CHAPTER 2: Developing, Managing and the Holy Spirit:
St Ed’s was originally a missional plant from St Andrews, Mottingham, built alongside the estate in 1936, on farmland[1] as housing for families moving from inner London Councils. Land was given to Southwark Diocese,[2] for church and community use with a George VI clause[3] preventing other development.
The hall was built in 1936 but plans to build a ‘proper’ church and vicarage were delayed by WWII. Ravensworth Primary School opened as war began in 1939 but it was 1958 before today’s Church was consecrated and Mottingham Estate became an independent parish.
By 2017 there were still people in the congregation and estate who helped build the church, giving a sense of living history and community ownership as strong factors in community support for the church.
Conversations about developing St Edward’s began in the 1980’s, varying from adding a meeting room to mezzanine floors, separating church and community space, and developing the hall and vicarage garden for housing. During this time Age UK leased the hall for a Day Centre, adding a shower room, catering kitchen, office and wheelchair access.
As a smaller building, with lower ceilings and effective heating, the hall was easier to maintain, generated income, housed community outreach and was an alternative church in cold weather.
St Ed’s was lucky to have and maintain alternative facilities; some parishes have nothing; others cannot manage them leading to disrepair and downward spirals, until they become liabilities. Age Concern’s investment fostered mission lived out in service, possibly to the detriment of the church, which it was perceived could not attract people or investment.
The Church building was protected by the five-yearly[4] inspection. Faced with buildings problems PCCs can feel overwhelmed. Much depends on the vicar[5] and skills lotteries eg whether volunteers like churchwardens and PCC trustees have experience as buildings professionals to manage churches. St Edward’s had a plumber and carpenter but neither could manage a building project or the fundraising involved. The PCC had limited budgeting expertise and was in deficit.
When Age UK left the hall in 2010 the church started running community meals and youth clubs. The Community Forum[6] attracted others to the vision of growing St Ed’s as the ‘Heart of the Community’. Pews were replaced with chairs but changes of vicars and lack of capacity meant that other ideas stalled at architects’ plans, a not uncommon scenario where parishes are left to fund and deliver projects.[7]
The Tudor Trust funded a project manager accountable to a community partnership which believed the church was shrinking, and the only hope was community. The project manager did not have capacity to develop activities, fundraise and manage a building project. 2015 plans to develop the site were displayed but no community feedback was recorded. The PCC had been disempowered and the plans were unaffordable.
Consistent vision and hope was needed for the Church to build for mission. This came from consistent leadership, celebration of the church’s history, location, context, role in the community and renewed missional confidence, challenging narratives of church decline as church became the fastest growing activity on the site.
Architectural Problems:
Instead of community vision and grand plans the new vicar started by asking church members, those who used the building, what they wanted to see and, with the PCC, identified the key architectural challenges.
The church’s 14 meter height, pitched roofs, concrete Gothic arches and walls and 28 tall, clear glass windows, created remarkable natural lighting but a cold building.
Flat, asphalt-covered side roofs had perished; water seeped through the ceiling and into walls. Despite emergency patching, mouldy plaster and inadequate heating made the church cold, damp and inhospitable. The wonderful light emphasized the grime.
Concrete block foundations and water table changes, exacerbated by climate change and above-average rainfall, created subsidence, tracked by tell-tales from the late 1970’s. By 2017 a large crack bisected the church floor, reflecting cracks along the estates’ roads. Making the building sound and warm were the top priorities identified by 2018 church and community consultation.
Previous plans had been drawn up by the project manager and groups who largely used the hall. By focusing instead on responses from those who regularly used the church building, church goers and a children’s drama group, the vision of what was practically needed in the building was better grounded. The first priority became the need to fix the heating system and the leaking roof.
This also meant that the worship at the heart of the building was re-captured with more consideration given to the practicalities of church services, like getting coffins into church for funerals. Previous plans envisaged a church upstairs meaning that coffins would have to go upstairs in a lift. This was legally important as worship is not only the heart of the church’s life, it is also the planning law designation.
The project was blessed with an architect who caught the renewed vision, for church and community, making conversations about what was architecturally possible much easier.
Governance issues:
Yet not everyone got the vision. After the first project manager left in 2015, suffering from burn-out and the vicar in 2016 due to illness, there was an exodus of community members from the committee. Instead of advertising for a new project manager, the PCC appointed a recently-retired youth worker who concentrated on project development but had no fundraising or building experience.
Confusion over governance followed. In theory the project was a PCC sub-committee.
The parish registered with the Charity Commission but with the sub-committee name, whose chair line-managed the project manager, opened a separate bank account and purported to develop a separate constitution. Neither was accountable to the PCC, who were disabled by the changes. This confused Funders who could see the Charity was a Church of England parish but called something different.
