Saving History vs Making the Future

I mentioned in a previous post that St Mary’s Reigate, the town’s Parish Church, is looking to reorder its buildings. Whilst the need to replace the Church Centre across Chart Lane from the Church is seemingly uncontroversial the plans for interior of the Church have received some strong objections.

Two key changes are proposed: the removal of the pews to be replaced with chairs and the repositioning of the rood screen that divides the nave from the chancel in the east wing.

The purposes of the changes, driven by the elected members of the Parochial Church Council, are threefold. One,to better facilitate the growing size of the congregation which has grown so much that Christmas services this year are being doubled. Two, remove what is essentially an unwanted historical method of dividing important members of the community and congregation from the common people (during services, for those sat in the chancel, there is a real sense of separation from the rest of the congregation). And three, provide a more flexible space for events other than Church services on a Sunday – I understand Leslie Olive of the Reigate Music Society is very supportive of having a space for musical performances especially as the 100 year old organ is also to be refurbished as part of the reordering project.

Whilst not everyone is in agreement with the removal of the pews, what has sparked some rigorous objection is the repositioning of the rood screen. Ironically, the objections have come from secular organisations such as The Victorian Society, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and English Heritage. Their argument is that the rood screen is of such historical significance that it must not be moved. The historical significance is that it is of medieval construction (possibly 15^th century) and, whilst there are other examples around the country, this is the only one in Surrey and any repositioning would inevitably damage it and be historically inappropriate.

The argument from the PCC is that theirs is a living faith that is growing in the town and the Church has always been altered, improved and added to to facilitate change. The building and its upkeep (a huge annual sum) are paid for by members of the Church and as such they should determine how the facilities are ordered to meet current needs.

The argument is perhaps a wider one than just this instance. Should organisations that provide no funding or practical input into the running of the building have any power to affect its future? We all have a responsibility for the upkeep of our property in a way that is appropriate to our environment but in this case the Church, as an ecclesiastical building is not subject to planning law.

My personal view is that the PCC are not proposing to materially change the structure of the Church but are looking for ways improve its functionality. The building (what most people including the organisations objecting see) remains the same whilst the fixtures and fittings are being updated. Isn’t this what we all do in our own homes? What do you think?

Advertisement