Letters to the Editors
The Loo of St Mary's and of St Cyriac's
Dear Editors,
The work has started in St Cyriac's, and the trenches have appeared.
They're digging up Father's Grave to build a sewer
They're doing the job regardless of expense,
They're digging up his remains to make way for sewage drains,
To satisfy the local residents.
Father during his life was never a quitter,
And I don't suppose he'll be a quitter now,
He will jump up on his feet, and haunt the-------- seat,
.....And only let them, well you can guess the rest of this old bawdy song whichhad several verses, and is a least sixty years old.
The point of this is, that in my opinion, and that of many others, the loo should be in St Mary's, a building used every week, and which has room for the facility. I have recently seen the Diocesan Report which concluded that the vestry was too small. So it is, having been filled with furniture some ten years ago. If the rubbish was removed and the cupboards put elsewhere, there would be plenty of room. Not rocket science, just logistics. If you add something, something else must go.I had thought that the problem had been resolved, but now that all our capital has been transferred to the Conservation Trust, one twentieth of a Million, and we are still ninety yards from a loo. it is not. But it seems that the idea of two loos is gaining popularity, one in each church.
The PCC have taken their eye off the ball, and not listened to the congregation. An event so great as this, in money terms, it did need a public meeting, to test theopinion, and inform the parish of the PCC deliberations. Even publishing the minutes would have helped.
It is not entirely the PCC fault: any person could have asked how things were progressing, even telling the architect to think again, rather than propose a building where the lowest tender was over £120,000 and rightly rejected. The access to the churches was also neglected under a clause relating to old Listed Buildings. But here again a slight alteration of the paths would provide a gentle slope to both churches.But no, do nothing, just spend the money, writing cheques is not hard labour, and does not require much thought..
It will be interesting to see how many turn up for the Parish Assembly. All voters can attend and vote for the Church Wardens, and if there are too many nominations a ballot will be held. Likewise. membership of the PCC is decided by those on the church electoral roll, and you can asked to be put on, there is no exam,just coming to the church now and again will suffice. You even have a right to bepresent at PCC meetings, the same as at Parish Council meetings, but only to listen and not take part. After the meeting a perceptive Chairman may ask the parishioners for any comments. Help the church to be managed by those who use it, and share your expertise. No body is perfect, but collectively the right answer is usually found.
So there we have it , our money gone on a doubtful project, and the status quo in St Mary's. By the time you have collected the key walked the walk, done the business, locked up, and walked back, the service will be over.( don't rush or you may slip on the gravely path). A little forward planning will remove the necessity anyway, as has been proved by worshipers over the past four hundred years.
The Loo of St Mary's and of St Cyriac's
There are three sides to the discussion about this Loo and these are set out below. There is that of the PCC, that of the Users of St Cyriac's and that of the Churches Conservation Trust. In time there may even be a fourth view - that of the Congregation of St Mary's.
1. The PCC. Michael Cazanove spells out St Mary's position in his letter which follows. He omits to mention that it had once or twice been suggested that the Loo should be in the Vestry. The reason given for rejecting this idea is that the disabled would be unable to get up the steps into the Vestry. Instead it was decided that the disabled would have to go down the steps of St Mary's, make their way up the 40 yards or so of the gravely path to the side door of St Cyriac's, and then return. Michael is quite undaunted about any problem for the disabled, saying in his letter "if there is a will there is a way." Exactly! Many wonder what was wrong with the Vestry?
Recent letter from the PCC
Dear Editors,
I think a response is required from the PCC to your editorial in the February Crier - in it you state that the PCC will not be thanking the Crier for this rather late incursion to the Maryloo debate. In fact the opposite is true in that since work has now started we feel that is important that everyone is aware of what is happening and why the 100 is going to be in St Cyriacs rather than St Mary's.
The PCC has debated this subject for many years, and had one false start over ten years ago. As a result of many recent requests, we looked at the project again only to find that the cost of putting the 100 in St Mary's was totally prohibitive - well over £100,000. At the same time as discovering this unwelcome news, it became clear that the CCT had similar plans in mind for St Cyriac's. As a result of this it seemed to us to make enormous sense for them to put in the Loo , with financial help from the PCC and the Ely Diocesan Board of Finance, with St Mary's having access to it whenever needed.
There was concern from some that the acoustics would be ruined by thisdevelopment, so we went to considerable trouble to get in experts to test and advise if this was the case. Their findings were that the additions of kitchen and 100 facilities in the south transept will have minimal to no effect on the acoustics. Obviously you can't please all the people all of the time and we know that there are still some vocal objectors (even from within our own ranks) who feel strongly that the Loo should be in St Mary's.
To those people I would just say that we explored in exhaustive detail with English Heritage, our architect, the planning office and other interested bodies all the different options available. The only option that was feasible and allowable and that was agreed by 100% of the PCC was to build a small extension on the north side of the Church with access through the blocked doorway. It was this that we had costed and to our dismay found that it was way outside our financial capability.
They say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I hope that when the Loo is finally installed everyone who uses it will be happy. We agree that the path to St Cyriacs is uphill, but feel that if there is a will there is a way, and that no one should be caught short!
