INSPECTION, JANUARY 2008

"THE SEDWELL REPORT"

St John's Church, Kates Hill, Dudley

Inspection on the 3rd and 4th January 2008 (Rev E)

S J Sedwell BSc. Arch, Dip.Arch, MSc.Building Conservation, RIBA

Astam GBC Consultancy, St Nicholas House, 47 London Road, Gloucester, GL1 3HF

ASTAM GBC REF: 8983

CHURCH OF ST JOHN'S CHURCH, KATES HILL, DUDLEY

A. DATE OF INSPECTION: Thursday 3rd and Friday 4th January, 2008

B. WEATHER: Cold and overcast with a brisk wind on the 3rd; slightly less cold on the 4th but overcast in the morning and rainfall in the afternoon.

C. INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY: S.J. Sedwell of ASTAM GBC Consultancy - Conservation Architect on 3rd and 4th January 2008.

Tim Floyd and Gareth Wyke of Ridout Associates - Timber Specialists on the 4th January 2008

Mark Simpson of Clarke, Nicholls and Marcel - Structural Engineers on the 4th January 2008

D. PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE: Brian Wentworth of the PCC was present during the morning of the 3rd, and at the end of the inspection on the 4th.

E. ACCESS: H T Kettle (Building) Ltd provided a tower scaffold to the wallplate level of the nave internally. Ladders were also provided to reach the exterior of the south aisle, vestry and south side of the Chancel roofs externally and internally to the wallplate level above the galleries and to the wallplates to the chancel on the 4th January 2008. Mr A Kettle also attended during the morning of the 3rd. Three operatives attended on the 4th to provide the access and carry out part opening of the structure.

F. PREVIOUS INSPECTIONS: The following reports had been made available to us: Ascough and Associates - Consulting Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers, Inspection in 1993.

Bowles Whittick Young - Architects Surveyors and Development Consultants, Quinquennial Inspection Report in 2002.

These reports are reproduced as Appendix A and Appendix B of this report.

G. LIMITATIONS OF INSPECTION: Owing to problems of access, and the scale of this building the following areas could not be inspected, so no comment can be made on the condition of surfaces or timbers involved:

i.     Voids beneath the vestry and chancel floors

ii.    Voids within roof spaces where enclosed by applied finishes

iii.   The tower interior above the access stairs due to previous reports of unhygienic conditions.

iv.   Floors covered by carpet and linoleum

v.    Voids within the gallery floors

vi.   Boiler room

vii.  Access to the roof surfaces was not possible on the north side of the church due to the sharp inclines in the ground

viii. Upper vestry floor voids

ix.   Tower roof

CHURCH OF ST JOHN'S CHURCH, KATE'S HILL, DUDLEY

GENERAL

A. FORM OF INSPECTION:

The inspection of the building is to be visual, and as such as can be made from ground level, ladders and any ready accessible roofs, galleries or stagings, and only selected areas are to be examined in detail; parts of the structure which are inaccessible, enclosed or covered, are not to be opened up unless specifically requested. The inspection is to include so far as practicable all features of the building covering all aspects of conservation and repair. Additional reports are also provided based on the structural integrity of this building and the condition of timberwork where inspected. The individual reports are attached.

B.   LIMITATIONS OF SURVEY GENERALLY:

It must be understood that this report is the result of a visual inspection only. Defects noted are, therefore, indicative of more extensive problems hidden within the structure. Some opening up was carried out in the areas stated revealing previously unknown detail, but it is still recommended where necessary to employ a contractor to open up the structure further so that the architect and other specialists may investigate in greater detail. Floor coverings have not been lifted unless otherwise stated and, therefore, the structure of suspended floors and solid floors was not examined. The condition of sub-ground drainage and foundations are excluded.

C.   INSPECTION OF TIMBERS:

It must be clearly understood that owing to difficulties of access and expense it is not possible to examine every timber in the building. No guarantee can therefore be given that the timbers are free from attack by beetle or rot. If such attacks are noted in following paragraphs this must be taken as an indication that what is apparent on the surface may be very much more serious when opened up or otherwise exposed.

D.   HIGH ALUMINA CEMENT:

We have not carried out any investigations to determine whether High Alumina cement was used during the construction of the building inspected and we are therefore unable to report that the building os free from risk in this respect. In view of the possible potential danger connected with High Alumina cement concrete, we strongly recommend that the appropriate investigations, inspections and tests be carried out immediately by a suitable qualified engineer.

