New Petitions

First, thank you for agreeing to hear my evidence. I am the session clerk at Riccarton parish church in Kilmarnock. The church was built in 1825 and is a B-listed building. It stands on a hill and is the most prominent landmark at the south of Kilmarnock, just off the bypass. In 1997, the church entered into an agreement with Historic Scotland concerning restoration work. That came about because there were serious structural problems with the chancel of the church. We were faced with a choice between instructing that the work be carried out almost immediately or vacating the church. The congregation could not have coped with the cost involved in restoration and decided to vacate the church, at least temporarily, and worship elsewhere. However, at that point our structural engineer brought us into contact with Historic Scotland, which offered us a grant of 60 per cent towards the cost of restoring the chancel. After careful consideration, the congregation decided to accept the offer, which meant that it had the responsibility of finding the remaining 40 per cent. However, before the grant could be made, Historic Scotland required the congregation to agree to carry out all restoration work that Historic Scotland considered necessary. There were six phases to that work. The congregation had to agree that it would carry out all six phases, although no time scale was placed on that. However, there was a time scale for the work on the chancel, which became phase 1A. The congregation had already carried out a phase previously. There was a time scale for the work on the chancel because of its structural problems. That work was carried out with 60 per cent funding from Historic Scotland. The congregation is grateful for the financial help that we have received so far from Historic Scotland because we are fully aware of the many demands that are made of the organisation, but I have to say that, the congregation would not have agreed to carry out all six phases if we had not made the reasonable presumption that 60 per cent funding would be available for each phase.When the chancel was completed, we had to proceed to phases 2 and 3, expecting to receive 60 per cent funding from Historic Scotland. Phase 2 involved repairs to the roof and putting back the original tiles and phase 3 involved the steeple, which had become dangerous and had had an order placed on it under section 13 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, meaning that it had to be inspected every three months and that the church could have been closed at any time. When we entered into the agreement, there was no Heritage Lottery Fund and we gave the undertaking without any knowledge of that source. However, the 40 per cent funding that the congregation found for phase 1 of the project is more than 10 per cent of the cost of all six of the phases, which is estimated at £1.2 million. When planning our financial arrangements for phases 2 and 3, again, we based our plans on the assumption that we would receive 60 per cent funding—

I will be quick.Our point is that, in our case, the system that is operated by Historic Scotland is morally wrong. I have five letters from which I can quote that demonstrate that it was always understood that there would be 60 per cent funding at each phase. A figure of less than 60 per cent was not mentioned by Historic Scotland until two weeks after the work on phases 2 and 3 had started. Admittedly, that was because our architects asked whether the work could start because of the section 13 order. Historic Scotland, of course, states that, if permission is granted for work to begin before the grant has been awarded, it does not undertake to fund the work that has been done if no grant is awarded. However, the project was so far advanced that our architect had every reason to expect that the grant was coming and that it would amount to 60 per cent of the cost.When we were told that we would receive only 45 per cent, the work had been started and we had no alternative but reluctantly to ask the Church of Scotland to agree that the work carry on. However, even with the Heritage Lottery Fund grant, there is a shortfall of £41,000, which we—

Certainly. We are asking for the 60 per cent funding arrangement to be reinstated in our case as that was the understanding at the start.

Yes. Historic Scotland gives us a percentage of the total estimated cost.

Phases 2 and 3 were put together because it was felt that if work was done at a later phase on the steeple, damage might be done to the roof. We expect that each of the other phases will be taken as a separate entity.

Yes. I have several letters to indicate that, including a letter from Historic Scotland in which the only figure that is mentioned is 60 per cent. Until this time, Historic Scotland has never mentioned any figure other than 60 per cent in any of the correspondence. Before we decided to go ahead with the work, we were told in a letter from our architect:"The offer of grant, if made, will set a precedent for the percentage offered for future phases of the work. With each phase of the work, the church will be asked to submit documentary evidence of the church's financial position, including accounts, and the percentage offered by Historic Scotland will only be varied if the church's financial position is seen to have improved disproportionately."

Historic Scotland regularly receives details of our financial position whenever they are requested. It is fully aware of our church's financial position. The annual income from our congregation is enough to cover the normal running of a church with very little left over. The fact is that, by a combination of means, we have already raised in phases 1 and 1A more than 10 per cent of the total because we had no other option. Therefore, we should not be asked for any more. If all the work had been done in one phase instead of six, we would already have raised more than the 10 per cent. Just because the work has been split up into six phases, we do not see why that means that the more than 10 per cent of £1.2 million that we have already raised should not be counted.

Yes.

The letters do not constitute a contract and Historic Scotland would be able to say that. I refer you to one of the letters. We wrote to our architects, who have experience of dealing with Historic Scotland, to ask for their view on the commitment of Historic Scotland. The reply that we received was as follows:"Further to receipt of your letter dated 16 November … we would only comment that Historic Scotland ‘allowed' the congregation and the design team to assume that the original grant level would carry forward into later phases, as all the figures quoted in letter form and discussion throughout the application process referred to a grant level of 60%."

Yes. The work on phases 2 and 3, which have now been completed, started in March 2002. The work started two weeks before we received the letter stating that the grant was being reduced from 60 per cent to 45 per cent. I have correspondence that shows the reason for that. Our architects requested that the work begin, because everything was in place—the contractor had been selected and all the finances seemed to be in place—and they were getting very worried about the steeple. Therefore, they asked whether the work could start before the grant had received formal approval from Historic Scotland. HS wrote back to the architects and said that the work could start, although it reminded them that it had no responsibility for work that started before the grant had been approved if, for example, it decided that there would be no grant. In other words, we would have been responsible for the amount of money that was spent in the two weeks prior to the decision on the grant. However, I am sure that our experienced architects were fully aware that the process was in place and the grant would come through. We had the six-phase agreement. The architects took their action in good faith; they assumed that within two weeks we would be informed that we would receive 60 per cent.After two weeks, we received the letter that said that the level of grant would be 45 per cent. When we asked why we had not been told about that in advance, we were told that the architects had asked for permission to start the work. We probably would not have gone ahead with phases 2 and 3 if we had known about the reduction in the grant, but by that point, as two weeks' work had been done and quite a lot of money had already been spent, we felt that we had no option other than to tell the general trustees of the Church of Scotland to approve and accept the 45 per cent grant.