Fairfield - St John the Divine Church

[Cadfael]

Just been sent the following in my in-box:

I'll be there along with extensive pictures and information on the church and will voice my concern. If anyone else feels that they have anything to offer, if little more than just making up the numbers 'against' the demolition then please do go along!!

P U B L I C N O T I C E

IN THE CONSISTORY COURT OF THE DIOCESE OF LIVERPOOL


PARISH OF FAIRFIELD CHURCH OF ST JOHN THE DIVINE
AT HOLLY ROAD / LOCKERBY ROAD LIVERPOOL


TAKE NOTICE that application has been made by the Vicar of the above named Church to the Chancellor of the said Diocesan Consistory Court pursuant to section 18 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Measure 1991 to authorise the Work of emergency demolition of the said Church

AND ACCORDINGLY the Chancellor has directed a Hearing of this application on Saturday 9 August 2008 commencing at 10.00 am at
St Sebastians Parish Centre
Lockerby Road
Liverpool L7 0HG

ANY PERSON having or pretending to have any right title or interest in the proposed Work required to be authorised IS HEREBY CITED TO APPEAR at the Hearing so set down to make such representations as may be deemed appropriate

DATED at Liverpool this thirtyfirst day of July 2008

Roger H Arden
Registrar of the Diocesan Consistory Court
St James House
Liverpool L1 7BY

[chippie]

Thank you for keeping us updated on your work brother. I didn,t know Roger Arden was still alive

[Gnomie]

Im working Saturday

Keep us updated, this is one church that should be saved

[drone_pilot]

Great news Jon, at least know the truth be known, ill try to make the meeting on sat,

[Cadfael]

It should be a good meeting and should turn in to a yo meet up hehe.

[lindylou]

I'll be in Wales

[Cadfael]

St John's the Divine - went to the meeting and met up with a few people I had 'met' on e-mail via my website. A judge was present and he was asking people to 'swear' an oath if they wanted to get up to speak.

Basically the meeting was full of suits who could have bought the church with their own money but would rather give silly reasons why the church should be demolished (including saying that because most of the congretation were on the redun-dance, they couldn't afford the upkeep of the building!!).

Anyway, I got up and presented my case, I told them of a similar case (st James, West Derby) in which the tower was capped - and then also told them of the loss of many churches for 'unsafe' reasons including Emmannuell Everton which was demolished for being unsafe - and turned out that they wanted the new Ring Road to run through the church - it didn't happen but we lost the church.

The Judge is going to be making a decision on the church and if he hands it a demolition order then when the insurance runs out, it'll go - simple as that.
However, he made the mistake of offering to anyone that has an idea to save the church, to go ahead and contact him/PCC.

Quite simple - the PCC own the church and they would only get £55,000 back from the sale of the land to pay off debts - and they lose the church.

So in the last two days, I have been busting a gut to get a few legal people on board with my idea and have already sent an e-mail out to the required people with my idea - to sell the church 'as is'.

Due to my strange bell ringing hobby, I spend hours in churches and get to meet lots of people who want to own their own church, but are stumped because most of them are listed so they can do little with it.

I have informed the authorities that I will construct a website out of my own pocket, if they will allow me to take photo's of all area's inside of the church, the cost of buying the church/land, and various questions for addresses of legal people with the PCC and authorites.

I will then construct a website and act as an estate agent to market the sale of the church in the next couple of weeks and try to find a buyer who would take this project on (I know many people who also know many people that this would interest). I've told the church authorites that I do not wish for a cut from this, but saving the church will do me. I've also told them that I do not 'do' red tape and should they not get back to me as soon as possible, then I will see it as an obstruction and speak to the press about the situation (who have already given front pages up for the plight so far).

This way, someone comes along who wants a church that isn't listed, the church is saved, the PCC get their money and we get our church on the route in to Liverpool.

[chippie]

bravo brother bravo

[Cadfael]

Cheers Chippie - it turns out that after some phone calls, the church 'could' be sold for as little as £180,000 including the whole building and land - less if they were offered it on a plate.

So it grieves me that while the Council like to splash out on lambbanana's and expensive paving stones, they won't stump up this amount to buy the church and keep Fairfield on the map.

