the validity of the exemption can with justification be called into question. Since the spirit of the existing legislation is that Faculty Jurisdiction should operate in a comparable manner to the secular system, and since it is also generally admitted that the public has an interest in churches as part of the aesthetic heritage of the nation, then it is reasonable to ask why the secular system should not be allowed to take over. Because the more controversial things that happen to churches such as extensions are development and need planning permission, the effect of the exemption can be seen as increasingly confined to internal fittings and furnishings. The other side of the coin is that DACs usually incorporate far greater expertise than is to be found in a planning department or in a planning committee. This range of expertise that has been assembled 'is a reflection of the fact that churches are special in many ways. They are usually the oldest and most architecturally outstanding buildings in the communities they serve, and contain much unique information on the history of those communities. Yet they are not museums and must continue ro change and adapt if they are to remain in use. For 1this reason, DACs tend to operate with a pastoral bias that sometimes allows things to happen that the secular system would be reluctant to countenance. If such change is rigidly opposed, then there will Peter Richards on the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction Measure 1991. unquestioningly be a tendency for parishes to want to walk away from their churches and the problems and responsibilities they represent, and use more convenient modern buildings. Only by making churches better used for the functions for which they were intended will their future be assured. And whilst it is not an unfair criticism that many DACs are overstretched, and do not always do justice for that reason to the casework that comes before them, it is also true that the secular authorities do not have the resources either of manpower or money to care for the 16,000 plus listed church buildings in England and Wales. David Andrew is a member of the Essex County Conservation Team MEASUREFORMEASURE Many members will know of the recent consultation paper on ecclesiastic exemption referred to in David Andrew's article, but are not perhaps aware of the detailed implications of the new Measure and its effect upon the Diocesan Advisory Committees (DACs). The Measure, which has been to the general synod of the Church of England, addresses the whole range of work for the DACs as well as setting out provisions for their constitutions, and furthermore it sets out duties for churchwardens, with requirements for keeping records and inspecting the fabric. Over recent years Conservation Officers, and indeed the whole conservation lobby, have been concerned over ecclesiastical exemption and such concern is reflected in the consultation paper. The Church of England has always held that the issue of Faculty consent is the equivalent of listed building consent and should be acknowledged as such. In this it has seemingly convincing arguments. First, Faculty consent is well founded in ecclesiastical law: the need for the permission of the bishop for changes to churches dates back to medieval times and Faculty records can be valuable sources of information for historical researchers. Secondly, it is argued, Faculty control is much more finely grained than listed building control; for instance consent is needed to remove or place in position all items of furniture, candlesticks, memorials and so on. These controls apply to all CONTEXT 36 consecrated Church of England churches, not just the listed ones. Faculry consent is issued for the court of the bishop by the Chancellor of the Diocese, a single judge, who is advised by the DAC . If there are objections to the proposals from parishioners the Chancellor may hold a consistory court, which is akin to a public inquiry where evidence may be presented from both sides upon which the Chancellor will decide. There is a higher level of appeal to the court provided that doctrine, ritual or ceremonial are not involved. There are three areas in which Faculty does not apply: those which are de minimus, matters concerning tombstones in churchyards where the incumbent acts as the Chancellor's delegate and certain sorts of repair and redecorations which can be carried out under an archdeacon's certificate. An archdeacon can also authorise certain temporary works such as furniture re-ordering on an experimental basis. The new Measure updates previous Measures and, particularly in respect of the constitution and membership of the DACs, refines the system of advice. Each DAC must have a written constitution and Schedule 1 to the Measure sets out the provisions to be included. The basic membership, which is appointed by the bishop, is a chairman, all the archdeacons of the diocese and at least 12 other members of which rwo are from the diocesan synod. Of the other ten, three are appointed after consultation with English Heritage, local authoriry associations and national ameniry societies, respectively. In making the appointments, the Bishop's Council must ensure that, berween them, members of the committee shall have knowledge of the history and development of churches, Church of England liturgy and worship, architecture, archaeology, art and history, and experience in the care of historic buildings and their contents. On the face of it, this seems very reasonable but in practice the selection of women and men who are both able to and prepared to give their time to the sort of commitment which DAC membership entails is not so easy. Experience suggests that a conscientious DAC member (other than an archdeacon who is paid to do the job) may spend at least 12 hours a month in committee and on site visits. In addition to advising the granting of Faculties, DACs are also available to advise on the architecture, archaeology and art in churches, their use, care, planning, design and redundancy, the use and care of their contents and their churchyards. Perhaps the most onerous responsibility which is now laid on the committees is that of setting up a record system relating to works to churches and churchyards including inspection reports, inventories, technical information and photographs. This is to be welcomed as is the requirement to encourage the care and appreciation of churches and churchyards and to publicise 19
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=