use as PoW in England. Of these, 39 are in London; 29 are in the south; 14 are in the Midlands; and 19 are in the North. 24 are listed with 8 of these at grade II*. 14 of those that are listed are in London. 77 of the former cinemas that we have identified are churches or Kingdom Halls; 3 are gurdwaras; 3 are Hindu temples; 17 are mosques; and one is a Zoroastrian Centre.

2.2 Expenditure and grants

Most of the sites that we visited were in a state of disrepair before being purchased by the communities. Many communities have financed repairs and restorations without the support of grants - in the case of the Zoroastrian centre in London, the building was subsequently removed from the Heritage at Risk Register. This is often the case with BMCs, which are frequently well-resourced through congregational tithes. However, some communities have benefited from grants. One BMC in a listed former cinema in Nottingham has secured an NLHF grant for works which they anticipate will allow the building to be removed from the Heritage at Risk Register. Registering a building as ‘at risk’ can allow access to grants but this is sometimes difficult. In one case, the pastor of a London BMC claimed that the council had blocked an attempt to register a listed cinema as ‘at risk’ as it would have a negative impact on the local environment. Additionally, the pastor was concerned that the council had the right to compulsorily purchase the building if it was not maintained to a high enough standard - something that was difficult to afford without a grant.

2.3 Spatial needs

Some groups specifically choose cinemas. One pastor at a London BMC told us that the national group had a growth strategy that included purchasing empty cinemas once the congregation had grown in sufficient numbers. This particular congregation had relocated from a redundant Victorian church. One transnational church has purchased four former cinemas in London, one of which is their national headquarters. Another group has two churches in London operating in former cinemas.

Cinemas are well-suited to Pentecostal worship and some communities have reinstated rakes and fixed seating, returning the buildings to their original form. In one London BMC, the community had commissioned custom-made fixed seating that closely resembled the original cinema seating. Pentecostal congregations make full use of the screens and stage, which provides a platform for musical instruments; thrones; a lectern, an altar and in some churches, baptismal pools. However, the spatial organization of cinemas is less suited to Muslim, Sikh and Hindu worship and the conversion into PoWs by these groups has required more significant internal alterations. One mosque in a grade II listed former cinema in London removed the rake and seating when they acquired the building in 1997. In another mosque in a grade II listed former cinema in Portsmouth, the community has applied for permission to remove the rake and fixed seating from the circle in order to expand the worship space. Although the original configurations and fittings do not suit all forms of worship, the buildings were still valued by all of the communities that we spoke to and there were no plans to relocate, despite relatively high operating costs; at least 72 of the 99 former cinemas recorded on our database have been PoWs for 10 years or more. One example in Coventry has been a gurdwara for longer than it was in use as a cinema.

Former cinemas are well-suited to large congregations in urban centres. They are sound-proofed, often have parking or are near to public transport links. They offer a variety of spaces including large auditoriums for collective worship; kitchens; toilet and ablution facilities. Ancillary spaces can be used as women’s prayer spaces; offices or rooms for activities such as language classes and Sunday schools. One mosque in Birmingham that we visited has incorporated a mortuary. Most of the sites visited are large enough to operate as community centres as well as places of worship, allowing groups to maintain cultural practices and multigenerational social bonds.

2.4 Place identities

The communities that we spoke to often knew a great deal about the history and architectural features of their buildings and valued these. In two BMCs in London, the communities had spent money undertaking sensitive and costly internal restorations to unlisted buildings where there was no obligation to do so. The manager of one London BMC, told us that the community particularly valued the original gothic-style internal decoration of the listed building as it is reminiscent of a church.

Some migrant faith groups have faced resistance from local communities in repurposing cinemas as PoWs. A noted example of this is the campaign against the conversion of a listed cinema into an Islamic Centre in north London (the site was subsequently converted to a church)[2]. Another example from east London (a listed cinema purchased by a church in 2003) saw a long-running dispute between the applicant and local community ending with the application being turned down by the Secretary of State in 2013.[3] More recently, the current application to convert a cinema in central London into a mosque has prompted written objections that the local authority has condemned as racist.[4] There is evidence that some local authorities regard places of worship as having a negative effect on high streets. One change of use application from a religious group in south east London was refused permission on the basis that it would ‘undermine the area’s vitality’[5]. In an unsuccessful application in Luton, the planning inspector judged that the proposed conversion failed to ‘enhance aspirations for the regeneration of the town’.[6]

Some faith groups open buildings to the wider public and participate in heritage open days and interfaith events. Many are sensitive to the fact that former cinemas are often meaningful to members of the local community and are important landmarks. Some communities have a religious obligation (known as the Langar for Sikhs and Prasadam for Hindus) of offering free food to all visitors. Others are less amenable to external visitors and access to these sites has sometimes been difficult. This is sometimes due to a broad suspicion of officialdom and is particularly the case with Pentecostal churches, which are the group most likely to be operating in listed buildings,

3. Analysis

3.1 Planning considerations and community liaison

Purpose-built cinemas are difficult to reuse. Many were repurposed as bingo halls in the past but most of these have subsequently closed. A recent wave of cinema closures has prompted concern from the Twentieth Century Society who recognise the challenges of reusing these buildings.[7] Developers are likely to present a bigger heritage threat to cinemas than faith groups as they tend to be interested in potentially destructive residential or hospitality reuse. Empty buildings, even those that are listed, face demolition threats where land value is high, particularly in London and the South. An example of this is the listed Astoria Theatre in Brighton which closed in 1997 and was finally delisted and demolished in 2018.

