Meeting to Discuss the Future of St. James' Church

The meeting held by the Priest in Charge, Rev Adrian Thompson, and the Parochial Church Council (PCC) last night to discuss the potential closure of Wigmore Church was a somewhat rambling, almost two-hour affair so please bear with me while I try and summarise.

A number of increasingly circular arguments developed but can be broadly categorised as:

Previous Closure Process / Consultation

· Back in 2021 the PCC initiated the closure process and began a consultation which no one attending the meeting not connected with the PCC seemed to know anything about.

· That original process expired after being on pause for 2 years and hence this new attempt by the PCC to initiate closure.

· The new Priest in Charge stated that he believed that retaining the community of Wigmore within the parish for worship was more important than the building in which that worship took place. Hence, the suggestion to use the village hall for worship instead of the church. This argument wasn’t readily accepted by others at the meeting.

Lack of Church Officers / Congregation Etc

· A lot of negative feedback was presented about the previous Priest in Charge and his lack of interest in St. James’ and the apparent lack of interest shown in St. James’ by the PCC.

· The PCC chair made a point of highlighting the lack of church officers, wardens and congregation at St. James’ over the last few years. Some at the meeting argued that this was inevitable given the lack of interest shown in St. James’ by the PCC.

Finances

· Regarding finances, the church costs approximately £4000 per year to run, including insurance, utilities, routine maintenance and Wigmore Abbey PCC expenses. Of the £25k legacy left by Muriel Tonkin for church maintenance approximately £12k of that remains.

· Currently between £300 and £500 per year is donated in cash by visitors to the church.

· It was suggested that a digital “donation” device be installed to facilitate easier donation but it was stated that this has failed in the past and help would be required to set this up – a member of the audience offered to help establish this.

The Process of Church “closure for worship”

The Diocesan representative, Sarah Girling, explained the “closure” process as follows:

· A formal public consultation period is initiated by the PCC – during this period the church remains physically open to visitors. Note: this formal consultation period has not yet been initiated.

· If they recommend closure, the Archdeacon and Diocesan Mission and Pastoral Committee will be consulted. If they recommend closure to the bishop then the Church Commissioners will undertake a national consultation process - during this period the church remains physically open to visitors

· If closure goes ahead then the “ownership” of the church transfers from the PCC to the Diocese, and the Church Commissioners seek an appropriate alternative use for the church - during this period it was stated that it could not be guaranteed that the church would remain physically open to visitors.

· No timescales were identified for any of these separate processes.

· It was stated that should closure go ahead the preferred outcome was for the church to be taken on by the Churches Conservation Trust, a Charity specifically set up to look after churches in the same position as ours. She was fairly certain that as a large Grade 1 listed building it wouldn't just be left to fall into disrepair. She also made the point that the CCT is willing to work with local communities where appropriate.

Outcomes…?

At the end of the meeting the Archdeacon, The Ven. Derek Chedzey, identified what he thought were the main outcomes of the meeting:

· He didn't think that the PCC had sufficient grounds to go forward with the Closure application at the moment – i.e. he could not support the commencement of the formal closure consultation process beginning now.

· From the number of attendees and their response he identified that there appeared to be potential for Wigmore church to go forward as a functioning church again and suggested its designation be as a Festival church with up to 6 services a year marking the major festivals.

· He recommended that St. James’ should establish a committee to work with the Priest in Charge and PCC to agree a way forward.

· He recommended working with the Friends of St. James’ Church to establish an on-going mix of religious and secular events.

· He made the point that approximately 3 years of on-going finance remains for the church from the Muriel Tonkin legacy which provides a window to establish clearly whether or not St. James’ has a viable future as a place of regular worship.

In the community interest the Friends of St. James’ Church are willing to facilitate a meeting in the village hall to discuss the pros and cons of setting up a viable new congregation and the associated necessary offices. We would pay for the hall hire. We would suggest this meeting is attended by the Rev Adrian Thompson, a churchwarden and a treasurer from another church to explain their role and any Wigmore residents who have an interest in retaining St. James’ as a viable place of worship.



The Friends of St. James’ Church would liaise with the Priest in Charge to agree an agenda for this session and publish it in advance.