This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure | |
|---|---|
| Name | Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure |
| Enacted by | General Synod of the Church of England |
| Year | 1991 |
| Citation | Measure of the General Synod |
| Territorial extent | Province of Canterbury; Province of York |
| Status | current |
Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure
The Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure is a Church of England Measure enacted to consolidate and reform law relating to church buildings, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and faculties. It sets out procedures for the care, alteration, redundancy, and disposal of St Paul's Cathedral, Christ Church, Oxford, York Minster, and parish churches across dioceses such as Diocese of London and Diocese of Winchester. The Measure interacts with institutions like the Cathedrals Measure 1999, Church Buildings Council, Church Commissioners, Archbishop of Canterbury, and secular bodies including the Listed Building Consent regime administered by Historic England and local planning authorities.
The Measure was designed in the context of earlier provisions such as the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 and the Pastoral Measure 1983, addressing the need for comprehensive rules governing the maintenance, alteration, and redundancy of ecclesiastical property. Its purpose was to simplify complex relationships between bodies like the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules Committee, the Church of England Record Centre, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee for the Care of Churches, aligning canonical practice with statutes affecting Cathedral Church of St Nicholas, parish parochial structures, and conservation obligations under instruments like the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. It aimed to balance heritage protection for sites like Gloucester Cathedral with pastoral priorities in rural parishes of Cumbria, Kent, and Sussex.
Drafting involved consultation with stakeholders including the Church Commissioners, the National Society for Promoting Religious Education, and the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline. Debates in sessions of the General Synod reflected tensions between representatives from the House of Bishops, House of Clergy, and House of Laity, and involved precedents set by decisions of the Ecclesiastical Courts and appellate rulings in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Measure was passed following revisions informed by commentary from heritage organisations such as English Heritage and legal authorities including the Law Commission. Its passage paralleled other reforms in the 1980s and 1990s affecting ecclesiastical law, notably the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and the Measure of 1994 reforms.
The Measure consolidates provisions on faculties, vesture of churches, and ecclesiastical courts into chapters addressing the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Diocese, the functions of Diocesan Boards of Finance, and the role of Parochial Church Councils. It prescribes procedures for making alterations to listed churches like Canterbury Cathedral and defines processes for declaring redundancy and re‑use, interacting with trusts such as the Churches Conservation Trust and bodies including the National Trust. It sets fees, timelines, and appeals mechanisms involving the Court of Arches and provides powers to grant licences, impose conditions, and require repair bonds in line with case law from the High Court of Justice.
Implementation rests with diocesan officers, chancellors, and advisory committees, supported by institutions like the Central Council for the Care of Churches and the Cathedral Fabric Commission for England. Administrative practice involves inspections, faculty petitions, and consents, often coordinated with secular heritage authorities such as Historic England and local planning bodies in cities like Bristol, Manchester, and Leeds. Dioceses maintain registers and liaise with the Church Commissioners regarding funding for works, while parishes consult conservation architects from practices experienced with Winchester Cathedral and conservation cases in Norfolk.
The Measure has shaped outcomes for repair programmes, reordering projects, and adaptive reuse across notable sites including Durham Cathedral, Ely Cathedral, and numerous parish churches in Lincolnshire and Surrey. It facilitated clearer pathways for community uses, commercial leases, and heritage grants administered by entities such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, affecting preservation strategies for stained glass, organ restoration, and archaeological deposits. It also clarified responsibilities for insurance, maintenance funding by the PCCs, and the management of redundant churches transferred to custodians like the Churches Conservation Trust.
Legally, the Measure reaffirmed the competence of ecclesiastical courts and the chancellor system while interfacing with secular statute and case law from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Canonically, it influenced the interpretation of canonical norms under the oversight of primates such as the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury, shaping clergy and lay roles in fabric decisions. It has been applied in litigation addressing proprietary rights, ecclesiastical property disputes, and conflicts over liturgical reordering involving parishes represented by solicitors experienced in ecclesiastical law and cases adjudicated by the Consistory Court.
Criticism has come from preservationists citing impacts on listed buildings, from parish activists in dioceses like Chichester and Carlisle, and from legal commentators regarding complexity and costs. Amendments and guidance have been issued in response, influenced by cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and decisions in the Administrative Court. Prominent case law interpreting the Measure involves disputes over faculty jurisdiction, consent scope, and the balance between heritage protection and pastoral mission, with rulings affecting policy across major ecclesiastical institutions including Worcester Cathedral and parish networks in Devon.