Written evidence submitted by the Methodist Church

We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on this important issues. We hope our submission can be given due consideration in your deliberations.

About us

The calling of the Methodist Church is to respond to the gospel of God's love in Christ and to live out its discipleship in worship and mission. The Church exists to a) Increase the awareness of God’s presence and celebrate God’s love (Worship); b) Help people to grow and learn as Christians, through mutual support and care (Learning and Caring); c) Be a good neighbour to people in need and to challenge injustice (Service); and d) Make more followers of Jesus Christ (Evangelism).

The Methodist church is responsible for nearly 4000 buildings many of which are considered to be heritage assets, whether designated or not. Historic places of worship have public value because they are there, offering an open door to a freely accessible quiet space. They are also one of the best freely-accessible collections of important art, architecture, family history, national craft and generations of memory. Their heritage can present creative missional possibilities and can provide a valuable opportunity to explore rootedness, authenticity and purpose, as well as attract tourists and play their part in pilgrimage and heritage trails.

From small country chapels with a few rows of benches, a pulpit and harmonium, to the great city chapels with encircling galleries, rostrum-pulpits and mighty organs, Nonconformist places of worship have made an important contribution to English life for more than three centuries.[1]

Indeed, we are very proud of our built legacy and despite the fact that many former chapels are now disused or have seen conversion, they remain characteristic and often notable buildings in settlements in all parts of the country. Those that do remain within our care bring increasing social and economic value to the communities in which they reside, often acting as community hubs or as a "national help service" by offering vital support services like food banks, youth groups, mental health counselling, and more. Consequently, they assist in significantly alleviating the current pressure on the NHS and provide a crucial safety net for vulnerable individuals, particularly in deprived areas. [2] They provide a network of social support which helps to build more resilient and socially cohesive communities which results in huge wellbeing benefits. 

But churches are guaranteed no support from governments, and many are in danger of closure. 

In England, there are now over 900 places of worship on Historic England's Heritage at Risk Register – with 53 more added in 2023.  In Wales, 25 per cent of historic churches and chapels have closed in the last decade. The Church of Scotland is actively planning to close as many as 30-40 per cent of its churches. Churches are in crisis and urgently need support. 

Our Representation to the Consultation:

1. What are the most significant challenges facing owners and operators of built heritage assets, and how are they affecting what those sites can offer?

What interventions are needed to prevent the managed decline of heritage assets on publicly-owned land?

Most of the major Nonconformist denominations have shared in the general decline of church going over the past half century, but our buildings have been disproportionately vulnerable to demolition or inappropriate adaptation. [3] Urban examples have been most vulnerable to demolition, while smaller rural examples have often been adapted for residential use or as artist studios and workshops. It is true however, that we now see more instances of sensitive adaptation for public or social enterprise use and in some instances our chapels have been taken on by other religious groups, often of other faiths.

It has been the case that, for our most significant examples, a safe depository could be found in the Historic Chapels Trust, set up in 1993 to take custody of a selection of closed, non-Anglican places of worship of high significance. Sadly, due to a lack of funding, the future of the Trust is in jeopardy. Given the current forecasts, many of our traditional Nonconformist denominations will continue to see decline, so that a large number of historic chapels is likely to close. With no suitable depository, it is likely that this will result in the loss of some of our most significant examples, which are then at risk of being insensitively adapted for unsympathetic new uses.

Whilst it is true that chapels that continue in use have commonly been altered to provide improved community facilities, or to allow for more flexible forms of worship, several challenges face those concerned for the future of historic Nonconformist buildings. Our congregation numbers are unfortunately shrinking and our members are ageing, making our legacy vulnerable to risk given increased costs and often serious maintenance demands. Those responsible for our churches are volunteers, often involved in projects because of their spiritual calling, not because of a desire to be involved in building conservation. Whilst there is some help from the wider Circuit and District, there is no financial support available via this centralised system. Each local church therefore is responsible for the financial sustainability, ongoing cost and maintenance of each church building. This makes our churches relatively unique in that if the task of maintenance proves too overwhelming or becomes financially unsustainable, the people responsible for their day to day care may simply walk away.

