Attorney General ex rel. Bedfordshire County Council v Howard United Reformed Church Trustees. Bedford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STEPHENSON |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0717-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 17 July 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0717-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by defendants from order of Mr. Justice Willis on 16 July 1973.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Stephenson and
Lord Justice Lawton.
Mr. ANTHONY MAY (instructed by Messrs. Kingsford Dorman & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendants.
Mr. COLIN COLSTON (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Nowadays we are much concerned to preserve buildings which are of special architectural or historical interest. Lists have been made of them under the authority of the Secretary of State. A "listed building" cannot be demolished, or altered or extended except by special consent. But this special consent is not required for an ecclesiastical building which is being used for ecclesiastical purposes. The question in this case is whether the Howard Church building at Bedford comes within this exemption so that the trustees can demolish it without obtaining this special consent.
The exemption is contained in section 56(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which says that Section 55(which stipulates special consent) fshall not apply to works for the demolition, alteration or extension of (a) an ecclesiastical building which is for the time being, used for ecclesiatical purposes or would be so used but for the works"….
The building here belongs to the Trustees of the Howard United Reformed Church. It is in Mill Street, Bedford. It was the meeting place of John Howard and his followers. It is near to the Bunyan Meeting Hall, where John Bunyan was minister from 1671 to 1678. It was built in 1774 and enlarged in 1849. It comprises the church building itself, a typical chapel of that period, with nave and vestries, and spacious rooms behind. Once it is "listed" everything within the curtilage is comprised within the meaning of "listed building" - see Section 54(9) of the 1971 Act.
In 1969 the trustees of the Howard Church became concerned about the future. The congregation had been dwindling. That often happens nowadays with churches in the centre of a town whose people live outide. The Howard Church entered into negotiations with theBunyan Meeting, but this came to nothing. Then the Howard Church decided to unite with St. Luke's Presbyterian and Moravian Churches, On 7th January 1971, it was agreed that the two churches should unite for regular Sunday worship and joint weekday activities as from Easter Day (11th April) 1971. It was anticipated that, in consequence, the buildings in Mill Street of the Howard Church would become redundant, The would then be demolished and replaced by offices. That would bring in funds which would help the church in its difficulties. Steps were taken to this end. The Howard Church made enquiries of the Planning Authorities. The Chief Planning Officer on 1st February 1971, replied that the Howard Church was not on the list or a "listed building" and that the planning committee would not oppose its demolition.
So the Howard Church went ahead with the proposals. They invited the Minister of St, Luke's to become minister of the Howard church. He accepted. They decided to sell the organ and pianos and to send the records to the County Record Office. This was done. On 4th April 1971, they held the last regular church service in the building.
Then the blow fell. On 14th May 1971, the Secretary of State approved a list which contained this building as a "listed building". The trustees of the Howard church realised that this might upset their plans. It they ceased to use the building for ecclesiastical purposes they would need the special consent, or they would not be within the exemption in section 56(1). So they were advised to continue to use the buildings for church activities. They did what they could in this way:
(1) They did not use the nave of the church. They took out he chairs from it. They removed some of the pews. They took up some of the floor boards.
(2) They did use the vestries and rooms at the back. The user can be divided into two categories:
(a) Meetings of which the primary purpose was to advance the work of the church in prayer and worship. These included the monthly church meetings, the meeting of the elders, and the carol service.
(b) Meetings of which the primary purpose was to advance the fellowship of the members of the church by social gatherings and such like. These included the women's fellowship on Tuesdays, Thursday Circle on Thursdays. Coffee mornings on Saturdays.
The Trustees hoped that these activities would earn for them the exemption in Section 56(1). But the Bedford County Council did not agree. To test the position, these proceedings were brought.
The first question is whether the Howard church is an "ecclesiastical building". We considered those words in Phillip's Case (1965) 1 Q.B. 156. To satisfy these words the building must be owned by the ecclesiastical authorities - as freehold or lease hold - and it must have some other ecclesiastical attribute marking it out as ecclesiastical. I think this building has such an attribute. It was designed as a church, built as a church, looks like a church and was used as a church for nearly 200 years. That stamps it with the mark "ecclesiastical "as much as anything could do. Even though it should fall into disuse, it would still remain an "ecclesiastical building". But, if it was put to some secular purpose, as like storing records or as a museum, it would then cease to be an "ecclesiastical building".
The second question is whether the Howard church "is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes". The relevant timehere is the time since April 1971, when church services were no longer held in the church. Since then the building has been used for various purposes. But are they "ecclesiastical purposes"? What does "ecclesiastical" mean in this context? It does not mean "religious" as distinct from "secular". It moans, I think, church purposes as distinct from social purposes. It includes those purposes which have, as the primary object of the promoters, the advancement of the work of the Church, in prayer and worship. I would regard, therefore, the monthly church meetings, the Elders Meeting and the Carol Service as "ecclesiastical purposes". But it does not include purposes which have, as the primary object of the promoters, the advancement of the fellowship of the members of the church by social gatherings. No one can regard church bazaars, jumble sales and coffee parties as "ecclesiastical purposes". I would not myself regard the women's fellowship and Thursday Circle as "ecclesiastical purposes". They may start with prayer. They may have lectures on the Bible as well as other lectures. But still they hardly fit the words "ecclesiastical purposes."
Applied to this case, therefore, the building was being used to some extent for ecclesiastical purposes, and to a greater extent for other purposes. But section 56(1) docs not require it to be used "solely" or "mainly" for ecclesiastical purposes. It is sufficient if is used partly for ecclesiastical purposes, so long as that user is significant and not minimal. I think the user here was significant and that for that reason the building comes under the exemption.
If this be wrong, however, the third question arises. If the building is not being used now for ecclesiastical purposes "would it be so used but for the works'? This does not mean "but for theactual works". It must mean "but for the proposed works". The question, therefore, is: Would the building be now used for ecclesiastical purposes but for the proposed works of demolition? The answer is, Yes. One of the reasons why the two churches - the Howard church and St. Luke's church - joined together for Sunday services, was that the Howard church might, in due course, be demolished and the funds used for the work of the churches. If there had been no prospect of demolition, the Howard church would have continued to be used for church services. The minister, Mr. Springbett said; "If this arrangement had not been agreed (i.e. until demolition took place) the Howard congregation would still be holding their Sunday worship in their own building".
I think that was sufficient to satisfy the words of the section. The Howard church is within the exemption.
I would, therefore, allow the appeal and enter judgment for the Trustees of the Howard church.
The question is was the Howard United Reform Church, Mill Street, Bedford, on 15th March 1973, "an ecclesiastical building which is -for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes or would be so used but for the works" within section 56(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971? This involves a consideration of (1) what an ecclesiastical building is; (2) what ecclesiastical purposes are; (3) what being used for those purposes means; (4) what the works referred to are and; (5) what is meant by would be used for such purposes but for such works.
It is, I think, necessary to consider these first three matters together and to remember that the effect of bringing a building within the words I have quoted exempts it from listed building consent and the penal consequences imposed by section 55(1)on a person who executes the works or causes them to be executed without it. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the privilege now granted by section 56 was originally conferred as an exemption from state control of ancient monuments by section 22 of the Ancient Monuments Act 1913; has for over 30 years been confirmed as an immunity from...
To continue reading
Request your trial