E.   ASBESTOS:

Past works to the church may well have utilised materials which contain asbestos. This may be as insulation to services, as fabricated boarding or roof materials, or fire protection enclosures. In conforming with Health and Safety Executive Requirements (2004) we will indicate where it is believed such materials are present but it is not possible when undertaking a visual survey to produce a comprehensive report. the PCC is advised to engage an asbestos specialist to carry out a detailed inspection.

It is important that when asbestos is identified that it is not disrupted in any way. Provided it is undamaged it can be regarded as safe, but no fixings to, cutting or breakage can be permitted due to health risks which will then be caused. Where removal is required this must be undertaken by a licensed contractor who will undertake the exercise using full protection and utilising responsible disposal. Where asbestos is found damaged do NOT touch any of the material and isolate the area from access. This issue is also relevant to CDM (Construction, Design and Management) Regulations 1994 regulations noted in item F.

F.   THE CONSTRUCTION, DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 1994:

The PCC is reminded that it has a duty as an Employer (Client) under the CDM Regulations for construction and maintenance works, except:-

i.   construction work, other than demolition, which lasts less than 30 days (500 working hours) and involves 4 persons or less on site at one time.

ii.  all private domestic work

Refer to your professional adviser or send for Information Sheet no 39 2The Role of the Client" from HSE, International House, Dover Place, Ashford, Kent TN23 1HU (tel. 01233 624658)

G.   DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT:

The attention of the PCC is drawn to the requirements of this Act, which, after October 2004, has implications for churches.

H.   TERRIER, INVENTORY AND LOG BOOK:

The 1991 Measure requires the churchwardens:-

a.   to compile and maintain a full terrier of all lands belonging to the church and a full inventory of all articles belonging to the church and;

b.   to maintain a log book containing a full note of all alterations, additions and repairs to the church and the land and other articles belonging to it, other events affecting any of them, and the locatiomn of any relevant documents which are not kept with the log book itself.

These documents should be updated regularly and be made available to the Inspecting Architect/Chartered Building Surveyor at the time of the inspection. The Inventory should be kept in a secure place and treated as confidential. Loose leaf forms of the Terrier, Inventory AND Log Book are available from Church House Bookshop. The PCC is strongly advised to study bthe code of practice published in association with the 1991 measure, which sets out more fully the duties of the Churchwardens and Incumbent to the care of the Church and its contents. Copies are available from Church House Bookshop.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A.   NATURE OF THIS INSPECTION:

ASTAM GBC Consultancy was invited by John Dentith, the DAC Secretary of the Diocese of Worcester, to carry out this survey. It was commissioned jointly on behlaf of the Diocesan Board of Finance Limited and the PCC of St John's Church, Dudley, who could thereafter rely on its contents either jointly or separately. It is associated with an application to make this church "redundant" under the Pastoral Measure of 1983. It is understood that the response made by English Heritage opposed the proposed redundancy, and contended that the statement made in the 2002 Quinquennial Inspection Report, that the building presented a serious health and safety issue and should immediately be closed, was an overstatement, and that in their view the risks of structural failure were less extreme than stated.

B.   SPECIALISTS:

To carry out this work it was seen as essential that other specialists were also involved and a contractor appointed for access and opening up. Refer to page 2 above.

C. PREVIOUS REPORTS:

The previous reports were used as the basis for this inspection and the majority of our detailed findings indicate that the content of these documents is mostly accurate. These documents describe which are currently evident, but due to the passage of time (ie 18 years and 5 years) in all cases the degree of severity which can be observed today in these defects is correspondingly more extreme. The issues which this report will state in its conclusion will also indicate where new defects have been discovered and will express an opinion nased on a consensus view of the specialists involved as to the overall safety of the structure in each of its parts.

D.   LEVEL OF RISK:

In brief, the degree to which the fabric is at risk is significantly less from this inspection, when it is compared to the concluding advice in 2002 QI. We acknowledge that the action by the PCC was a responsible course of events given this advice. This report will not, therefore suggest that this action was incorrect, and furthermore we will not recommend any alteration to these precautions at this stage. The safety area around the exterior is also necessary due to falling stone fragments.

E.   CHURCH:

The church is most certainly an important landmark. Located on the apex of Kates Hill it clearly deserves the level of support it is receiving from the community. Aesthetically it is austere and imposing, with a general bulk which is uncompromising. We are very much aware that despite the vigorous response to an internet campaign by the "St John's Church Preservation Group" the additional attendance at the services currently held in the church hall opposite is very marginal. There are people who tend many recent graves in the extensive graveyard and it may therefore be assumed that the church is still important to them. Even during the inspection it was revealed that some do not feel comfortable with the hall and would be attracted to attend more if the church were brought back into action. Others who do attend the hall now say that they have become settled and that they are reconciled to the fact that dealing financially with such a large building is beyond their control. There is a stong feeling that the church is a huge financial encumbrance.