These smaller congregations are now having to look after some very large buildings. Moreover, often the volunteers are poorly equipped or skilled in the proper conservation of listed church buildings, both in terms of compliance with complex legislation and/or taking forward major development schemes to sustain the church as a society in the building. Indeed, in the few instances where major church led development has taken place, it has been through happenstance and good luck (in terms of having members with the right skills) rather than good planning.

Recommendations:

a) Government should recognise the relationship our volunteers have to the churches in their care and the large burdens placed on them to sustain this important heritage.

b) Government should recognise therefore its leadership role. It should work cross-party, with the principal denominations and with civil society to develop a plan of action for the future of our church buildings.

c) Government should consider the future of the Historic Chapels Trust and ensure provision is put in place for a sustainable and a secure depository for Chapels of Nonconformist denominations when no longer needed for this purpose.

2. What can the Government do to make it easier for communities or local businesses to take ownership of historic buildings?

The most optimum use of a historic building once its original use has ceased, is typically adaptive reuse, which involves repurposing the building for a new function while still preserving its significant historical features and architectural integrity. For churches, these uses would be community-focused uses like museums, cultural centres, libraries, educational spaces, or creative hubs, depending on the building's character and location. However, community groups have often found it difficult to take over ownership of our buildings once religious use ceases. This is for a number of reasons but mainly because of the need to meet the obligations of the Methodist Church Act 1976 and the Charities Act 2022.

The Government’s Community Ownership Fund went some way to address this, by offering funding to groups to make up any shortfall and help groups compete with developers and others to meet competitive market values. The continuation of the scheme should be encouraged. Similarly, the Acts prevent Trustees from easy transfer to Housing Associations, or Community Land Trusts, who provide much needed affordable homes and/or community spaces or energy schemes and conservation landscapes. This would be preferable for many Methodist’s wishing to see their buildings utilised for affordable housing, especially in areas such as North Wales, Devon or Cornwall where affordable housing is in short supply and where we have a high number of churches and chapels.

Recommendations:

d) The government should formally review, with the sector, the current regulatory barriers and difficulties where government has a role (e.g. Methodist Act, Charities Act);

e) The Community Ownership Fund should continue.

3. How effective are the current funding and finance models for built heritage?

What should long-term public funding for the sector look like?

One of the greatest challenges for sustaining our historic assets is the lack of strategic, long term and co-ordinated funding from government, heritage partners and private funders. Unlike in Europe where the state plays a major role in supporting religious buildings, either through systems of ownership (France) or taxation (Germany or Italy), the UK does not have a secure pipeline of funding from government.

Yet the dependency on external funding for sustainability and maintenance has grown, particularly for major repairs which is becoming more of a challenge given our ageing building stock. The current funding climate for both large and small works requires a skill set that often has to be commissioned, and is frequently above the capacity of local church volunteers, particularly in deprived areas.

Some of our church led developments, for instance at Truro and Ashbourne, have recently benefitted from the government’s Levelling up Funding. This will see the creation of community hubs at both churches in partnership with the local authorities there, but despite considerable financial assistance through the fund, further grant monies are needed from the Lottery and multiple other smaller funders. Consequently, an issue with one fund can put the whole project into jeopardy. Finding funding is not only precarious, stressful and competitive (with other churches/charities in the locale) but can be an extremely lengthy process.

Sadly, it is also true that match funding is often needed and can only be found through the sale of other church owned buildings and the merger of church congregations, with listed churches often chosen to release the society of a so called ‘burden’. This is by no means a sustainable model. The significance of a building is, sadly, not a material consideration in whether it is disposed of, which can result in the loss of significant listed buildings, possibly in an area earmarked for future development.

