United Kingdom law governing the protection of objects such as historic organs, whether in churches or secular settings is confusing and, from the perspective of BIOS, inadequate. It is therefore of interest to us when a review takes place which considers the ecclesiastical exemption from the provisions of legislation which affects listed buildings and in conservation areas, unlisted buildings. This is presently enjoyed by six denominations in England and Wales and is of importance because of its influence on the care and protection of organs in their buildings. The exempt denominations are the Church of England, the Church in Wales, the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Union, the Methodist Church, and the United Reformed Church. Following the most recent legislation in 1994, it was proposed to review the working of their internal systems after two years in operation. To this end the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the Welsh Office commissioned, and have just published, a Review of the Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Controls, which was conducted by John Newman (Reader in the History of Art, Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London and former Chairman of English Heritage's Churches Advisory Committee). The equivalent mechanisms in Ulster are not known to this writer and, presumably, there is no exemption for Churches in the Province. Similarly, the Church of Scotland and other ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland are subject to Scottish law and, from observations made during the BIOS 1997 Aberdeen conference, it is obvious that little effort is taken by the Scottish Established Church to protect its organ stock. However, its Consultative Committee on Artistic Matters is drafting guidelines on the care of pipe organs. and we can only hope that this will extend to their protection.

The exemption from listed building controls has grown out of a series of administrative compromises with the Church of England, dating from 1913. One benefit was the establ-ishment of the advisory body, now known as the Council for the Care of Churches (which acts, through its Organ Committee, as a conduit to the English Diocesan Organ Advisers and administers their annual conference). However, this is an organisation which can still be side-stepped, as the recent work on the Milton organ in Tewkesbury Abbey demonstrated. The growth of state aid to church fabric schemes has led to some diminution of the inde-pendence of church authorities and, as more non-Anglican churches and chapels become the subject of listing, has forced their national bodies to set up alternatives to local government control, if they wish to retain their independence of action.

Newman's general denominational summaries (written in the first person) are given here for members' consideration:

The Church of England

The Church of England should, in the long term, consider the radical step of removing the control of listed buildings from the faculty jurisdiction and insti-tuting a control system for them more in line with modern procedures. Dioceses should in the meantime uniformly improve their present procedures by:

a. employing a conservation officer either whole time or part time
b. developing a notification procedure which systematically invites comments
from "amenity bodies" at a stage early enough to influence the thinking of the
DAC.

The review in three years' time should assess how far dioceses have implemented these recommendations and to what extent more fundamental reforms are desirable and practicable.

The new system for monitoring and control of works to Church of England cathedrals is working effectively with relatively minor exceptions. The adequate staffing of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England with professionally equipped officers is particularly welcome. In view of this, and in view of the fact that the workings of the Commission are due for review b

Church in Wales
In spite of my reservations about the long-term value of the faculty jurisdiction as a whole, I consider that the Church in Wales has, by the recent reforms of its faculty jurisdiction instituted what is potentially an effective system of control. In view of its very recent development, it is not surprising that it is not yet in all respects fully operational. It should be fully reviewed again in three years' time.

The Roman Catholic Church

The present arrangements have the makings of an effective system. They require development in a number of ways, and the amalgamation of the smallest Historic Churches Committees is essential. There should be a further full review in three years' time.

The Baptist Union

The Baptist Union's system is not yet providing an adequate substitute for listed building and conservation area controls. It should be subject to an emergency review by the Department and the Welsh Office at the end of one year in the light of my specific recommendations. If this review results in the continuation of the exemption for the Baptist Union, there should be a further review along with other denominations at the end of three years.

The Methodist Church

The Methodist Church has a control system which is comparable with the secular system and is efficiently administered. I recommend that only the points discussed in the body of this report need be reviewed again in three years' time.

The United Reformed Church

The United Reformed Church has the makings of a satisfactory control system, however the effectiveness of listed building advisory committees varies widely from province to province, and the relationship of the LBACs to the Church's pro-vincial structure needs to be rethought. There should be a further full review in three years' time.

The issue of organs was drawn to Newman's attention by BIOS and, probably as a con-sequence, section 5.8 notes that, "Many listed churches and chapels contain historic organs. But equally such organs may be found in unlisted ones. DACs normally have organ advisers among their members or acting as consultants. The denominations which have set up new committees seem to have no consistent practice in this area". As a result there are two key recommendations:

All the relevant committees of exempt denominations should appoint organs advisers, one of whose principal tasks should be to compile the relevant list of hist-oric organs, in liaison with the British Institute of Organ Studies or other such body.

