home  |  contact us  |  subscribe with RSS RSS Icon  |  follow us on Twitter Icon


Nov

For what we are about to receive... PUBLISHED IN VAT

The sheer quality of much of our built environment is one of the chief joys of belonging to our country. Ranging from protected monuments as ancient as Stone Henge to the much more contemporary listed Arts Tower of Sheffield University, I love the superb backdrop to our life, and the fact that we are so careful, as a country, to maintain this fabric of our heritage and identity. They are riches without price, but, as the cliche goes, they are not without cost...

Far from it. And perhaps the finest category of all of these, our huge stock of largely medieval protected churches, cost vast sums to maintain.  This burden falls largely on worshipping congregations and some other well-wishers, and many people enjoy the background benefits without having to pay for them.  The benefit this brings to such commercial operations as the tourist industry is incalculable. It serves a similar purpose to that of a bell-wearing cow in Switzerland.  It also doubtless attracts immigration of the wealthy and commercially capable who enjoy living in some of our lovelier environments. Even without the aesthetic considerations we would probably be worse off if we did not have this superb stock of structures. 

But it was very far from my mind to launch the familiar appeal for the state (thus taxpayer) to pay for all their upkeep for the good of the country.  This of all times is not the time for that kind of plea.  But I am delighted to report that the DCMS has announced continuation until 2015 of the listed places of worship VAT grant scheme which does so much to lower costs and neutralise the unavoidable VAT levies on repair services.  With VAT increasing to 20% this is quite a relief in itself.

However, there is a practical issue which looks potentially ominous.  The DCMS has announced that they have a budget of £12 million per year for grants, and that they will launch a discussion with the faith groups as to how to distribute it fairly.  The implication (which I have not verified) is that this is unlikely to be enough to meet all legitimate requests, and that choices will have to be made. How will that be approached?

The problem is that churches are, first and foremost, places to worship, and this function cannot be entirely overlooked.  On the other hand, the scheme does not cover all churches, but only those that are listed. This must mean that its primary focus is on the heritage value of the buildings.  Even that blunt observation presents an issue, in that it is the oeuvre overall that has such a profound impact on our lives, not, in general, isolated specimens.  But even the oeuvre as a whole would probably be better served by diverting resource to the finest and/or rarest examples.  This means that someone is going to have to make such judgements, and judgements will be controversial, invidious, and painful to perform.

I will refrain from giving examples of the churches I would prioritise. I do not wish to draw fire from more knowledgable than me or inflame a civil war between like minded enthusiasts.  I will keep my private passions private.

It would be all too easy to look at the cap and bemoan its meanness, when in fact this is seriously good news. We ought to be positive, and probably thankful for what we will receive towards this vital work.


Join the discussion Terms & Conditions