Also, whilst the funding landscape has improved in terms of repairs (and as we know, it is roofs, gutters, access etc. that are the principal issues) funding for major repairs remains very difficult indeed. Our buildings are deteriorating, there are now some 943 places of worship on the At Risk Register. Whilst some Places of Worship have been removed, the number added to the list is growing. Leading us to believe they are one of the building types most at risk. Rescue tends to come as a result of a co-ordinated approach by local people, communities, charities, owners and funders. Indeed, our recent removals from the list have come about because they have been disposed of and are no longer in active use (not because they have been rescued and continue as a Place of Worship or community building).

The Methodist Church has benefitted greatly from the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which makes a tremendous difference to those church carrying out essential repairs of all sizes. However, it currently operates for one financial year at a time with no guarantee that it will be extended to the next one. Whilst we welcome the recent announcement to continue the scheme until March 2026, we wish to argue for some degree of permanence, preferably without a cap on the value of an application, which will prohibit the implementation of major projects.

A permanent extension would reduce anxiety given that the fund-raising, planning and execution of larger restoration or repair projects, especially, can easily extend over many years, with long-term contractual commitments relying on certainty of funding. It would greatly assist the care and maintenance of listed places for worship, and encourage those volunteers who are responsible for them, if the Scheme could be given some degree of permanence. Moreover, we would also wish to argue for the scheme to be extended to the Isle of Man, given that our churches here do not currently benefit from the scheme. 

However, whilst we applaud and are encouraged by the National Lottery Heritage Fund’s renewed focus on Places of Worship and Heritage at Risk, we would strongly argue in favour of repairs funding without additional requirements. Minor Repairs funds, such as those piloted as part of the Taylor Review, were helpful to churches and encouraged engagement with us to tackle minor repairs which brings a range of positive other outcomes in terms of public engagement and increased activity. We would therefore encourage a historic fabric first approach, with the public and community benefits (social and community uses) being a benefit rather than the primary purpose. Securing the historic fabric both ensures that the building is available for ongoing activities and, enables staff to focus on other activities.

We are extremely grateful to the government for the recent Heritage Stimulus Fund, but our churches are unable to respond to one off, short term funding streams such as these. Our congregations are not prepared to respond quickly to adhoc streams and often do not have work schedules prepared in readiness. Thus we would encourage longer term and a more co-ordinated approach to funding for the future, such as a new capital funding scheme for listed buildings of all faiths and denominations, establishing a recurring fund of at least £50 million per year, with proportionate funding provided for the devolved administrations.

We also wish to acknowledge the findings of the Taylor Review Pilot which focussed on the sustainability of English churches and Cathedrals and incorporated non-conformist churches and chapels in its work. This primarily recommended increasing community use of church buildings, implementing more strategic maintenance and repair plans and establishing a system of Fabric Support Officers and Community Development Officers to provide expert advice on building upkeep through better management and wider community engagement. We would encourage the government to revisit the Taylor Review with a view to action and take forward policy development. We consider the combined approach of minor repairs and community development to be the key to the sustainability of our church building, with the latter helping our churches to engage more with their local communities and the former ensuring the buildings are weather and watertight so further activities and outreach can take place. Reviewing the Taylor Review model would offer the opportunity to look at ways in which funding could be introduced for minor repairs, as well as unplanned and planned maintenance.

We would also wish to see greater funding for Historic England, in particular their Heritage at Risk Fund be increased in order to address the growing threat to our vulnerable Places of Worship. Building defects have been proactively addressed with the use of this fund, which is only open to those churches who hold a moral objection to taking Lottery money, which includes many Methodist churches. We would also encourage the continuation of the Heritage at Risk Register in England, wish to see the improvement of the Register in Wales and the reinstatement of the Register in Scotland.

Recommendations:

f) Until progress can be made toward a zero VAT regime for repair and maintenance, the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme should be made permanent, and return to being fully funded without a cap. This should be extended to include the Isle of Man also;

g) We propose a new capital funding scheme for listed buildings of all faiths and denominations, establishing a recurring fund of at least £50 million per year, with proportionate funding provided for the devolved administrations. The majority of the cost should be covered by the taxpayer, and should be administered in collaboration with relevant organisations in the faith buildings and heritage sector. This should be based on the successful model of the Capital Repair Fund/Culture Recovery Fund;

h) Revisit the Taylor Review with a view to action/policy development particularly in terms of the combined community development and fabric repair model for all churches;

i) Consider the case for funding for minor repairs, unplanned maintenance and planned maintenance; and

j) As part of the funding environment, for monitoring and resource allocation, encourage the continued Heritage at Risk Register in England, improve the Register for Wales and reinstate the register for Scotland.