The vision drifted. Without adequate PCC consultation CCTV was installed on the hall[8] and hall doors were replaced, against advice, with a design that was unsuitable for regular use. By 2017 the doors were falling off their hinges, regularly triggering the burglar alarm. In 2019 the PCC approved new, secure, doors costing less than the ‘temporary’ ones.
Sorting out governance and empowering the PCC was important to re-set vision, accountability and missional focus. Partnerships in the wider community and community feedback were also important but empowering the Church community to manage their building was at the heart of that engagement.
A joint Away Day agreed that the Church would resume control of the building. The sub-committee, supposedly representing the community, would develop community projects in partnership with the PCC. A joint building sub-committee would manage the building development.
Although the sub-committee was supposed to represent the community it was the church that carried out the community consultation, fundraised and developed most of the new projects. It also remained more representative of the community with 75% of the PCC living on the estate and 100% involved in the church.
Although the sub-committee was developed as a separate charity, to give it more independence of the church, it never achieved such levels of community involvement, particularly at decision-making levels, and most people saw their activities as church activities.
With hindsight creating a separate charity was a mistake as it led to serious complications and divisions, never added a penny to the project and ultimately finished in toxic opposition and stress that could have been avoided!
[1] Mottingham, Model, Court and Chapel Farms
[2] Which had been created out of Rochester Diocese in 1905, one of a number of Dioceses created between 1840-1935 to respond to the Victorian expansion of populations in urban areas. Eg Liverpool from Chester in 1880; Manchester from Chester between 1847 to 1933; Birmingham from Worcester Diocese in 1905
[3] A legal device creating indefinite limits
[4] Quinquennial Inspection, mandatory for historic buildings under conservation legislation.
[5] Often the only paid and appointed
[6] A church trend across the country at that time.
[7] Contrast Roman Catholic and Methodist centralised property management. See Rev Charles Chadwick https://www.houseofgood.nationalchurchestrust.org/why-church-buildings-matter-today/; Simon Jenkins, Guardian 07.04.23; ‘Decline of church going doesn’t have to mean the decline of churches;’
[8] 4 years late CCTV remotes, of which the PCC were unaware, were found in the Project Manager’s desk.
New conversations and questionnaires to all site users confirmed that the priority was making the building usable, with new heating, tackling damp, toilets, access and hot water as top priorities. Other priorities included a church kitchen, enabling two fully-equipped venues and more flexibility for hirers and larger groups. Other requests included sprung-wood floors for dance and exercise; storage space, meeting rooms, office space, improved sound, prayer space…. And above all, flexible space.
Fundraising research identified varied funding approaches in terms of conditions, matched funding, contribution to particular items of the project or the whole picture. As the majority of grant-makers wanted to fund particular parts of the project it was agreed to plan the project in stages, so as to enable progress as funds became available rather than seeking all the funds before starting.
This had the advantage of keeping the project moving and hedged to an extent against inflation though overall project management might be less efficient. It also provided many more opportunities to engage with the community at each stage, to evaluate the plans, the development stage and the fit for mission. There was an exciting sense that this time the Holy Spirit was with the project, guiding, encouraging and blessing.
First steps:
Yet there would be no point developing the interior of the building if the outside and floors were unsound. The renewed community consultation gave us a clear steer to sort out the heating and damp and generated excitement in the community.
EIG insurance company sent an engineer who ruled out any long-term concerns from subsidence, putting minds at rest and providing better understanding of the building. The subsidence was limited, self-correcting and caused by water table changes: it would not capsize the building but future-proofing was advised against future cracking.
Replacing the gas boiler was consistent with the fifth mark of mission,[1] and becoming an Eco-Church.[2]Contractors’ and DAC advice concluded the building was too concrete, uninsulated and tall for electric heating. Ground and air source heat pumps were prevented by Concrete foundations, inadequate for the space and expensive.[3] Yet replacing the old gas boiler with a condensing boiler, recycling heat and electrical convectors, would reduce heating and gas use. The lesson was not to let the perfect prevent a move to something better.
Contractors[4] found through internet research, Diocesan advice and tips from other parishes, were happy to make site visits, providing advice and quotes. Although each contractor promoted their favoured systems, all were professional and gave reasoned advice based on building analysis and our specification. Three quotes ensures advice tailored to the building, reassuring consistency, value for money and tendering evidence for funders.
Regulation:
Contractors also need to understand faculties. Although parodied and sometimes irritating, Faculties and the DAC[5] offer important partnerships and free advice. Other churches and historic buildings have similar controls.
The Faculty jurisdiction applies to all consecrated CofE churches. Internal works only require Faculty permissions as Civic authorities steer clear of developments that might have theological dimensions. Works that are externally visible require Faculties alongside civic planning permission. Building Regulations also apply to all major works, inside or out.