Where an organ has been identified as being of historic significance permission to move it should not be given until serious efforts have been made to find it a suitable new home.

While the second point could still be open to abuse, these recommendations place our work, especially through the NPOR, on a recognised footing and the related work of HOCS could open up the way for a much-needed listings system for historic instruments. On a related issue, the Ancient Monuments' Society eloquently put the case for church furnishings generally (section 11.7), "For a splendid late 19th century pulpit to be ejected is one thing but to see it broken up or burnt is intolerable". Consequently, Newman recommends that "the Methodist Church's Property Division should encourage congregations and managing trustees, when reordering their churches, to preserve representative examples of panelling, pews, etc., and to make efforts to find suitable new homes for major items such as pulpits and organs." This association of organ and furnishings is generally useful, but the prospect of using BIOS as a conduit for dumping good instruments is not. Even worse would be their wholesale export.

Newman singled out the unfavourable treatment suffered in ecclesiastical courts by the Victorian Society and SPAB, as compared to the results of civil planning enquiries in which they were involved. Given some of the blunders and misunderstandings concerning organs, it is appropriate to quote his section 6.23:

Concern centres around cases where pastoral considerations were not at issue or were explicitly set aside by the chancellor, and yet the chancellor found against the conservation arguments. The question arises, as it did in 1913 and again during the deliberations of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission in the early 1980s, whether judges have the appropriate expertise to adjudicate in cases which turn on conservation issues. The Faculty Jurisdiction Commission Report 1984 devoted several paragraphs (204-9) to disposing of the suggestion that chancellors could be assisted in such cases by either lay co-judges or by lay assessors. Another poss-ibility is to identify certain types of cases which should be taken out of the hands of the chancellor altogether, and adjudicated by the equivalent of a planning inspector. At the present time, cases concerning the replacement of stained glass windows and of historic doors would seem to be among those which should be handled in this way.

He might have added organs and organ cases, but recommends, "that this suggestion should be evaluated by the General Synod in collaboration with the Ecclesiastical Judges' Assoc-iation and in consultation with the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and the planning inspectorate." We should encourage this.

One of the most far-reaching proposals is set in context in section 6.25. This notes that despite the evolution of exemption,

Even after successive modifications during the present century it is still an unwieldy and heavily legalistic mechanism for controlling works to sensitive listed buildings and their furnishings. It also depends for its technical expertise to a great extent on unpaid advice. The streamlined efficiency of the newly devised system for controlling works to cathedrals may in the longer term provide a model for reforming the way the Church of England deals with its listed churches. The inflexibility of the faculty jurisdiction system is making it difficult for effective consultation with secular "amenity bodies" to take place, even though this is at the heart of the ecclesiastical exemption as reformed in 1994.

As a result, Newman recommends "that the Church of England should in the long term consider the radical step of removing the control of listed buildings from the faculty jurisdiction and instituting a control system for them more in line with modern procedures". He goes on to recommend, among several points, that all dioceses should employ a conservation officer and improve the access of diocesan chancellors to specialist advice and improve their understanding of conservation issues. Perhaps this might lead to instruments of the importance of Tewkesbury Abbey (after all, a parish church) being referred to the appropriate national body for consideration, rather than being dealt with at a diocesan level, without the full benefit of the specialist advice necessary in such a case.

BIOS might be concerned by one proposal arising from the appeals process of decisions of the Roman Catholic Historic Churches Committee (section 9.9). At present, this is to the diocesan bishop and having expressed doubts about the independence of this system, Newman proposes that appeals should be heard by the Metropolitan or by the bishop of another diocese. However, human nature being what it is, this solution is unlikely to guarantee independence.

It is heartening that Newman believes that, as the above denominations enjoy the privilege of an exemption, "they should remain in a lesser sense perpetually under review." With this in mind, Council will be considering the report at its next meeting. If our views are to have any impact, we must be made aware of any backsliding, and rely on members to inform us of neglect and abuse to organs during the coming review period. The recent election of Christopher Gray to the new post of Casework Officer provides a point of contact. (Incidentally, if members have knowledge of the working of the Baptists as they affect organs, the Secretary would be grateful for information - he could find nothing through the usual channels.)

The tide is moving in our direction and while our support for Newman's report may be qualified, it does offer hope for improvement. As the amenity society concerned with the historic British organ, we must remain vigilant.

Return to Index Page for this issue

Return to Reporter Index Page