4. What role does built heritage play in the regeneration of local areas and in contributing to economic growth and community identity?

The value to the public by investing in historic places of worship is considerable, not only is it supporting congregations who are already proactively getting on with the job of keeping these buildings available to everyone but there is real value to the general public with such government spending. The regeneration of the built heritage is extremely important as can be seen in successful schemes covering areas, such as the Heritage Action Zone Schemes, as well as individual buildings, whose regeneration can act as a catalyst for wider regeneration.

Historic environments are economic catalysts and repositories for culture and heritage capital that attract businesses and investors. By utilising, re-purposing and investing in heritage, communities can create vibrant spaces and structures for diverse businesses. The built heritage is a significant pull factor for business and tourism, it can be a catalyst for high street renewal, enhances local property markets, and contributes to life satisfaction. Heritage volunteering increases productivity and wellbeing as can visiting heritage sites.

Listed places of worship are important for tourism. Indeed, 45 per cent of all Grade I listed buildings in England are in the care of the Church of England, and amongst these are the cathedrals and major churches such as Canterbury, St Paul’s and Westminster Abbey and York Minister which are an important tourist attraction. But churches and chapels all over the UK help “make” the townscapes that visitors come to see. In 2023, VisitBritain forecast 38.7m inbound visits for 2024 and £32.5bn in spending by visitors.

But the regeneration of our historic building environment also brings considerable social value. It is widely evidenced that heritage engagement can play a key role in tackling mental health by reducing anxiety and stress and can help reduce NHS costs associated with mental health. Historic churches play an important role in bringing people together in a shared, safe space. They help build social capital, encouraging personal relationships, providing social network support, civic engagement and trust and co-operation; they are important community facilities that enable us to spend time with others, which is particularly important in a post-Covid world. [4]  Furthermore, especially in rural areas, the local church or chapel is often an important venue in the village for events such as public meetings and concerts.

How can heritage buildings be supported to increase energy efficiency and contribute to the Government’s net zero targets?

The Methodist Church is committed to being a growing, evangelistic, inclusive, justice-seeking Church committed to climate action. Historic places of worship are facing new challenges as a result of climate change striving, with their communities to achieve Net Zero Carbon by 2030, while also providing emergency shelter and sanctuary for those most affected by extreme weather conditions. Our programme involves each religious group developing a long-term action plan to determine how they will manage their assets and resources over the next seven to ten years. We are calling our plan Action for Hope. We are grateful to receive funding via the recent VCSE Energy Efficiency Scheme administered through the Groundwork Trusts, which provided funding for energy audits and capital works in a phased programme of works. We would wish for this to be continued permanently as our churches struggle to find funding particularly for energy audits. A contribution towards survey work needed to assess the impact of proposed decarbonisation projects for our most significant buildings may also be helpful. 

Greater support is needed to develop green/net zero skills in the heritage sector through bespoke training, apprenticeship, and accreditation support. NLHF’s recent funding boost will creat opportunities to support young people developing skills. Good routine maintenance is the first step to preparedness and small measures can help us prepare for extreme weather. Our churches often struggle to find competent contractors with the necessary skill and experience to conserve historic building fabric. Apprenticeships and local colleges should be encouraged to learn basic and specialist skills to ensure our church fabric is able to withstand the changing climate.

Installations of energy saving materials (ESMs) in residential accommodation currently benefit from a temporary VAT zero rate until 31 March 2027, after which they will revert to the reduced rate of VAT at 5%. The stated policy objective of the measure, introduced under the previous Government is “to incentivise the installation of ESMs across the UK to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions”. It would both support the built heritage and contribute to the Government’s net zero targets if the current zero rate were extended, at the least, to listed non-residential buildings and, preferably, continued beyond 31 March 2027.