But no surprise really!

[Pegasus]

I hope this fine Building can be saved from the Wreckers that have Decimated so much of Our City.

I am not in the least surprised to here of all the Negative Spin & downright Lies that are being used by people more interested in Destroying (instead of Protecting) Our Heritage!

P.S.

I can still remember going to services at St Johns & Admiring both the Interior & Exterior!

[Cadfael]

Well if you've not heard, a demolition order has been slapped on the building meaning that this could go at any moment.

The Judge has basically said that he doesn't understand gravity and that a stone from the tower which would normally fall vertically may actually travel 20 ft horizontally first before then dropping vertically on to the road.

The PCC made NO effort to market the church and we will lose another fine church to the wreckers ball just so the PCC can line their pockets.

Let's hope the Bishop of Liverpool is sacked as Chairman from the Stop the Rot campaign - full letter below:

(wonder why the Cathedral wasn't knocked down in the 80's when parts of the stonework fell off it then!)



IN THE CONSISTORY COURT OF No of Application: 08/597
THE DIOCESE OF LIVERPOOL


Date: 29th August, 2008

Before :

CHANCELLOR THE HONOURABLE SIR MARK HEDLEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
in the matter of :

St John The Divine, Fairfield.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


JUDGMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chancellor Sir Mark Hedley:

1. These are in form two sets of applications by the Incumbent and Church Wardens of the parish of St. John the Divine, Fairfield in the diocese of Liverpool. The applications are supported by the Parochial Church Council (PCC) and indeed by the congregation. The first application is for a faculty: it seeks permission to alter the church building by demolishing the spire; alternatively it seeks an order for demolition of the church building pursuant to Section 17 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (?the Measure?). The second application is for permission to demolish as a matter of urgency under Section 18 of the Measure. For reasons that I shall set out, the focus of this inquiry should be under Section 18.

2. These applications are formally unopposed. The only respondent is the Archdeacon of Liverpool who supports the application. However, it became apparent that there was opposition within the community, both local and more city-wide, and a number who had objections to make, attended the public hearing of these applications on Saturday 9th August. As the church was not a safe place for the hearing, we enjoyed the hospitality of the local Roman Catholic Church of St. Sebastian in their parish hall, for which all were grateful.

3. In those circumstances I decided to relax the strict rules whilst not losing sight of the fact that this was a Consistory Court trial and not a public inquiry. I took sworn evidence from the Incumbent and heard further representations from a Church Warden, Mr. Jim Huthwaite, and a PCC member, Dr. Ann Kazich. I also heard representations from Mr. Jonathan Wild, who had been campaigning against demolition, Mr. Jonathan Brown, a local resident but with obvious expertise in conservation issues, Ms Elizabeth Pascoe, a local resident and architect, Councillor Stephen Radford and, of course, the Archdeacon. No-one was legally represented and I did not invite any cross-examination. I am grateful to all who gave evidence or made representations for the time and trouble taken by them to do so. In addition, of course, there was a substantial body of documents dealing with the history of the church, the story of the battle to keep it in repair, the expert evidence and, of course, other letters by way of representation including a locally collected petition. I am particularly grateful to the Incumbent, the Revd. Andrew Porter, for the punctilious care taken in the presentation of the documentary evidence; it greatly assisted my consideration of it. All these matters I have carefully reflected on in the time that I have allowed myself by reserving judgment. I now publish the judgment. It is, of course a public document.

4. There is very little dispute of fact in this case save as to the degree of the present actual state of disrepair of the church spire. The controversy has raged around what should be done now. There are in my view five viable options requiring active consideration:

a) do very little save effect running repairs where necessary;
b) dispose of the building;
c) demolish the spire but seal, cap and repair the tower;
d) repair the spire and tower;
e) demolish the whole building.