It was nice of you to say that the PCC is highly efficient - we do try hard to ensure that St Mary's is open and available, clean and tidy and warm(ish!) and welcoming for everyone, and there are many unsung heroes both in an outside the PCC, including yourself with your great skills on the ivories, who achieve this for the whole village. Many hands make light work, so if there is anyone out there who feels inclined to help the overworked PCC please let one of us know.
Yours sincerely,
2. The Users of St Cyriac's. The following rather long letter to Neil Rushton, Conservation Manager of the Churches Conservation Trust, sets out the concerns about the proposed plans and the effect of screening off the North and South Transepts. Because of its length some minor deletions have been made. The full version is available from the Editor.
Dear Mr Rushton, / 2 January 2010
St Cyriac's Church Swaffham Prior
As volunteers who help organise or support many events in our community, we value tremendously the splendid light and space afforded by the church of St. Cyriac and St. Julitta in Swaffham Prior. As such, we appreciate very much the support of the Churches Conservation Trust for this beautiful and well used building, and we agree with the Trust's stated aim of "encouraging access and promoting greater use of churches by and for the community, thereby increasing their cultural significance for local people" (Conservation Policy, November 2005, p.9). We also understand that it "is relevant that the present Government stresses the importance of using the nation's heritage as an educational and social resource as a condition offinancial support" (ibid.). It follows that we are supportive of measures that preserve and strengthen this building and that further its greater use. We feel that the proposed screening off of the North and South Transepts of St Cyriac's, however, is not such a measure.
The one outstanding feature of this plain church is its simplicity and its light and space. As the Trust expresses it so well on its web site, St. Cyriac's has "an elegant and spacious 'Gothick' interior with amazing acoustics." This is why it has been so successful for art exhibitions and choral concerts. . . . It is these two characteristics, particularly the light, that we fear the current plans jeopardise rather than enhance.
Our understanding is that, as presently contemplated, there will be partitions across both the north and south transepts to a height of seven feet. While we see the symmetry in this, we do not see the sense, because at such a height, the screens will obscure a significant part of the windows and thus diminish the light. Given the installation of the lavatory, we understand and accept that the height of the lavatory partition does need to be about seven feet high. But why must there be extra screening which will obscure the South Transept window far more that one would think necessary?The screening of the North Transept is at once less understandable and, we believe, more damaging to the lighting (and therefore functionality) of the building. Even if one were to concede (which we do not) that it is desirable to hide the chairs, why make the screening seven feet high? Why not have the screening only as high as the wainscot? Not only would this be more in keeping with the original lines of the building, it would also allow in much more light. In addition, why have fixed panels? It should be possible to design the screen so that both sides could fold back against the walls. The transept could then be used as part of the Church, as in the past, and admit the maximum light. . . . The height of the partition necessary to screen the lavatory appears to have dictated all the proposed changes. . . .
We regret also that the plans were not discussed with those who have been regular users over the last twenty years and that we only discovered the details rather late (and then by chance). Is it too late to take into account the needs of art exhibitions and of choral concerts? . . . Without such activities, it is unclear how St. Cyriac's level of community use can be maintained, let alone strengthened.
Yours sincerely
Dr Rushton emailed on 17 January saying he would meet the architects in the following week and then pass on any decisions.
We heard nothing. He ignored another email. On 12 February we were told by a caseworker that the work was to begin on the toilet installation. An email to Dr Rushton asking whether this work was only on the toilet facility was ignored. On 3 March an email asked Dr Rushton to whom one should write to get an answer as it was obvious we had to go to another level. This prompted an immediate reply which is reproduced below.
3. The Churches Conservation Trust. The following is Dr Rushton's letter.
Alastair- I'm sorry, this has slipped amidst my regional shift and I do apologise. The height of the lavatory partition in the south transept is a necessary arrangement to ensure the privacy of users and to maintain a certain amount of sound insulation. And it was felt that the north partition should mirror the south transept to maintain the symmetry in the building. It would not be aesthetically feasible to have a full height partition in one transept and a lower screen in the other.
The visual impact would not be acceptable in terms of maintaining the symmetry of the building. Whilst the partitions will diminish the light entering the building to an extent it is felt that it will only make a marginal difference to the overall lightness and spaciousness of the interior. And we did have an acoustic assessment carried out previous to the project beginning, which suggested that the acoustics would be affected only minimally.
Finally, although the partitions are fixed they will be totally reversible, as will all the toilet installation, should the requirement be for them to be removed in the future. The designer of the project is Ashley Courtney of Freeland, Rees, Roberts Architects, who you are welcome to contact about any technical design issues with the project: ac@frrarchitects.co.uk
The Trust is committed to increasing community use in all its churches and, where appropriate, toilet installations have been shown to be an essential element in ensuring a sustainable future for churches where regular events are feasible and desirable.
The scheme at SS Cyriac and Julitta was supported unanimously by the PCC, who are major part-funders of the project. The CCT is hopeful that the new facilities will substantially enhance the user experience at the church during events and exhibitions, and I hope you will continue to support and be involved in such events in the future.
The Trust could not manage its estate without the dedication and commitment of local supporters such as yourself, and your continued support is always appreciated. I hope this answers some of your concerns.