The building was closed in 2002 and no maintenance has been carried out in the interim. 

F.   BRIEF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY:

The church was built in 1840, with the nave being raised with a clerestory subsequent to this. Refer to the description noted in Appendix B

G.   CONDITION

 Initially the building appears to be in poor condition particularly when its details are observed externally. Warnings were given to us about health and safety issues and to the concluding statement about possible collapse of the roof noted in the 2002 Quinquennial Report. It made necessary that this condition was acknowledged and that suitable insurance by the professional inspectors was in place. This was done.

H.   ROOF FINISHES & STRUCTURE

There are roofs on this church which are in poor condition, but these are not the main structures. The major roofs to the nave, chancel and aisles presented little to raise any structural concern. Decay was found but in our experience far worse is often discovered in other churches where the structural condition is not regarded as hazardous. In consequence there is some confusion as to why such a dramatic recommendation was made in 2002.

Roof finishes have been identified as an unfortunate choice, but in truth although we are not satisfied with cement tiles on historic and structural grounds they seem to be functioning well. This is despite the poorly performing underlay. There is next to no deflection in the roof, however, as may have been expected. What is failing is the surface water disposal system and most of the issues internally can be identified as a consequence of its bad design and inadequate capacity. The roofs to the stairs at the west end are, however, failing and we would advise caution here. The vestry roof is also failing but this is localised and although unsightly is not representative of the vast majority of this structure. We cannot comment on the roof to the tower as this was not accessible. There is no evidence of structural failure, other than the localised areas of roofing.

J.   STONE:

This present report will not state that the building is irredeemable. The structure is essentially very sound but there are a number of issues which make its repair and conservation a huge responsibility. Stone work varies in condition. The limestone seems almost totally unscathed whereas the sandstone dressings are decayed and affected by the exposure of the site. It is certain that the proximity of limestone and sandstone together is a significant factor in this decay, and will be explained later. Pointing is generally cement rich which will also affect the retention of water in the fabric.

K.   STRUCTURAL STABILITY:

This building is very well founded and when we observed the structure beneath the floor its monumentality was impressive and exciting. Some external stonework has moved, mainly due to exposure and lack of maintenance, but nowhere was it viewed as evidence of structural failure. Fragments of stone are falling from the sandstone, and as such the safety zone is a responsible precaution, but these are small in size.

The roof structure has been reinforced over the gallery on the south side. This appears sound. The same defect may have commenced on the north side but its degree at present is minor and can be addressed. This also applies to the rot found in the nave roof. The pentice roofs over the west stairs, however will require reconstruction but they are a minor part of the structure. The vestry roof can also be repaired.

L.   DAMP INGRESS:

Many flashings have lost their pointing and copings are becoming open jointed. This inevitably leads to water ingress. Dampness is also due to condensation. There is much evidence of this and it could be clearly seen in the sub-floor areas and in the grey staining to the wall finishes. There is much flaking paintwork but this is due to the use of non-breathable emulsions which need to be stripped anyway.

M. THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH

It is clear there has been much debate regarding the future of this church and the final summaries in the previous reports is evidence of this. Although the structure is not listed we generally feel it is highly significant and has many aspects which are of great value. It has suffered seriously from neglect. This is not a criticism because we also acknowledge that its size and the difficulties in arranging access make it next to impossible for a PCC which has such limited resources. To bring this building back into use is a very costly exercise, which would then extend into a level of maintenance cost which cannot relaistically be covered by the modest income of the PCC. Such is the dilemma presented by this church.

A sum of £126,000 (in January 2008) has been quoted by English Heritage in order to return the structure to a working condition as a church. In our view this is unrealistic and misleading. The true sum would be such that external financial assistance would be essential and we are looking at sums which it is difficult to envisage and this is partly to do with the nature of its location. We have much sympathy for the PCC, and as much as we respect this church as being of great value, we cannot suggest levels of expenditure which they would never be able to generate independently.

So, our response to the English Heritage objection is partly in agreement, in that the church is redeemable. Where we differ is on the level of cost involved to achieve this. This building is large and problematic and the current level of decay is such that expenditure would have to be a major investment. This would then involve a level of maintenance costs which is still presumably beyond the PCC's resources. There is no easy answer to this. The previous reports are attached to this report and it is recognised that our comments are not dissimilar from those noted in previous documents.

