Closure of the HLF Grants for Places of Worship (GPOW) scheme
This page is an archive, frozen as at 1 September 2017.
The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) confirmed in mid March 2017 that the Grants for Places of Worship (GPOW) scheme is closing. Note that this does not affect the government’s grant scheme for reimbursing expenditure on VAT (called the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme). This page explains how to get a grant in future, and comments on the change.
Last update 27 July 2017. To keep up to date on this and other matters, sign up to our free newsletter (box on right).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This page provides the following information. Scroll down to find the section that interests you.
1. Latest information about the closure of GPOW
2. How to seek a repair grant for a place of worship in future
3. HLF commentary on the closure of GPOW, with our comments
4. Our view of the closure of GPOW
5. Correspondence with HLF and others
6. How to influence the course of events
7. The views of some other organisations
8. Background documents
9. Archive of older material
1. Latest information about the closure of GPOW
A chronological list of new information added to this page. The date is the date at which the material was added.
27 July Historic England (HE) have issued a statement relating to the closure of GPOW. In brief, HE will work with HLF to monitor the effect of decreasing specialist involvement in repairs, and with HLF and others to check whether competition ‘from better resourced applicants’ has disadvantaged any group seeking an HLF grant for repairs to its listed place of worship.
17 July The Church Buildings Council of the Church of England have made a statement criticising the decision by HLF to close GPOW (calling it ‘a grave mistake’). The latter statement also lays out ways in which the changes made by HLF might be mitigated, and asks for comment.
17 July The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, George Stack, has expressed concern about the closure of the GPOW scheme, both in a lecture reported in the Catholic Herald, and at greater length on the national Roman Catholic Church website.
17 July Interesting article ‘Spotlight on churches’ by Marcus Binney looking back forty years to the famous exhibition Change and Decay: the future of our churches, and how GPOW and its predecessor grant schemes have greatly improved the condition and sustainability of church buildings and other places of worship since then. Includes commentary on the closure of GPOW. This article is part of Up my Street: Buildings at Risk, recently published by Save Britain’s Heritage, and is available for purchase. Reproduced by kind permission.
15 July One page editorial about the closure of GPOW in the recently-published edition of Historic Churches. You can purchase or download for free the whole of Historic Churches, which is published annually by Cathedral Communications. Reproduced by kind permission.
28 June Letters from Wales Heritage Group to Head of the HLF, Wales, and to the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, National Assembly for Wales. The letters express concern about the closure of GPOW.
7 June Email exchange with Historic England. We wrote to Historic England setting out some concerns emerging from recent correspondence. As part of this, we explained HRBA’s view that that the switch away from designated (i.e. listed) places of worship through closure of the GPOW scheme will be bad for those buildings, because at a time of financial stringency it moves money away from the most important buildings.
27 May The Friends of Friendless Churches have issued a statement. We think it is well worth reading as it sets out very clearly the concerns felt by many people about the closure of the Grants for Places of Worship Scheme. It appears in their Newsletter (produced jointly with the Ancient Monuments Society) for Summer 2017. You can find out more about the Friends here. The statement is in section 7. below.
For a list of older information added to this page, see archive section number 9 below.
2. How to seek a repair grant for a place of worship in future
A list of HLF offices may be found at https://www.hlf.org.uk/looking-funding/where-we-fund. HLF staff have a reputation for being helpful, and we recommend the earliest possible contact.
There will be two more applications rounds for the GPOW scheme in 2017. The last application deadline in August/September 2017 (please note there are different deadlines for final GPOW applications in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). After that the scheme will close.
Two existing grant schemes run by HLF will continue to provide grants for repairs to places of worship (but not just for that). These are the Our Heritage scheme and the Heritage Grants scheme. The first is for smaller grants (up to £100k), the second for larger grants. These schemes are open at the moment, and we have been told there is no need to wait until GPOW has closed before applying.
The HLF say that in 2017-2018 ‘we have committed to a targeted spend of at least £20m on repair projects in places of worship across the UK’. We do not know how this commitment will spread across the various grant schemes.
The guidance notes and application forms for GPOW, for Our Heritage, and for Heritage Grants are all on the HLF website, at https://www.hlf.org.uk/looking-funding/our-grant-programmes
HLF have promised various support will be made available.
