Rediscovering Our Parish Church – Community Strand Reports

Summary Findings for Heytesbury Deanery

  1. Introduction
  2. This report attempts to draw together the replies from a questionnaire about community involvement and aspirations sent to all 20 parishes in the Heytesbury Deanery in July 2008. Returns reflecting 26 out of a possible 33 churches have been received. It should be taken together with a similar report from the Sherborne Deanery, the English Heritage Final Report[1] and any material arising out of the Bishop of Salisbury’s seminars in January and February 2009.
  3. Background
  4. The Heytesbury Deanery comprises 33 churches, in 20 parishes, grouped into 8 teams or benefices. The deanery is mostly rural but the towns of Westbury and Warminster lie within it. The total population in 2007 was 41,629 and 1,838 names were on the electoral rolls[2]. There are no Group Ministries in the deanery. In terms of civil administration, 3 parishes lie wholly in Salisbury District, 16 in West Wiltshire and one lies both in Salisbury and North Dorset.
  5. Wiltshire is divided into a number of Community Areas (CA) for civic administrative purposes. In 2009, the sole principal authority will be Wiltshire Council who intend to focus local governance on these Areas. Heytesbury Deanery lies across three CAs: Westbury, Warminster and Mere, and also takes in Bourton civic parish in Dorset.
  6. Each Wiltshire CA has a Community Area Partnership – an independent assembly of individuals and organisations that arranges consultations and hosts theme groups. All such partnerships invite representation from parishes or benefices and several have already taken this up.
  7. Questionnaire
  8. The questionnaire comprised six main sections, each sub-divided into a series of specific questions:

Q1.Name, etc

Q2.Description of the Community

Q3.Population statistics, community spaces, challenges, planning, representation and areas of disadvantage

Q4.Community activities run by the church or others, formal links and their success, initiatives and areas of action

Q5.Future activity – needs and priorities

Q6.Evaluation of the questionnaire itself

3.2.A second questionnaire, focussing on specific issues and solutions, is planned for distribution in Spring 2009.

  1. Returns received
  2. Approaches taken by addressees in compiling the returns were varied. Some were answered on behalf of the whole benefice (in one instance that amounted to eight parishes) whereas some reflected single churches without reference to others in the parish. Actual answers to questions tended to be brief and summary. In several cases whole questions were unanswered. A list of responses is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Returns received

Benefice/Team / Parish / Village / Church / Return received?
Bishopstrow and Boreham / Bishopstrow and Boreham / Bishopstrow / St Aldhelm
Boreham / St John
Cley Hill Villages / Corsley and Chapmanslade / Chapmanslade / SS Philip & James / 
Corsley / St Margaret / 
Corsley / St Mary / 
Deverills and Horningsham / Brixton Deverill / St Michael
Horningsham / St John
Kingston Deverill / St Mary
Longbridge Deverill / SS Peter & Paul
Mere with West KnoyleMaiden Bradley / Maiden Bradley / Maiden Bradley / All Saints / 
Mere / Mere / St Michael / 
West Knoyle / West Knoyle / St Mary / 
Upper Stour / Upper Stour / Bourton / St George / 
Kilmington / St Mary / 
Stourton / St Peter / 
Zeals / St Martin / 
UpperWylyeValley / Boyton / Boyton / St Mary / 
Codford St Mary / Codford / St Mary / 
Codford St Peter / Codford / St Peter / 
Heytesbury with Tytherington and Knook / Heytesbury / SS Peter & Paul / 
Knook / St Margaret / 
Tytherington / St James / 
Norton Bavant / Norton Bavant / All Saints / 
Sherrington / Sherrington / SS Cosmo & Damian / 
Sutton Veny / Sutton Veny / St John / 
Upton Lovell / Upton Lovell / St Augustine / 
WarminsterChristChurch / WarminsterChristChurch / Warminster / ChristChurch / 
Warminster St Denys and Upton Scudamore / Upton Scudamore / Upton Scudamore / St Mary
Warminster St Denys / Warminster / St Denys / 
White Horse / Dilton Marsh / Brokerswood / All Saints / 
Dilton Marsh / Holy Trinity / 
Westbury / Westbury / All Saints / 
Westbury Leigh / Holy Saviour / 
  1. Collated Returns by topic
  2. In the tables below responses to individual questions have been aggregated or summarised.
  3. Question Group 3