DETAILED CONDITION OF VARIOUS PARTS OF THE FABRIC

A.   This report must not be interpreted as a Quinquennial Inspection but we have identified many issues about which significant costs would have to be engaged. The items which follow indicate that when viewed from a conservation viewpoint this building has many demanding needs and the use of many craft skills will be essential. Inevitably this increases costs.

ACCESS

A.   Temporary works is a major concern when we consider any repair or maintenance works to this structure. Access was difficult enough for our inspection but such is the scale of this building and with difficult terrain on the north side, this issue is very significant. Even for internal redecoration the scaffolding would be a major enterprise.

B.   The tower interior has other issues which, although not seen for safety concerns on this inspection, may well be associated with specialist cleaning needs. It cannot be overstated that we must adhere completely to health and safety concerns, particularly when the debris is associated with animal remains.

WALLS & MASONRY (EXTERNAL)

A.   GENERAL:

The walls when viewed externally reveal a number of issues. The infill coursed rubble is limestone and is generally fairing well. All dressed stone is sandstone and shows, universally, classic decay due to many causes.

B.   SULPHATION ATTACK,

which is associated with air pollutants in the past, has been widespread and has led to much lamination of the sandstone surfaces.

C.   EXPOSED LOCATION:

The decay to the sandstone is also striated due to exposure and many details  have decayed or fragmented. Corbel sections at eaves level have decayed totally in many instances. Many sections have been edge bedded leading to face decay. many have been repaired in a cement rich mortar which has in itself now decayed.

D.   FRAGMENTATION:

Iron saddle bar inserts in window openings have all fragmented the sandstone in the jambs.

E.   INCOMPATIBILITY:

Another issue is the combination of limestone and sandstone in the same structure. The juxtaposition of limestone and sandstone may well have led to severe decay of the sandstone and most likely for two reasons. Firstly, the limestone is much harder leading to preferential decay of the sandstone. Secondly, limestone and sandstone rainwash over the limestone becomes enriched in calcium and other minerals that interact with atmospheric pollutants and cause the sandstone to decay. Often the cementing material between the silica particles breaks down. This is one of the reasons why, generally, sandstones and limestones are rarely used together on the same building. In addition, the stonework has been heavily soiled in the previously pollutes atmosphere. Therefore, the original choice of this sandstone may well be questioned given the degree to which has suffered. Resolving this is far from straightforward. Sections can be cut out and new stone inserted, but this is widespread and affects virtually every sandstone block. But having said this, despite the decay, there are few issues which at present suggest significant structural failure.

F.   DISPLACEMENT OF BLOCKS:

A number of sandstone stone blocks have become slightly displaced. These tend to be kneeler stones and dressed blocks associated with gables and areas where the issue of wind pressure and consequent erosion is at its greatest. There are some distortions as noted by the engineer but these are not recent. Pointing has been lost due to exposure. There is some cavernous erosion, which is typical of sandstone decay where the wind blown silica granules carve out depressions in its surface. Soft beds also decay faster and these are clearly visible as striations.

G.   WINDOW JAMBS:

There has been much disruption to window jambs. Many windows have been removed  and it is clear that the cast iron sash bars have almost universally corroded and split the stone into which they were fixed. This is not minor cracking but in most cases is the loss of substantial parts of the carved sections.

H.   POINTING:

The pointing is generally cement rich. Overall it is functioning reasonably well but in the upper courses it can be seen to be starting to fragment. It is shallow and brittle. In some areas the pointing has been completely lost, most significantly on the east wall of the vestry. Cement rich pointing is almost always detrimental to stone masonry walls. It is well known that it shrinks slightly allowing moisture to enter. The moisture migrates into the fabric but cannot readily escape except by passing through the stone itself. As it does it deposits salts approximately 6mm or so from the surface. The surface skin then falls away. This is certainly happening on this structure and more exaggeratedly to the sandstone. Ideally all cement rich mortars should be removed and the pointing replaced with a lime based mix. Ironically the lime mortar can still affect the sandstone by slightly losing the edges to the arises, but this is how this stone behaves.

ROOFS - EXTERNAL

A.   AREAS EXAMINED:

The roof was examined at close quarters by erecting the lader to eaves height in the following locations:

South Aisle, west end;

South Aisle, east end;

Vestry, east end;

Chancel, east end.

The nave roof could not be accessed due to its height. The north side was also difficult to access due to the steepness of the made up ground which falls away sharply.

B.   LIFTING OF CEMENT TILES:

In each of these locations the tiles were lifted exposing the battens, underfelt and the lead dressings at the abutments. When the inspection was completed the tiles were refixed.