The DAC has specialist advisers on many aspects of church building work, including heating. The adviser reviewed the reports and quotes, approved the tender process and solutions proposed, on the basis that St Ed’s is a modern, unlisted church. Had the building been listed, or more complex, a heating engineer’s survey would be recommended, adding to costs but a worthwhile investment.
Architects:
The DAC expects parishes to consult their Quinquennial Architect who know the building and give basic advice free. The QI was willing to advise on the pipe runs for the heating system and secondary glazing plans. Additional plans or reports would incur charges, following RIBA’s framework and fees for the different stages of architectural projects.[6]
Secondary Glazing:
Another aspect of the heating reports was St Ed’s poor insulation due to heat loss via concrete and windows. Improved heat retention would reduce fuel use and costs.
Non-standard windows, often including stained glass, means that double-glazing (two panes of glass in one unit) is not an option for churches. Secondary glazing adds a second pane of glass alongside the original.
We spoke to church and historic building specialists who provided quotes following site visits. The firm chosen[7] called in historic buildings specialist, Fineline Windows, for relevant expertise. Unlike the heating, for which quotes were within £20,000, secondary glazing quotes diverged widely; the highest was over twice the lowest.
We mistakenly thought secondary glazing would be cheaper than heating! Conversations with the DAC considered the wisdom of the work, concluding that St Edward’s extensive windows made it sensible to explore this option, though often secondary glazing is not cost-effective. The PCC’s investment was justified by the tangible heat retention, with Sunday morning heat lingering until Monday.
Flat roofs:
As noted earlier, roofs over the side aisles, Lady Chapel and vestry urgently needed comprehensive repairs. The subsidence had also caused the roof fall to turn into the building, instead of outwards, meaning that water pooling on the roof seeped into the walls instead of running off the building.
Besides replacing asphalt, the fall was corrected using an A frame, enabling water to run off as originally designed. Insulation was added under the A Frame, an example incorporating more environmental and financial sustainability into the project.
Designs for the roofing and A Frame were prepared by our QI architect and formed the basis for contractor tenders. One risk of roof work is discovering other problems when removing materials. Problems were found with the boiler room roof adding £6,000 to the work needed, illustrating the importance of contingency budgets to cover additional work and emergencies.
High roofs:
Whilst we knew the flat roofs needed attention, the picture was unclear for the pitched roofs of church and hall, the heights of which meant that even Quinquennial Inspectors did not look closely.
As the National Churches Trust was offering 50% towards the costs of high-level roof surveys, we decided to check the higher roofs whilst securing other aspects of the building, in readiness for re-ordering.
Drone-based surveys or direct inspection were offered. As we thought there were no major pitched roof problems we opted for the cheaper, drone survey. It was conducted by specialists DBR Conservation whose expertise in church and heritage buildings includes the National Trust.
The drone raised comments around the estate, fearing spying and police activity! Yet it was an efficient way to survey the roofs, providing portfolio of photos and a clear picture of the (limited) work needed. The challenge was finding a contractor to undertake the work. Only one responded to the tender on the NCT Maintenance portal. Scaffolding costs were disproportionately high for limited work.
We looked for alternatives, like rope access and ladder-based work. Churches Conservation Ltd, whose owner grew up in Mottingham, offered ladder access; the roof was in reasonable condition and they could work from the flat roofs. They have since undertaken high level gutter maintenance and emergency tower repairs in the wake of a storm St Ed’s was lucky to survive; other churches lost towers.
[1] Proclaim the Gospel, Baptise believers, serve the community, speak truth to power and sustaining creation.
[2] Environmental audits run by A Rocha
[3] Since 2019 advances in technology make heat sources worth investigating. National and Diocesan Environment Advisers runcourses and specialists can help with the journey towards Carbon Net Zero. https://www.churchofengland.org/about/environment-and-climate-change/eco-church; https://app.ecochurch.org/user/login
[4] Heating Global, Swinton https://heatinglobal.com;
Chris Dunphy Heating, Rochdale https://www.dunphychurchheating.co.uk;
Argonaut Heating, Bishops Stortford https://www.argonautheating.co.uk; there are now others in the field eg https://churchheatingspecialist.co.uk; https://www.jigsawinfrared.com; https://www.bnthermic.co.uk; https://www.drugasar.com;https://www.churchecomiser.co.uk
[5] Diocesan Advisory Committee, effectively the church planning authority
[6] RIBA the architects’ professional body has a 7 stage project guide and advice about choosing architects. The DAC also has lists of approved QI architects.
[7] Ipswich based SEHBAC, https://www.sehbac.com
Learning and reflecting 