Q 3.1 Population / Number of responses: / n/a
Summary:
The total population of the Deanery in 2007 was 41,629 broken down into the following age ranges:
0-19[to follow]
20-60[to follow]
60+[to follow]
[Individual statistics by parish to follow]
Q 3.2 Community Space / Number of responses: / 18
Summary:
The usual variety of pubs, schools and village halls. Ideas:
1. Establish with those that have village halls whether the community is happy with them are there any plans to re-furbish, extend, etc and start a dialogue with those without village halls, or those whose hall is in poor shape, to investigate the use of the church for this function (Heytesbury?)
2. Investigate relationships between the primary schools (numbering over 15) and the churches
Q 3.3 Challenges / Number of responses: / 23
Summary:
Isolation, poor communication and lack of social cohesion (particularly in the towns) figure commonly. Ideas:
1. Talk to community planners about any communications developments
2. Get PCCs and police an community planners together in the parishes who highlight lack of social cohesion
Q 3.4 Community Planning / Number of responses: / 13
Summary:
Variety of plans at differing stages of maturity. Ideas:
1. Ensure that PCCs have input to their civic parish plans
2. Make parishes aware of their Community Area Partnership (Gillingham, Mere, Warminster or Westbury)
Q 3.5 Representation on other groups / Number of responses: / 21
Summary:
Churches together (in Warminster or Mere) figures widely. Ideas:
1. How close do parishes work with civic parish councils
2. Encourage PCC representation on Community Area Partnerships
Q 3.6 Disadvantage / Number of responses: / 21
Summary:
Rural isolation and shortage of facilities. Ideas:
1. How much do parishes/benefices actually work together as communities?
2. Investigate communications initiatives, e.g. broadband

5.3.Question Group 4

Q 4.1 Activities / Number of responses: / 15
Summary:
Lots of social clubs for older people and children. But very little evidence of the churches assisting or sponsoring clubs, societies, etc for adults. Ideas:
1. Investigate the potential of using the churches as a venue for older people’s and children’s clubs
2. Do churches offer clubs in competition with other secular societies?
3. What potential is there to offer church facilities for, say, lectures, film shows, social evenings, local history societies and hobby nights
Q 4.2/3 Formal links/successful / Number of responses: / 10
Summary:
Formal links invariably with primary schools, not surprisingly as several of these are VA or VC schools. Ideas:
1. what about links with village hall committees, village associations?
2. Links with military, residential homes, nursing homes, doctors’ surgeries, etc, not clear
Q 4.4 New initiatives / Number of responses: / 13
Summary:
Lunch clubs abound, but very few substantive initiatives. Ideas:
1. Do full audit of clubs, societies, groups in villages and match them with potential to offer a) facilities and b) support from parishioners
2. Investigate offering breakfast, lunch, tea clubs for younger as well as older people.
Q 4.5 Areas of action / Number of responses: / 12
Summary:
A variety of ideas but most at arm’s length form the church itself. Ideas:
1. Invite those on electoral rolls to come up with action ideas
2. Raise the issue to the top of PCC meeting agendas

5.4.Question Group 5

Q 5.1 Needs and how to address them / Number of responses: / 11
Summary:
Sparse return but a variety of ideas.
Q 5.2 Changes needed / Number of responses: / 13
Summary:
Funding, young people to be involved in planning and time. Ideas:
1. Instead of trying to go it alone, engage with other Christian groups to establish their needs and see if there can be common ground
2. The same for local secular groups
Q 5.3/4 Three key needs/areas of priority / Number of responses: / 14
Summary:
Needs include leadership, manpower and time (although not always shown under this question). Areas of priority reflect these, in particular activities for the young and elderly. Ideas:
1. By focussing on activities/facilities for the younger adults, the elderly may well be included (breakfast and lunch v]clubs, history societies, lectures and film nights)
2. Engagement with local Christian and secular groups concerned with young people could be beneficial
Other thoughts / Number of responses: / 4
Summary:
Very little to explore