C.   CEMENT TILES:

The roof originally had natural slates, but these tiles were placed in 1969 we understand. This is unfortunate visually and often causes deflection in the roof due to the increased load, but in this case it is negligible. They interlock and generally provide a very even surface. Some have slipped and one slate had fallen from the nave at the west end damaging another slate on the south aisle due to the impact. No tiles are fixed but merely hooked over the battens.

D.   ROOF INSPECTIONS:

The previous reports make much comment about the condition of the underfelt. At this inspection it was confirmed that it does not dress correctly at the eaves and in many cases was distorted or decayed at its edge. It also deflected at the abutments and its texture generally seemed to have become brittle. There has been some debate as to whether the roof leakage was associated with faults in the underlay. In our view the cement tiles should be expected to function correctly even without an underlay, so we would refer more to the failures of the rainwater disposal system which is described below. Lead work at the abutments was generally sound though somewhat irregular. Pointing to the flashing was, however, generally poor or lost altogether  and water ingress is therefore inevitable. This also applies to other flashings at clerestory level. All coping stones are open jointed.

We place less emphasis on the roof finish failing than the original reports. It is true that more fixings are appropriate where environmental conditions are extreme, but at this inspection there were no instances where obvious failure was occurring this way. We understand that in certain light conditions slight undulations can be detected beneath, but at this inspection this not noted as significant. We must acknowledge, however, that deadloading has increased with cement tiles and althoug no structural failure was observed the structural members when overloaded can be more susceptible to decay. This is an issue which needs monitoring.

There are areas of roof which have failed and do represent safety issues. These are over the stairs at the west end on the south and north sides, and the east side of the vestry roof. These are localised areas and will require full replacement, but do not represent  the condition of the major roof pitches elsewhere. The tower roof could not be observed.

ROOFS: TIMBERS VIEWED INTERNALLY

A.   NAVE:

The roof structure to the Nave was viewed at close quarters at wallplate level using a tower scaffold, to the northwest, southwest, southeast and northeast corners. Overall the condition of structural timbers is good with no appreciable distortion. Reference to the other  specialist reports will identify areas where rot was discovered. One instance had already been discovered, judging by a chalked handwritten note on the timber, and the remainder appeared to be new discoveries. The general impression is encouraging though, and the nature of the defects is such  that they can be addressed readily from the interior. Repair is necessary, but overall they do not appear to undermine the structural integrity of this roof. This is an area which is very relevant to the general judgement of condition which will follow in the conclusion.

B.   SOUTH AISLE:

This roof structure was given significant reinforcement from the interior in 1969. A lining board was removed revealing substantial rebuilding of the inner skin of walling in insulating block; side steel reinforcement to spliced repairs to the lattice beams and the dressing of damp proof membranes around their bearings. This looks sound and where exposed appeared to be functioning well. There is no concern about structural integrity.

C.   NORTH AISLE:

This roof has not been reinforced like the south aisle. It was discovered at this inspection that some decay had started to form which appears similar to that repaired earlier. This appeared not to be extensive but is likely to be a similar failure but at an earlier stage. Potentially its repair will become necessary. There is appreciable water ingress towards the west end, but we do not attribute this to roof failure, more to the design of rainwater disposal which is described later.

D.   CHANCEL, BOTH PITCHES: This roof is sound throughout.

E.   VESTRY:

There have been failures in this roof before, and it is clear they continue. Plaster linings were removed from the east side and the hardboard panels to the east wall taken away. Decay is extensive locally and some replacement of timbers is necessary. There is some active dry rot in this location with fruiting bodies.

F.   STAIRS AT WEST END:

These roofs are in a state of serious decay. There is extensive rot and insect attack, general decay and structural distortions. The present designation to these areas as "unsafe" needs to be maintained, with no access allowed.

G.   ORGAN CHAMBER:

The view is limited but generally appeared sound. Some failure has occurred at the valley gutter on the west side but this now appears to be dry.

H.   LYCH GATE: Tiles have slipped and a stone filial has been lost.

RAINWATER DISPOSAL

A. GENERAL:

The rainwater disposal system is a highly relevant aspect of the performance of this structure. In bried it is inadequate in its capacity, its detailing is suspect; many items have become dislodged and the performance of what is believed to be soakaways are most likely to be fully backlogged and essentially inoperative. Water ingress is very evident in this church but it is due to poor design of rainwater goods, but this is an issue which can be addressed with common sense and improved design. Discharging the water into the ground is certainly ineffective and it may be best resolved by installing new mains drainage into the disposal system beneath the highway.