As far as we can immediately see from the published material (at 23 April), the commitment to a targeted spend is for this year only, though HLF hope that places of worship will apply in sufficient quantity in future years to achieve at least the same level of grants (though places of worship will then presumably be in competition with all other applicants). We stand to be corrected on this important point, and will highlight any correction if we are wrong.
It has been confirmed by HLF that places of worship may apply now for grants from the Our Heritage scheme and the Heritage Grants scheme and there is no need to wait for the closure of GPOW.
Update 3 May 2017
We understand that applications to the Our Heritage scheme normally require the applicant to have reached RIBA Stage 3 (compared to Stage 1 for the closed GPOW scheme and Stage 2 for the closed but very popular Listed Places of Worship Roof Repair Fund). This implies more prior investment by the applicant before applying than was the case for GPOW. As always we recommend early contact with HLF before making a formal application.
We will update this page with further information as it becomes known to us.
3. HLF commentary on the closure of GPOW
There is now an HLF blog which gives some useful details at https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/news-features/new-approach-supporting-places-worship.
There is also a set of FAQ, where you can ask your own questions, at https://www.hlf.org.uk/community/general-discussions-forum/new-approach-funding-places-worship.
In the reasonably near future we hope to add our own comments to these statements by HLF.
4. Our view of the closure of GPOW
Updated 26 May
The HRBA is not in favour of the closure of GPOW. We think it is a retrograde step. Unfortunately HLF did not consult those working in this area before making its decision.
Possibly the most important aspect of the change is that money for repairs to historic places of worship will no longer be ringfenced. Congregations wishing to repair their building will be in competition with a range of other applicants asking for money for different purposes.
It is hard to overstate the importance of HLF’s Grants for Places of Worship (GPOW) programme in supporting historic places of worship. Public funding to help congregations with unusually large repair bills has had various manifestations over the past forty years, first being funded by government, then by English Heritage (EH), then jointly with EH and HLF, and finally by HLF alone. The current scheme and its predecessors have played a key part in ensuring that the voluntary groups (mainly congregations) who look after these buildings have been able, year on year, to fund major repairs. As a result the vast majority (more than 96% of listed places of worship) are now in acceptable condition, meaning that the buildings continue to be accessible to anyone and everyone.
Concern 1: Experience of applicants and [added 3 May] upfront cost to applicants
From the point of view of the experience of applicants, we have several concerns. A major one is regarding those congregations who will now have to use the Heritage Grants scheme, which requires far more of applicants than GPOW, and in practice often means that applicants feel they have to engage professional advice in applying.
Added 3 May 2017: We understand that applications to the Our Heritage scheme normally require the applicant to have reached RIBA Stage 3 (compared to Stage 1 for the closed GPOW scheme and Stage 2 for the closed but very popular Listed Places of Worship Roof Repair Fund). This implies more prior investment by the applicant before applying than was the case for GPOW. The GPOW scheme was tailored to the reality of repairing historic buildings, rather than being a general purpose scheme, and the GPOW process was well suited to the needs of this specialist class of buildings.
Concern 2: Policy considerations: safeguarding the future of historic places of worship
From the wider point of view of safeguarding the future of our historic places of worship we think the closure of GPOW is a retrogade step. We believe there is a fundamental strategic and practical case to be made for unusually large repairs to places of worship continuing to have a dedicated and ring-fenced scheme, with a specialist application process and with a heritage outcome focusing on building condition. In future money for such repairs will not be ring-fenced; congregations wishing to repair their building will be in competition with a range of other applicants asking for money for different purposes.
It is important to note that other HLF grant schemes do not focus on this single heritage objective of repairs, but encompass other heritage objectives, such as better management of the building. So there will inevitably be less focus on the condition of the building, which in a time of financial stringency must be of overriding importance, at the expense of more focus on other matters. We see this as a key concern.
[Later expansion of the previous point: Although we welcome the fact that the same amount of money is guaranteed to be spent on places of worship (this year), we regret that the focus has been taken off spending on repairs in favour of spending on other outcomes.]
We also fear that applicants looking to carry out straightforward repair jobs costing more than £100k will be put off applying by the Heritage Grant scheme’s complexity and insistence on many other outcomes unrelated to the condition of the building. We are particularly concerned about smaller congregations (often deeply rural ones), for whom we suspect that the work involved in a Heritage Grant project will be beyond them. If our fear is justified, and there is a reduction in grant applications (especially from smaller congregations – who sometimes look after magnificent buildings), this could have a deleterious impact on the condition of buildings – not because less money is available from HLF, but because congregations are not applying. When what they want to do is repair the roof, we fear they will back away from a scheme requiring them to jump through multiple hoops – appropriate for new projects, but not, we think, for simple but expensive repair needs.