5.5.Question Group 6

Questionnaire Evaluation / Number of responses: / 13
Summary:
Answers ranging from Difficult to Frustrating. None found it easy.
  1. English Heritage Report
  2. The English Heritage report offers some useful comment and guidance regarding the reconfiguration of church interiors and the impact of any changes. The report’s authors freely admit that ‘This is, of course, contentious stuff, and deals not in black-and-white judgements but subtle shades of grey’[3]. However, two examples of bold but sympathetic reordering stand out: Holy Saviour, Westbury Leigh and ChristChurch, Warminster. These modifications have already been made but the report records a favourable impact. Interestingly, however, the churches concerned make no reference to the works in their responses to the questionnaire. In other cases, the impact of change is most often considered detrimental, but it should be borne in mind that such comments refer to interior change – mostly to naves and chancels. There are some references to exterior change that could be made sympathetically, for example at Bourton[4], but there is a lack of research on external reconfiguration, enhancement of facilities outside the main bodies of churches or, indeed, re-development within churchyards.
  3. Work on redeveloping the outside of church buildings and their churchyards could usefully be conducted, or coordinated at least, by those drafting (civic) parish plans in concert with PCCs.
  4. Links with civic planning
  5. On 1 April 2009 the existing district councils in Wiltshire (in the Heytesbury Deanery area: Salisbury and West Wiltshire District Councils) and the County Council will be abolished and a Unitary authority for the county – Wiltshire Council – will form. The focus of community governance for this new authority will be Community Areas, of which there are 20 in the county. Sitting in each area will be Community Area Boards – executive arms of Wiltshire Council comprising elected members, with parish council representation and senior decision-makers from other public services. Community Areas relevant to the deanery are Mere, Warminster and Westbury.
  6. Each area has been reflected in two key documents: Profiles[5][6][7] and Community Area Plans. The profiles show socio-economic data and comment which, although about three years old, are relevant to this study. The Community Area Plans have been drafted by relevant Community Area Partnerships – non-statutory groups of local individuals and organisations drawn together to devise, consult, advise, recommend and manage a variety of projects and initiatives designed to develop their area. From April they will be also be key contributors to the Area Boards.
  7. Mere Community Area. The following parishes will lie in Mere Community Area: Mere, West Knoyle, Upper Stour (less Boreham).
  8. Mere & District Community Plan[8] makes specific references to topics relevant to this study. In particular, it consistently acknowledges the part played by churches in the establishment and maintenance of community cohesion. Church groups, of several denominations, are seen as integral to the area’s current profile and are further recognised as key players in the development of social care and health plans[9].
  9. Warminster Community Area. The following parishes will lie in Warminster Community Area: Bishopstrow and Boreham, Corsley and Chapmanslade, Deverills and Horningsham, Boyton, Codford St Mary, Codford St Peter, Heytesbury with Tytherington and Knook, Maiden Bradley, Norton Bavant, Sherrington, Sutton Veny, Upton Lovell, WarminsterChristChurch, Upton Scudamore, Warminster St Denys
  10. Again, Warminster and Villages Community Plan[10] makes specific references to topics relevant to this study. However, there are no references to part that could be played by church groups. Neither does the Plan include churches (of any denomination) in the groups consulted. In 2008 WCC also published the State of Warminster Community Area[11], being a snapshot of varioussocio-economic indicators for that Area. At the same time, the Council published Warminster and villages Community Area Partnership Survey Results[12]. These will be useful references for further work.
  11. Westbury Community Area. Westbury Area Community Plan[13] is again a useful document as regards the identification of social, welfare, etc areas of concern. However, it too makes no references to the churches in consulting on or partnering in the development of the community.
  12. Conclusions
  13. The questionnaire was a useful point of departure for grappling with the issues of community involvement and the aspirations of individual parishes. Several good ideas were forthcoming and there is clearly a will to do something about the issues before the deanery. However, precisely what those issues are is not so clear. There is mixed engagement with the civic community throughout the deanery and, interestingly, it is in more urban or densely populated areas where this engagement is more pronounced. The most significant conclusion, however, is that the questionnaire was a very poorly response in terms of the depth of answers and the apparent consultation within parishes that had contributed to their completion. Serious omissions from the responses were examples of previous and current practice (good and bad). In fact, the response was so poor that conclusions would be hard to validate.
  14. The key findings, given the caveat above, were:
  15. A lack of facilities for older and younger people within communities
  16. A clear demand for sound leadership in moving community engagement by the parishes forward
  17. A need for funding to support innovative, practical projects
  18. Recommendations
  19. It is recommended that the project team be absolutely clear about:
  20. what problems are being addressed
  21. who should address them
  22. when should they be resolved
  23. Parishes (not benefices) should be approached to address three basic questions:

1. Using the returns from the questionnaire, where available, do you recognise yourself?

2. How do you see the parish in ten year’s time?

3. What headline actions should be put in place to achieve that vision?

9.3.To assist debate, a scenario should be written describing two fictitious, but credible, parishes – one which successfully addressed the issues head-on and re-vitalised their civic and ecclesiastical community and one that did not. This scenario would generate robust discussion.

9.4.Workshops should be initiated in parishes attended by PCCs, certainly, but also civic parish leaders and other groups to address the questions. These workshops should be assisted by external, but informed, facilitators. The workshops could

9.5.Best practice champions should be invited to PCC workshops to stimulate debate and furnish ideas

9.6.A programme of engagement with other denominations (Baptist, Methodist, United Reform, Congregationalist, Roman Catholic, independent, etc) should be initiated to tackle the problem of building usage and sustainability together

Sherborne Deanery Report

Community needs and resources in the Sherborne Deanery area reflect those of the whole county of Dorset. The presence of large independent schools in Sherborne itself may offer a superficial boost to the area’s population of young people, but on the whole the area has a population that is older than the national average, some parts have difficulties with transport and access, housing is expensive, and younger people tend to leave the area in their late teenage years in pursuit of educational and work opportunities. These trends are obvious but important.

Some other aspects of life in the area are not so obvious. Income levels in and around the town of Sherborneare lower than one would expect, and some parts have high levels of poverty and deprivation. The geography of the Deanery is complicated in terms of relating to other community structures as the area relates to several market towns, crosses district council boundaries, and many people look across the county boundary to Yeovil for employment.

What can churches do to respond to the needs of the community within the deanery area? Much is being done already. Work with children and young people shows elements of creativity, lunch and social clubs for older people address isolation and loneliness, while innovative work at St Paul’s in Sherborne has attracted praise from health workers and community development workers.

A national report on realising the potential of churches and other faith buildings has recently been published and is available at:

No matter how much we are already doing there will always be the need to make sure that our activity meets real need. Taking time for research and prayerful reflection may lead us to consider bringing some work to an end and to deploy our energies elsewhere.

Some of the challenges and issues for local communities that were identified by local churches in their surveys may seem intractable and far too big for local churches to address. The obstacles may be significant but in fact many of these difficulties have already been faced by church groups and useful work done to deal with bigger problems.