- 36 -
Planning Act 1971. Legally "the freehold of the church is as a general
rule, by the common law, vested in the incumbent"
(B8)
, but for practical
purposes we can consider it to be under the control of the Parochial
Church Council and subject to strong Diocesan influence. 156 is
"undoubtedly too many"
(B10)
but a tentative scheme to renovate some and
relocate others
(B16)
is likely to proceed only slowly, partly because
the ecclesiastical legal machinery is so dilatory ("the legal compli-
cations of the Church of England are inexhaustible"
(T5)
, partly
because of financial constraints (a point we shall take up in greater
detail shortly), but partly because of considerable affection among
parishioners - especially the elderly - for their 'own' building
(C4)
.
This latter is something not to be underestimated, and which cannot be
over-ridden (since the parish, not the diocese, controls the building)
but it may well be susceptible to influence - a point we shall find it
useful to bear in mind when devising our allocation system.
Bradford is not alone in having problems, a report in Sheffield
in 1975 stated "... if the Church could be given the chance of making
a completely fresh start with the buildings needed for the maintenance
of its life and the development of its mission, it would never elect to
have precisely the buildings which it has ... inherited ..."
(B13)
but
the situation must be faced as it is, not as one would wish it to be,
and it is to Bradford's credit that they have taken a realistically
broad approach
(B16)
, although perhaps to their discredit that they are
doing so on more of an intuitive than a rational basis. Specifically
they seem unaware of, or at least reluctant to use, financial techniques
such as capital investment appraisal, notwithstanding that they are
facing problems which are essentially asset renewal in a situation of
capital rationing. Indeed it would appear that the Church Commissioners'
first test before allocating capital is not financial at all