We also regret the loss of the Historic England input to each GPOW application, which helped applicants shape an appropriate package of work. We would question the move away from GPOW’s focus on listed places of worship, and think that at a time of financial stringency it is the most important buildings which should be assisted. We also question the removal of the protection afforded by the use of qualified conservation professionals to carry out GPOW work. Experience in the past showed that without these checks and balances, some rather poor work can be carried out.
The two schemes which applicants will have to use instead of GPOW do have advantages for some congregations (for example, flexibility) and some congregations are using these schemes. We encourage this, but it is not necessary to close GPOW to provide that encouragement. HLF’s suggestion that some new flexibility is being introduced is misleading.
Concern 3: Why was the decision made?
Many different reasons and justifications have been given by HLF for the closure of the GPOW scheme. But none have been spelled out. Some have not been repeated in recent communications.
Worryingly they included the claim in one authoritative communication that closing GPOW will improve the fit with HLF strategy. If this is the case, we need to be given details, so that we understand exatly why GPOW doesn’t fit current strategy, and how carrying out repairs to places of worship might fit with future strategy. The appropriate and obvious way to raise strategic concerns would have been as part of the forthcoming strategic review, not via an unexplained fait accompli.
There is a hint that one factor is a wish on HLF’s part to reduce their cost base in line with their income – if so, how will the closure of GPOW play into this and what weight did this receive in the decision? Was GPOW chopped because it was the most expensive scheme to administer? We do not know, so cannot usefully respond with alternative suggestions.
The lack of any HLF consultation with external experts working in the sector, and the absence of a clear, evidence-based consideration of options and assessment of impact means we cannot meaningfully respond to HLF with alternative ways to meet their objectives.
Concern 4: What is the impact on inclusion and diversity issues?
We do not know what consideration was given to inclusion and diversity issues, including the variety of religious sensibilities, when HLF decided ‘how best to adapt its grant programmes’ to address ‘the issue of long-term sustainability’.
Concern 5: Improved sustainability is hoped for, but not provided for
We have no reason to doubt that HLF wish to improve the sustainability of places of worship, as mentioned in the briefing material. However we do not know of any evidence that the outcomes that will in future be required of applicants will in fact do so.
We do not want to be misunderstood: we believe that there are outcomes other than building condition where the link with sustainability is evidence-led, focused, and proportionate. We believe that the GPOW outcomes were broadly in line with this.
But this is not the case for many of the outcomes which will in future be insisted on. The outcomes are no doubt desirable in themselves – e.g. ‘had an enjoyable time’, ‘skills to have been developed’, ‘negative environmental impacts will be reduced’. But where is the evidence that time and money spent on these outcomes will increase the sustainability of the place of worship?
Despite what is claimed, we do not know of any evidence that these new requirements will improve the sustainability of places of worship.
Concern 6: A precedent has been set
We are extremely concerned that a precedent has been set, with HLF making a major decision without consultation.
We believe that such a major change from a long-standing arrangement merits caution, evidence-based option evaluation, wide consultation and a full impact assessment, especially when made by a near-monopoly provider of public money. We have seen no evidence that this change received that attention.
Will this happen again? When consultation does happen in future, what weight will HLF attach to it?
Concern 7: Who decides?
The introduction of dedicated PoW funding for major repairs 40 years ago followed government consultation with the sector. In the view of many people, this 40-year policy has been a distinct success. Congregations have paid for most of their own repairs (about 75% of the cost would be a reasonable estimate) whilst a small number of extremely large repairs have received grants each year. Places of worship are generally in good condition (according to Historic England in October 2015, fewer than 4% are on the risk register with no solution agreed for dealing with the problem) and congregations continue to take responsibility.
It is surely not satisfactory that a summary cancellation of long-standing public policy has been made without debate by a grant giver at arms-length from government. HLF’s effective monopoly position exacerbates the issue.
5. Correspondence with HLF and others
This section contains correspondence with HLF and others. Letters from us (HRBA) detail our concerns.
1. HRBA letter to HLF 24 March 2017. This letter details our concerns about the lack of consultation etc. We are now discussing having a meeting with a senior member of HLF’s staff.