B.   GUTTERS:

Ogee cast iron on brackets to chancel and vestry, but also supported by moulded stone string courses and sandstone corbels, many of which are decaying or lost. PVC to the south and north aisles, and the nave on both sides. The detailing of the gutter to the south aisle seems slightly suspect for if the gutter overflows, and we are certain it does, there is a likelihood that water could track above the lead dressing beneath. Generally the capacity of all guttering appears unsatisfactory in terms of capacity and it is obvious that overflowing occurs and that the design has historically failed. Many PVC gutters also have adhesive tapes at the joints and we suspect this has a short- lived lifespan.

C.   RAINWATER PIPES AND HOPPER HEADS:

These are in a varying state of decay, with many missing altogether. They tend to be in PVC draining cast iron hopper heads. It can be seen that many hopper heads overflow, and the best example being on the north aisle toward the western end. This is clearly related to the failing internal plaster in this location. Generally the number of outlets also seems to be inadequate.

D.   DRAINAGE:

We understand that the disposal system is to soakaways. The location and design of these is not known. From the evidence we have seen it is almost certain that they are now clogged and inoperative. A new system is, therefore, necessary. Although the site is elevated it is not clear whether natural drainage is sufficient, so a new strategy of designing  new drainage to the disposal system beneath the road is recommended.

E.   TOWER:

The tower was not inspected, but given the inadequacy of the remainder of the system there may well be concerns in this location too.

F.   OVERALL CONDITION OF RAINWATER GOODS:

Given that no maintenance is given the amount of debris in the guttering is less severe than expected. Despite this we have to make a very strong recommendation that drainage is improved significantly. The issues suffered by this church are closely related to this area of poor design and performance. It is, however, acknowledged that access is difficult to the upper levels of guttering, but in many ways improved design therefore becomes even more critical.

DOORS & WINDOWS

A.   DOORS:

Generally poorly maintained but despite this in retrievable condition. As with all openings the dressed sandstone is decaying in the ways previously noted.

B.   WINDOWS:

Many windows have been taken into store for safety reasons and the openings boarded with sterling board. This was good practice and in many ways has improved the natural ventilation in this space. however, the condition of the dressed sandstone surrounds is such that significant effort would be necessary to conserve and reinstate. All sandstone is suffering significantly and presents considerable maintenance issues. Wrought iron saddle bars are always prone to corrosion and fracturing of the stone. This is widespread and has caused major disruption to stone jambs and other moulded sections. The previous report has stated that in its decay the sandstone may have imposed a stress on the leaded lights causing bowing and loss of rigidity. This is relevant throughout and where leaded lights remain they are in seriously poor condition. The east windows, do however, present themselves better than elsewhere. In brief all windows will require repair, part replacement and releading. The issue of repairing the stone is widespread and needs to be c arried out very comprehensively. This is by no means straightforward and will impose substantial increases in costs.

ROOFS: INTERIOR

A.   NAVE:

Generally good. Refer to issues noted in the other specialists reports.

B.   SOUTH AISLE:

Generally good since its repairs and reinforcement.

C.   NORTH AISLE: 

Some decay has been detected and a medium terms strategy need to be initiated to carry out minor repairs as noted above.

D.   CHANCEL:

Generally good. Refer to issues noted in the other specialist's reports.

E.   VESTRY:

Part replacement required.

F.   STAIRS AT WEST END OVER STAIRS:

Total replacement necessary

WALLS: INTERIOR

A.   GENERAL:

Walls are structurally sound and the movement which can be seen appears to be historic. Cracks are present but generally these seem to be of some age and the evidence of any current movement is mostly slight. The presence of dampness is, however, of major significance.

B.   FINISHES:

The finish to most walls is stained, decaying and affected by the implications of dampness. The coating appears to be emulsion paint and is flaking extensively. Many areas of plaster have become debonded either due to poor rainwater disposal or where external pointing has been lost. Typical areas are on the south side of the chancel and beneath the gallery on the north side toward the western end. Condensation is also present throughout and a general grey bloom is quite evident.

The vestry has serious water ingress on its east wall and is associated with the roof failure above. The stairs at the west end are also in very poor condition.

We cannot comment on the tower but reference to the previous report has descriptions of significant animal remains and guano. We must emphasise that health and safety issues must not be compromised and that a specialist cleaning company needs to be engaged.

CEILINGS

A.   GENERAL:

The good condition of the structural roof timbers is reflected in the condition of the boarding. Past leaks are visible by white staining in isolated locations but there was little that could be described as significantly active at this inspection. Needless to say the ceilings over the stairs at the west end and in the vestry are poor.