5. It is right to record that all the objectors who made oral representations to me recognised that the burden of repair and maintenance of this building should not fall on the PCC and present congregation. They were looking for a wider response, whether from the local authority, the diocese or a conservation agency like English Heritage. There are two important observations to be made about this. First, conservation inevitably involves prioritising grants as there never can be enough to go round. No conservation agency has shown any interest as the building is not listed; the local authority have always made it clear that this building is not a priority; and the diocese does not have funds for buildings beyond making small loans (up to ?20,000) to parishes. The matter was neatly encapsulated by Dr. Kazich when she said, ?I?d rather put time and effort into broken people than broken buildings.? The second observation is that in law the sole responsibility for the care and maintenance of a church building lies with the Incumbent and Church Wardens unless and until a building is declared redundant; that process is underway here but remains some months short of completion. However, the fact of this responsibility and an acceptance that the care and maintenance of this church is beyond the means of the parish do not sit easily together.

6. I turn then to the history of the Church. A most useful document is the advice of Miss S. Charlesworth of English Heritage dated 30th June 2008 given to the local authority explaining a recommendation not to list this building. First, she deals with its history.

The Church of St John the Divine, Fairfield was constructed in 1851-53 to the designs of W. Raffles Brown and was consecrated on the 14th January 1853 by Revd. John Graham. It incurred significant bomb damage in 1940 and was subsequently restored in 1948. A new east window by Shrigley & Hunt was introduced at this time (now removed). In 1979/80 a major project was undertaken to create a new church/community centre to the designs of Robert Gardner-Medwin and Carl Thompson. This involved the retention of the original church tower, one bay of the nave, the south aisle wall and the lower part of the west wall. The original church bell was sold, and the chancel, vestries, and the main part of the nave including the original roof structure were demolished and replaced with a new brick structure and a modern roof. A large hall formed the major part of the new structure. The community centre ceased active use in December 2007.

She then goes on to deal with her assessment of the building.

The church has incurred such a high level of alteration both externally and internally through the partial demolition and rebuilding works that took place in 1979/80 that it is now largely a late 20th century creation. The majority of original fabric has been lost, with only the tower, spire, and two external walls surviving to provide any indication of the original architectural character of the building. In addition, even these walls have incurred significant alteration in the form of a window converted into a doorway, a doorway converted into a window and the loss of the upper part of the west wall. As with the exterior, the survival of interior features is restricted to fragments; some original doors, a small section of tiled flooring to the ground floor of the tower, the fragment of a nave pier to the west end of the building, a decorative corbel that no longer provides any support, and four monuments. The modern replacement structure is not a special interest in itself, and has severely compromised the original historic character and architectural interest of the building. The loss of the nave chancel and the original roof has left no indication internally that the building originated as a 19th Century church. While the tall spire surmounting a tower is a notable feature it is only a fragmentary survival of the original building.

She adds:
The church?s tall spire is clearly a local landmark within the Edge Lane and Fairfield area. However, it is of local rather than national interest, and does not compensate for the very high level of alteration, and loss of original character, that has been incurred to the building as a whole.

She then concludes as follows.

The Church of St John the Divine is not recommended for listing for the following principal reasons:
 It has incurred significant external and internal alteration since its original construction in 1851-53, which has severely compromised its original historic character.
 Following partial demolition and rebuilding works in 1979/80 much of the original fabric has been lost and replaced including the roof, two external walls and the interior.
 Internally the building is no longer recognisable as an ecclesiastical structure, with the nave and chancel replaced with a community hall styled as a sports hall.
 The majority of original interior features have been lost including pews, pulpit, organ, and font.

It should be added that this advice illustrates why it has not been possible to raise outside money for the conservation of this building.

7. As I indicated there is some controversy over the exact state of disrepair of this spire. The Incumbent in his evidence (oral and written) sets out in detail the history of the parish?s efforts to keep the building in repair. It has been the subject of regular inspection by steeplejacks and regular review by both building surveyor and specialist contractor. The insurers, the Ecclesiastical Insurance (EIG), have been kept fully informed. Emergency work has been undertaken and, because material has fallen from the spire and/or tower, there is an exclusion zone both within and without the church. Although material has continued to fall, nothing has fallen outside the exclusion zone. The congregation sometime ago withdrew from the original church building and used the adjacent hall for worship. More recently they have left the building altogether. It is now wholly unoccupied and unused.