1a HRBA early response: ‘Closure of GPOW: points for consideration’. This is our rapid response of 24 March to the HLF briefing note of mid March we had received a few days earlier. In this response we set out our concerns, based on the information then available to us. This responsewas sent to HLF. Note that the idea of a minimum targeted spend for places of worship in the current year is not mentioned in the briefing note (that element of the change was first mentioned by HLF a little while later), so our response does not deal with it.
2. HRBA letter to Historic England 31 March 2017. This letter asks what HE’s advice was regarding the closure of GPOW. Letter of 4 April in reply from Historic England to HRBA This response from Historic England confirms that they were not consulted by HLF and that the closure of GPOW was not discussed by the English Churches and Cathedrals Sustainability Review
3. HRBA letter to DCMS Minister Tracey Crouch 3 April 2017. Our letter raised concerns about process, and the impact of the change. It asked for assurances about the forthcoming consultation for the next Strategic Framework. It asked for confirmation that the change was discussed with the ongoing English Churches and Cathedrals Sustainability Review (we have since learnt that the change was not discussed by the Review – see Historic England correspondence above). It asked the Minister to give serious consideration to the needs of historic religious buildings. The Minister’s reply Reply from Tracey Crouch April 2017 was a holding exercise, and stated that the reply would be written by her officials after talking to HLF and would not come from her. Our response HRBA reply DCMS Tracey Crouch 5 May 2017 was that we wanted to hear the Government’s views on the matters we had raised, not those of HLF. We also commented briefly on the standard letter from DCMS (see item 5. below) which people are now receiving.
4. HRBA letter to Bernard Taylor, Chair of the Sustainability Review, 10 April 2017 Emphasises success of GPOW and its predecessors in keeping places of worship in good condition, points out that new arrangements remove the focus from the repair of buildings, raises the question of how government and its agencies should ensure that these buildings are sustainable.
5. Standard reply letter from DCMS Added 4 May 2017. DCMS are writing to our members with a standard reply to their letters. This standard reply letter has one interesting statement, that HLF are willing to consult on possible changes, such as ‘increasing the thresholds for Our Heritage grants to levels significantly higher than £100k’. This is the first time this has been suggested. It is an interesting idea and worth pursuing, but we are left more baffled than ever that the allocation of public money is being decided in what has the appearance of being an ad hoc and piecemeal way. We also note that the letter talks of ‘merging’ the GPOW scheme with existing programmes, when in our view it is unarguable that GPOW has been closed, not merged. The letter points out how much money has been spent in the past on places of worship, and says that HLF remains committed to these buildings. We are grateful for that commitment: but our interest lies in the ways that this commitment is expressed through appropriate grant schemes going forward. The other points in the letter cover ground already discussed in section 4 above.
6. Added 20 May 2017 A letter from HLF a copy of which was sent to several MPs, justifying the closure of GPOW. Amongst other things it says that HLF felt the need to act in advance of the findings of the Government’s Sustainability Review into Churches; however, as the wait would only have been a few months, we find this unconvincing. More worryingly, using the Review as justification for the closure of GPOW ignores the fact that the Review only applies to Church of England churches, not to places of worship of other faith groups. We now know that HLF did not carry out an Equality and Impact Assessment, so the effect of this change on places of worship of other faith groups was not formally assessed before it was made.
7. Added 24/26 May 2017 An email from HLF which explains the background to their closure of GPOW in more detail. Unfortunately the email claims that GPOW and its predecessors have ‘not prevented large numbers of places of worship appearing on “at risk” registers’. We responded pointing out how misleading this claim was – fewer than 4% of listed places of worship are on risk registers, a small percentage, and representing a major improvement in the condition of these buildings over the last few decades; in fact we regard GPOW and its predecessors as a very significant policy success. We were glad that in reply HLF quickly accepted that ‘churches are in reasonable condition now in terms of their fabric’, and have explained they did not intend the point to be taken in the way it was. The email appears indirectly to justify the lack of consultation by explaining that HLF has detailed knowledge of the sector; but that should be true of any public body doing its job properly, and is normally a justification for lack of consultation – HRBA believe that there was a legitimate expectation of consultation in this case. A particularly interesting part of the email occurs towards the end when HLF explains why they do not wish to focus on places of worship which are listed, and this does raise some important public policy issues.