FLOORS

A.   GENERAL:

Floors vary from timber boarding to ceramic tiles. There are instances of lifting tiles and some breakdown of the boarding in places. Generally it seems sound but with areas of isolated decay. When viewed from the underside of the nave it was clear that condensation is very significant and water droplets and rust marks were present on metal surfaces.

FURNITURE AND FITTINGS

A.   GENERAL:

Inevitably the fittings which remain will continue to deteriorate. The presence of damp and the infestation of rats can only lead to general ongoing decay.

HEATING SYSTEM

A.   HEATING SYSTEM:

There is no heating system.

ELECTRIC SYSTEM AND GAS INSTALLATIONS

A.   EXISTING SERVICES:

These were not inspected. In any case the services must be inspected every five years by a registered services engineer and a report submitted.

BOILER HOUSE

A.   EXISTING BOILER HOUSE:

This was not accessed. The previous report states the presence of insulation material which may have an asbestos content. It is believed that this has been removed.

B.   BOILER PLANT:

The boiler has been removed and the system drained down. No heating is present.

FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

A. EXISTING FIRE EXTINGUISHERS:

Are stored in the vestry but have not been maintained.

LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR

A.   EXISTING LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR:

This church has an existing conductor fixed on the south side of the tower, but the lowest section is missing. The system is not, therefore, earthed.

SANITARY FITTINGS

A.   GENERAL:

There are no fittings save for a sink in the lower vestry.

CHURCHYARD AND CURTILAGE

A.   CHURCHYARD:

The churchyard is large and scattered over the hill. It has a large number of graves many of which are recent but others are totally overgrown. There has been significant ground movement to many and in some areas there is a health hazrd due to collapsing sections.

B.   GROUND LEVELS:

It can be seen that the area to the north of the church has been modified with made ground. This is to a steep incline and graves have been formed within it. The level  has dropped and tilted towards the north forming splits in the concrete paved areas. This has had no effect on the founding of the walls but inevitably voids have been created and the issue of water penetration made more extreme.

C.   PAVING:

The area adjacent to the church on the north, east and west sides is concrete paved with no margin against the walls. This encourages water to be trapped beneath and will then create a wick effect and rising damp in the walls. Due to ground movement there has been much disruption to these surfaces.

D.   RETAINING WALL:

The boundary retaining wall against the adjacent car park  to the east is reinforced by three brick buttresses. These are becoming distorted and open jointed.

CONCLUSIONS

A. GENERAL: Reference to the earlier sections of this report reveal that we are offering corroborative observations of this building as those noted in the previous reports. Given the passage of time these issues have become exacerbated and in many cases new defects have developed. We are aware that this "second opinion" is required due to what some see as a too categoric statement in the QI report about the safety of the building and the possible collapse of the roof if heavy wind or snow load is experienced. Based on the statements given by both Clark, Nicholls and Marcel, the structural engineers and Ridout Associates, the timber specialists, in combination with our own view, the previous advice has been generally noted as an overstatement. Since this original statement was made the church has in fact suffered from extreme winds, snowfall and indeed an earthquake with the epicentre close by. In consequence of these events we see no further development in these defects and there is little suggestion there is a risk of major structural collapse. This must not be viewed as the definitive view, but it is the opinion of those engaged in this inspection. In this light we recognise that closing the whole structure due to fear of structural failure should be open to review.

B. MAINTENANCE: The fact that no maintenance is being carried out can only be to the detriment of the fabric. We recognise that this may in part be due to the belief that allowing access would contravene health and safety issues, and given this understanding we acknowledge this was the only sound course of action that could be taken. We also suggest that the Quinquennial Report should have conveyed the areas of concern in more constructive ways. We recognise the political difficulties this present report  may raise will possibly undermine the PCC's decision to effectively abandon the church over the past 5+ years. It must  also be stated, however that we are not advocating the relaxation of the restrictions previously applied. Certain areas are dangerous and as the condition gradually deteriorates further areas may cause similar concern.

C. QUINQUENNIAL REPORT: We have thought deeply about how we would have concluded the QI Inspection report had we been engaged to carry this out. We do not dispute the detail in the main sections of the existing report which on the whole matches closely with the issues we observed. We would have urged caution in the areas where we recognise that danger exists. This includes the pentice roofs and staircases below and the interior of the tower. We would not have anticipated the failure of the main roofs but would have stated that when over stressed a timber structure such as this will deteriorate more rapidly and we would have recommended the avioidance of the heavy imposed loads caused by the concrete tiles  by their replacement in natural slate within the medium future. On this basis we would have been more selective as to how much of this building could continue to be used safely by the congregation. In our view the nave, chancel and aisles present no hazard. but we would have excluded the use of the galleries due to faulty floor boarding and the dangerous areas noted above. The upper vestry also presents some risk.