8. On 30th April 2008 Mr. N.A. Lowe of Lowe Moore Associates, civil and structural consulting engineers, wrote as follows:

I refer to my recent visit to inspect the church tower and steeple and to my previous correspondence to Anthony Grimshaw Associates and e-mails to Archdeacon Panter on this matter. I saw nothing during my visit which would prompt me to revise the advice I have previously given on the condition of the stonework to the steeple and tower at the church. My earlier advice was based on the evidence obtained from the photographs taken by the steeplejack but this time I viewed the steeple from the ground level using binoculars and this confirmed that there are significant problems. I confirm that extensive reconstruction or demolition of the steeple and tower are urgently required to remove a serious safety hazard to anyone in the vicinity of these structures. I understand that you intend to demolish the building in the near future and I would advise that this is done without further delay.

That was of course disclosed to the EIG who responded in writing saying that were the spire not to be demolished within 3 months (now extended to 31st August 2008), cover would be withdrawn. It would be very difficult to see how alternative cover could be arranged. It was these developments which hastened the application for emergency demolition. It is an application supported by the Diocesan Advisory Committee (whose responsibility is to advise on buildings and who have access to their own professional advice), and not opposed by Liverpool City Council.

9. However, very late in the day (said as a matter of fact and not by way of complaint), a report was obtained from Mr. Brian Morton of the Morton Partnership, consulting and civil and structural engineers, dated 7th August, 2008, who has very wide experience of dealing with damaged church buildings. He took the view (in layman?s language) that the spire was not about to fall down but recognised that pieces may well continue to fall off. Part of the trouble is that the expert evidence (unsurprisingly given the exigencies of time) is not wholly definitive. There are clearly concerns that not all defects are latent and more may be discovered once remedial work is attempted.

10. At the date of the hearing the best estimates that I had for the cost of works was as follows:

a) demolition of church and hall and clearance of site: ?50,859.88
b) demolition of spire and remedial works to tower: ?124,315.00
c) repair and partial rebuilding of spire: ?149,988.75
d) take down spire to lower level and then reconstruct: ?307,409.38

It is right to add that other, sometimes much larger, figures have been canvassed. The figures at (a) and (d) are based on actual quotations and those at (b) and (c) on professional assessments. It is the fact that everything save (a) is beyond the means of the congregation.

11. It is common ground that this spire is a true landmark, is valued in the community and its loss would be keenly felt. It is, in one sense, the last striking building in the area. Mr. Pat Doyle wrote as follows on 18th June 2008.

As chair of the Holly Road Neighbourhood Assembly it was with great sadness when I heard the news of the application for the emergency demolition of the Church of St John the Divine, Fairfield.

This church has been a Christian landmark to all who have worshipped and lived in the area for many years. I have spoken to worshippers and non worshippers and they have told me it will be a very sad day if it is finally demolished. I do know that it will be missed by the many groups that have used the hall for social events of every description.

No one, whether a member of the congregation or not, sought to disagree with that view. This is one of those sad conflicts between what can be done and what people would like done.

11. Having reviewed the evidence and the issues, I return to the applications themselves. I am conscious that I have done no more than sketch out the evidence. However, what it clearly discloses is a congregation who have done their best with the resources available to them (and no one questions that) but who have been defeated by the sheer scale of the problem and who have in good faith opted to leave the building. It discloses a building which is currently unsafe and potentially dangerous but which is not technically beyond repair. If, however, it is repaired this time, there remains the wholly unanswered question of how it is to be maintained in repair and kept insured. It disclosed a locally loved and significant building but one which remains unlisted for the reasons given in the English Heritage advice. It has no current use nor will it have so long as it remains in present ownership.

12. As I indicated earlier, although a faculty application has been made for alteration and for demolition, the focus of this hearing has been on Section 18. I should briefly explain why that is. Section 17(1) provides that ?A court shall not grant a faculty for the demolition or partial demolition of a church except on the grounds specified in this section.? In my judgment the removal of a spire is not an alteration but the partial demolition of a church. Accordingly the matter could only be considered under Section 17. The proposals for this building fall outside Section 17(2) and in any event some of the matters required by the Section cannot be complied with in terms of time. Thus in my view it is not open to this court to grant a faculty under Section 17. The effect of that is that the only available route for the parish is that provided by Section 18.