The reluctance among some diaspora faith groups to apply for grants may be due to a concern that there are strings attached, particularly in relation to making the buildings more accessible to the public. However, the groups seem to have a generally good relationship with the CTA; through an organised CTA tour, we were able to visit a church in a grade II* listed cinema in London that we had previously been unable to access. At the Zoroastrian Centre, the CTA had worked with the community to produce a written history of the building. Amenity societies might operate as a good mediator between faith communities and official bodies.

3.2 Listing

From our discussions with communities, it was clear that listing was not generally perceived as positive because of the financial burden of conservation standard maintenance. However, though local listing may be a good alternative in some circumstances, statutory listing remains the most effective way of preventing the loss of or damage to historic fabric. While our research focuses on the needs of faith communities, we are also keenly aware of the importance of protecting historic buildings; in many cases cinemas are not only architecturally significant but also operate as vital records of social history. We have looked at the listing descriptions for all of the listed cinemas under consideration and conclude that there may be work to do in representing these buildings in more detail through the Missing Pieces Project.[8] We note that there is no Introduction to Heritage Assets on cinemas and the latest version (2017) of the Listing Selection Guide to Culture and Entertainment Buildings, contains just two paragraphs on cinemas.[9] In addition, we note that there is an uneven distribution of listed cinemas, with by far the highest concentration in London and the South. We have not yet found examples of buildings that we would consider potential listings but we are aware that a comprehensive audit of extant cinemas remains to be done and may reveal these. With an increased focus on special historic interest, looking beyond the original use and fabric could lead to more buildings listed because their  adaption and reuse has added additional layers of interest, reflecting wider societal changes.

3.3. Adaptive reuse

The RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge Checklist states that the built-environment sector must ‘prioritise the retention, reuse and repurposing of existing buildings where possible and where retrofit upgrades make carbon sense from a whole life perspective.’[10] The Historic England climate change strategy also states that ‘reusing our buildings is one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and eliminate unnecessary waste.’[11] Reusing cinemas as places of worship extends their useful life; requires minimal retrofit; and retains embodied carbon.

Adaptive reuse allows us to celebrate the contributions that diverse communities have made to the historic landscape. This aligns with Historic England’s current inclusion, diversity and equality statement, which is committed to ensuring that ‘people from every community will be able to see their own culture and heritage represented in the work of Historic England and feel that the historic environment is relevant to them’[12]. In many cases, the former cinemas that we have visited have been enhanced by the new life that religious communities have bestowed, while at the same time honoring their longer history. This goes beyond material change and includes the intangible heritage that new practices bring to reused spaces. Reusing these buildings has brought benefits to the wider neighborhood, helping to revitalize empty high streets, which brings economic benefits and enhances perceptions of public safety.

4. Recommendations

4.1 General recommendations

●       Local planning authorities (LPAs) should be sensitive to the needs of migrant faith communities and more positive about the potential benefits they bring. Concerns about the negative impact of PoWs on urban regeneration may be misplaced and undermine community cohesion.

●       LPAs should consider reasons behind objections and assess whether these are motivated by religious or racial intolerance. There is the potential for local authorities to act as enablers as well as regulators

●       LPAs should be more active in reassuring communities that faith groups often save buildings that are important to the history of a neighbourhood.

●       There is a general need for more informed dialogue with non-traditional faith communities. LPAs should be encouraged to visit places of worship to learn more about the way the buildings function and how they operate as community assets.

●       Conversely, for some faith communities there is a need for more accessibility of buildings to the wider local communities (e.g. through heritage open days).  Some faith communities can be closed and insular, but former cinemas are important physical and social landmarks for local communities.

●       There should be more potential for ‘trade-offs’. For example, the addition of stairs to the circle is particularly important for the occupation of ‘super’ cinemas by Pentecostal churches. This alteration might be offset by the reinstatement of raked seating and seating in the circle.

●       Faith communities could be helped with advice to see the financial attractions of fully utilising former cinemas – especially those which are listed (e.g. hiring out spaces for weddings, performances, conferences and other functions).

●       Planners and heritage professionals could make better use of local and specialist amenity societies. These groups may have established networks and detailed knowledge that statutory consultees such as the Twentieth Century Society lack.

●       Cinemas face heritage threats due to a new wave of closures. More work is needed to record historic cinemas, particularly outside London and the South, and work with communities to reuse and protect them.

●       Cinemas were reclassified as Sui Generis Use Class in 2020. It may be useful to explore whether this has impacted planning applications made by religious groups.

4.2 Recommendations for changes in national policy and guidance

1. Amend List Entries to reflect change of use and use the Missing Pieces Project to provide additional context to enrich understanding.

2. Develop case studies to highlight successful conversion of cinemas into places of worship, to host on Historic England’s website. 

3. Signpost to relevant and accessible guidance on engaging heritage/conservation professionals and provide further support to LPAs in engaging positively with faith communities at an early stage in the planning process.

4. Undertake a thematic listing review of underrepresented types of cinema. Develop an Introduction to Heritage Assets (IHA) on cinemas that highlights the practice of reuse as places of worship. Consider developing an IHA on the reuse of both secular and faith buildings.