D. REDUNDANCY: The application for the church's "redundancy" can be viewed from differing standpoints. We can appreciate the PCC's difficulty in maintaining this structure. It is a huge responsibility and the condition it now presents is partly the consequence of inadequate financial resource. The strong desire to be relieved of this responsibility is natural even though it is tinged with sadness and disappointment. However, we cannot dismiss this as a structure which cannot be redeemed. It can be achieved and the necessary works can be fully specified. The church can be conserved and repaired to be fully operational. This cannot be done, though, without a major injection of outside funding.

E. THE FUTURE: This structure needs to find a viable future. There has been a debate over this issue for many years and the idea of selling it off for alternative use has raised some ideas. Social housing is one, and the turning of the churchyard into a nature reserve and walking area is attractive to some. But we are now talking of a commercial enterprise and finding such an investor is far from easy. The church could still be associated with this structure with spaces retained for worship. There will inevitably be regret over proposals such as this, but the important aspect is that the structure will have a purpose whereas at present it does not.

We recognise that English Heritage advocate restoring the church to its full status as a place of worship. Ideally we hope for the same but from  a practical viewpoint we must ask "how could the PCC achieve and then maintain this position without suitable funding?" We are not alone in recognising this as a very real impediment on the church's future. There is a very active "Friends" group, though, with a lively website. There is some hope that having generated this interest it could grown and be part of the funding initiative.

F. FUNDING NECESSARY: Subsequent to the inspection we met with Alan Taylor of English Heritage and his consultant  Architect Chris Miners. The recommended schedule of costs which had been put forward by English Heritage had been compiled. This sum totalled £126,000 and is attached under Appendix E.  This figure when viewed from a conservation point of view appears very low. It was confirmed however that this figure was the absolute minimum necessary to keep the structure watertight and should not be viewed as the amount for returning the structure back to full use as a place of worship. It did not address any form of heating, iot made no attempt at making the tower safe and accessible from its interior, and did not attempt to renew failing plasterwork or roof repairs to the nave. It was also recognised that the roofing should be returned to natural slate but this was also omitted.

We also felt that reinstating the windows would be more costly than anticipated and that the extensive stone repair would be essential for this to occur. This had not been accommodated.

As a consequence of this it was agreed that a range of costs should be put forward to give some idea of the true costs should a conservation minded approach be adopted. In this respect we would suggest the following:

 Stage 1:  

The scheme previously described = £126,000

Refer to the attached schedule supplied to us by English Heritage (Appendix F)

In addition to the works on this schedule add the repair of sandstone dressings around window jambs and arched heads; and the emergency works to the lightning conductor system, followed by its complete redesign and installation in accordance with the current British Standards.

For these additional works the following costs should be added:

Stone repairs to allow windows to be refixed 

£10,000

New Lightning Protection Scheme

£5,000

Stage 1 Revised Total £141,000.00

Stage 2:

Structural roof repairs to the nave;

Structural roof repairs to the vestry;

Repointing all open jointing to external walls;

Complete redesign of the rainwater disposal system, including sub-ground drainage and new mains connections beneath the highway;

Replacement of damaged plasterwork;

Complete removal of internal decorations and renewal in sympathetic materials;

Repairs to the flooring of the nave, chancel and aisles, and general repairs to the gallery floors;

Installation of new heating system;

Make the church accessible to the disabled

These items in addition to the above = £300,000.00

Stage 3

Complete renewal of the roofing in natural slate including full temporary protection;

Conservation work generally to sandstone dressings;

Removal of cement rich pointing and renewal in a lime based mix;

General stone cleaning throughout;

External landscaping works to address the subsidence on the north side and with more sympathetic paving finishes, and to reinforce the retaining wall on the east side;

Repairs to the Lych gate and boundary walls;

Overhaul the organ;

Restore decayed stone details internally.

These items in addition to the above =  £500,000.00

These figures are very provisional but are intended to illustrate the level of cost which is likely should conservation works be undertaken. The figures do not include for fees (which would involve architect, Structural consultant, services consultants and quantity surveyor) and VAT, and as this church is not, as yet, listed the VAT cannot be recovered.

G.   PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE:

Many photographs were taken as part of this inspection. Some have been selected and arranged on the pages under Appendix F. They illustrate typical situations where the details noted above can be seen.

REPORT ENDS

Please note the photographs will not be entered into this website but will be available to view at all our public meetings.