We would also take this opportunity to ask for revised and clearer National Planning Policy Guidance on the need for Planning Permission for solar panels on non-domestic buildings, including churches. We find that despite listed building approval being granted under the Ecclesiastical Exemption there is little consistency on how local planning authorities determine planning applications. Indeed we also find that local authorities are unable to offer churches clear guidance on when Planning permission is required. This, we believe is due to a failure to resource an adequate provision of Conservation Officer posts at local level, something we would wish the Government could recognise and rectify.

Recommendations:

k) Commission a study with the main tourism associations into how to make more of the unrivalled heritage of the UK's churches;

l) Ask local authorities and public bodies such as the NHS to engage with faith groups, make more use of their premises, helping to upgrade facilities where needed;

m) Continuation of the VCSE Energy Efficiency Scheme administered through the Groundwork Trusts and extended to the devolved administrations;

n) Greater support is needed to develop green/net zero skills in the heritage sector through bespoke training, apprenticeship, and accreditation support;

o) Consider the case for funding for minor repairs, unplanned maintenance, planned maintenance as per recommendation i) above given that good maintenance is the first step in making our buildings more energy efficient;

p) Apprenticeships and local colleges should be encouraged to learn basic and specialist skills to ensure our church fabric is able to withstand the changing climate;

q) Extend the current zero rate, at the least, to listed non-residential buildings and, preferably, continued beyond 31 March 2027; and

r) Better resource the provision of Conservation Officers at Local Planning Authority level to ensure more efficient, consistent and timely advice on the need for formal consents relating to energy efficiency measures.

5. What are the financial, regulatory and practical barriers to preserving built heritage?

What policy changes are needed to make restoring historic buildings easier and less expensive?

What policies would ensure the UK workforce has the right skills to maintain our heritage assets?

Historic church buildings are distinct in many ways, including the set of issues which they face across the Western world, and are different from most other heritage. Solutions are multi-faceted and need to be long term. There is a need to engage in a national conversation about their future with a commitment to raise the profile of the current risks facing them, and to acknowledge their vulnerability. A proactive approach to policy development is required with a cross party approach.

Our churches and chapels, including their fittings and fixtures – some of which are of historic, artistic and social significance, require specialists with professional accreditation in careers including archaeology, architecture, conservation, and planning, who can provide guidance on everything from structural repairs to toilets, wall murals to stained glass. The Methodist Church relies on the expertise and experience of the many building and heritage specialists around the country to support our work to keep our nation’s heritage assets accessible, safe, and sustainable.

However, the dwindling number of heritage specialists and skilled craftspeople is likely to lead to a loss of the knowledge needed and an increase in the cost of such specialised works. We wish to acknowledge the continued support of Historic England, the Government and the wider heritage sector in helping to sustain the crafts and heritage skills needed to conserve our historic churches and their interiors through schemes such as the Heritage Apprentice scheme. However, more is required if we are to ensure easier and less expensive access to specialist contractors and professionals. This should include raising the visibility of heritage skills in education so school age children can see heritage skills as a viable choice. The curriculum could include working on heritage buildings and should make training on crafts and trades, as well as mechanical and engineering skills available so a greater number of students can understand the specialist knowledge required when working with heritage buildings.

Recommendations:

s) Engage in a national conversation about the future of religious built heritage, with a view to adopting a proactive approach to policy development on the subject;

t) Raise the visibility of heritage skills in education so school age children can see heritage skills as a viable choice; and

u) Include, in the curriculum, working on heritage buildings and make training on crafts and trades, as well as mechanical and engineering skills available so a greater number of students can understand the specialist knowledge required when working with heritage buildings.

We trust the above is useful, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of the Consultation.

Kind Regards

Joanne

Joanne Balmforth BA (Hons), MSc (Arch Cons), IHBC  
Conservation Officer | The Connexional Team