I hesitate to post this in the face of some strongly-expressed opinions, but I
wanted to offer a view generally supportive of some of the ideas being floated.
A while ago when I was in my 20s and considering starting going to church (not
in this area), I recall how intimidating churches were. Big oak doors with
large, clunky latches and a congested entrance are not welcoming to those
tentatively hoping to sneak in quietly, or indeed to latecomers. The
suggestion of adding glass doors to the existing arrangement seems an excellent
idea and positive step to making the church more approachable.
I also remember how difficult services at HTHQ were when we used to attend with
a baby. The space for children at the back of the church is restricted and
often used for storage. The vestry is used by clergy and choristers as well as
by children needing to take a break from the service, and also as a
nappy-change area. Changing a nappy on the floor of a cold vestry is not
pleasant, especially with the prospect of toddlers, choristers or clergy
appearing at any moment. Removing a small number of pews at the back of the
church and replacing the existing 1970s extension with a larger one would be a
huge help.
I suspect that, if I'm fortunate enough to live long enough to become elderly
and infirm, I may come to value the provision of a less cramped toilet, perhaps
even with step-free access. Yes, there is an accessible toilet in the coach
house, but it's a long way mid-service if you're not very mobile.
So I support the ideas for glass doors, pew removal, toilet and vestry
facilities. The church is not just for the able-bodied and confident
middle-aged. It needs to cater, as far as it can, for everyone.
The Church in the broader sense can sometimes be seen as lagging behind the
times and not responding to the needs of the wider society (to put it mildly).
Tim and the elected PCC should be applauded for having the courage to make a
positive effort to help the church better serve its current and future
community. I have every confidence that they will address the legitimate
concerns of that community, particularly those whose relatives' graves may be
affected, and will do so with sympathy and understanding. The issue of graves
in particular is a deeply personal and sensitive one that should be discussed
privately with the families concerned.
I'm no architect or historian, but it does seem to me that Scott was a fan of
making buildings functional, and wasn't afraid of modifying existing buildings
to do so. It's not surprising that the functional needs of the 21st century
church differ from those he had in mind, and I wonder if he would really have
seen careful modifications as being contrary to his vision for the building.
Andy N
Quarry