8. Added 7 June 2017. Email exchange with Historic England. We wrote on 26 May to Historic England (HE) setting out some concerns emerging from recent correspondence. As part of this, we explained HRBA’s view that that the switch away from designated (i.e. listed) places of worship through closure of the GPOW scheme will be bad for those buildings, because at a time of financial stringency it moves money away from the most important buildings, and asked for HE’s views.
9. Added 28 June 2017 Letters from Wales Heritage Group to Head of the HLF, Wales, and to the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, National Assembly for Wales. The letters express concern about the closure of GPOW.
10. Articles. Added 15 July 2017 one page editorial about the closure of GPOW in the recently-published edition of Historic Churches. You can purchase or download for free the whole of Historic Churches, which is published annually by Cathedral Communications.
6. How to influence the course of events
Under the circumstances, we are not encouraging a mass write-in campaign.
But we would encourage those with concerns or experience in this area to think about writing in a considered and formal way (for example, by letter) to the appropriate person. If you do decide to write, then you could write to HLF (in which case please copy DCMS and Historic England), or to DCMS (in which case please copy HLF and Historic England) or to some other influencer of your choice (in which case please copy the three others!).
It is important that all parties understand how much GPOW has been valued and the huge difference it has made. A key concern which you may wish to raise is the removal of a protected pot of money for major repairs to places of worship, overturning forty years of successful public policy in this area. You may wish to make other points, based on our commentary above.
DCMS contact details
Tracey Crouch, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, DCMS, 100 Parliament St, Westminster, SW1A 2BQ
enquiries@culture.gov.uk (for DCMS) and tracey.crouch.mp@parliament.uk (as an MP)
HLF contact details
Ms Ros Kerslake, OBE, Chief Executive, Heritage Lottery Fund, 7 Holbein Place, SW1W 8NR
Chief-Executive@hlf.org.uk
Historic England contact details
Sir Laurie Magnus, Chairman, Historic England, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, EC1N 2ST
Chairman@HistoricEngland.org.uk
7. The views of some other organisations
1. National Churches Trust statement, issued 5 April 2017
2. Church of England statement, issued 6 April 2017
3. The Friends of Friendless Churches statement 27 May 2017. It appeared in their Newsletter (produced jointly with the Ancient Monuments Society) for Summer 2017.
8. Background documents
Pages 35-40 of the following give a readable and authoritative history of GPOW’s predecessor http://ecclsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ET.45.lores_.pdf
For a one page summary of how HLF and English Heritage shared the burden from 1987 to 2004, see page 63 of this http://ecclsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/How-do-we-save-our-parish-churches.pdf
HRBA’s submission to HLF in February this year (2017) suggesting ways in whcih GPOW might be improved in the light of HLF’s forthcoming strategic review. This was submitted before we knew HLF had decided to close it without consultation.
Here is an authoritative discussion of the funding of repairs to Church of England churches, which amongst other things points out how important GPOW is in keeping them in good repair. This was submitted to the ongoing review into the sustainability of those churches, which is yet (April 23 2017) to report.
9. Archive of older material
HLF email sent to diocese 4 April 2017 Formal notification by HLF to a Church of England diocese notifying the diocese of the change. Similar but shorter than the HLF briefing note of mid-March (see above), a copy of which was attached to the email.
Press release from HLF announcing change https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/heritage-lottery-fund-statement-funding-places-worship
Archive list of new information added to this page
24/26 May We aded an email from HLF which explains the background to their closure of GPOW in more detail. The email is in section 5 above , item number 7 with our comments.
20 May We added a letter from HLF a copy of which was sent to several MPs, justifying the closure of GPOW. The letter is in section 5 above, item number 6 with our comments)
5 May A week ago we received a reply from the Minister at DCMS, Tracey Crouch, to our letter of 24 April (section 5., item number 3 below, which includes our response).
4 May We have learnt that DCMS are writing to our members with a standard reply to their letters (section 5. below, item number 5).
3 May We added the new information that applications under the Our Heritage scheme normally need to be at RIBA Stage 3. See sections 2 and 4.
23 April A big upgrade: a) We have confirmed in section 2 that you may apply immediately for grants other than GPOW, and have commented on the targeted spend. b) We have expanded on our views in section 4. c) We have populated section 8 with background material. d) We swapped sections 3 and 4. e) We added new sections 3-7.
18 April A General Election called, which may affect the ability of DCMS to respond to letters
8 April We have written to the government’s review into the sustainability of English churches and cathedrals. Our letter is in section 5., below.