13. Section 18 provides (so far as is material here). ?(1) Without prejudice to the powers exercisable under any rule of law by diocesan chancellors at the coming into operation of this section, where the chancellor of the diocese is satisfied ? (a) that the demolition of the whole or part of the church in the diocese is necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the church, and, having regard to the urgency of the matter, there is insufficient time to obtain a faculty in respect of it; and (b)?.[this relates to listed buildings in conservation areas]?he may by an instrument under his hand authorise the carrying out of the demolition without a faculty?.? Thus it seems to me that there are two issues to be considered in this case: first, whether demolition is necessary in the interests of safety or health; and secondly, if it is, whether it is of sufficient urgency to justify this route.

14. The first issue is a little more difficult than at first sight may appear for it is a question that has a practical as well as a theoretical component and has a relative as well as an absolute aspect. This case presents a good example of the problem. On one view this spire is not beyond repair; on the other hand those whose duty it would be to repair cannot do so as everyone has acknowledged. On one view this spire is dangerous and a hazard to the public safety, for pieces have and will continue to fall off and it could not be said that none would ever fall outside the present exclusion zone which itself cannot be extended without encroaching on the highway; on the other hand the source of danger is capable of remedy if anyone is ready, willing and able to foot the bill for so doing. The Incumbent and Wardens owe duties to third parties both at common law and under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (as amended) which they can only fulfil if they can repair and/or maintain insurance, neither of which are for them currently practicable propositions. Their ministry to the community is inconsistent with the maintenance of a public danger.

15. In my judgment the conditions propounded in Section 18 raise questions of fact which must be resolved in accordance with the individual circumstances of each case. The court has to deal with the position as it is recognising the realities of what can be achieved, of insurance and of safety. In other words whether demolition is ?necessary? is not the same question as whether retention is theoretically possible. ?Necessary? connotes a need to have regard to actual realities in terms of building, resources, insurance and so on. Those responsible for this building are the Incumbent and the Church Wardens; no decision of mine can bind anyone else to maintain the building or keep it free from being a danger.

16. The plain fact is that the church spire in its current condition, if nothing were done, is and would continue to be a public danger. The EIG would not accept public liability insurance nor could they be expected to do so. Even on Mr. Morton?s issues, the most favourable towards saving the tower and steeple, a sum of ?150,000 would be required to repair and that can only be advanced on two assumptions: first, that no more serious damage will be disclosed once the work starts; and secondly that it will be maintained in repair thereafter. Quite apart from the fact that no current use is being made of the building, everyone accepts that not only the basic price but contingencies and maintenance are wholly beyond the capacity of those responsible for the building. It follows from that, that no insurance will be able to be maintained.

17. On that basis I have reached the reluctant but clear conclusion that I must grant to the Incumbent and Church Wardens the authority they seek to demolish. Once the spire and tower have been demolished (indeed most representations focussed on the spire alone), there is nothing of merit remaining and the whole building will need to go as any part of will represent a danger if left standing. I share the congregation?s sadness (echoed in much of the community) at the passing of a building that has stood for 150 years, representing a Christian presence in Fairfield. However, unless someone were freely to take over the responsibility for the building (and enquiries have been made without success to that end), the building principally presents as a public danger.

18. It would be wholly irresponsible to do little or nothing. Remedial works are for the parish not only unrealistic but incapable of achievement bearing in mind the safety and insurance timescale. That leaves only demolition which in my judgment, for the reasons I have sought to explain, is necessary and must be done as a matter of urgency. On that basis, with sadness and regret but with conviction that it is now the right thing to do, I authorise the demolition of the church building of St John the Divine, Fairfield.

[Gnomie]

That is a disgrace What a wonderful building, why dont they care???

What a friggin shame

[chippie]

I didn,t like Nark Headly when I was in church and I certainly don,t like the old sod now, "sir" my "a***"

[Cadfael]

I've added a new page (Latest News) to my campaign.

It basically asks two very important questions:

A - that no one can come up with WHY the spire is in a dangerous condition

B - Why the PCC have mucked up their story when nothing has fallen from the spire in to the road or pathway of the church!

Fairfield

[Spike]

This is sad, any updates? is the church still going?