Ship of Fools: Restoring a Welsh Chapel as a home

Thread: Restoring a Welsh Chapel as a home Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025718

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I am watching this programme, and finding myself in a bit of a time warp. The chapel was built in the 19th century, and sold in 2007. (BBC 2, Restoration Home - for those who can see it.)

The "experts" are talking about Nonconformism as though it no longer exists. They are talking about chapels I have worshipped in as though they belong only in the past.

There's a woman running through the history quite well. The man who seems to be a historian of architecture contrasts chapel design with the Gothic churches of the time, and says chapels were not used for worship, but ... at which point I could not understand exactly ... for the community to come together. It isn't a church, it is a meeting house.

I would have thought that to understand the history of a building in a village, you ask the people who know the area. They probably know why there are three in the village, very close to each other, capable of holding 800 each.

They've gone to the oldest independent chapel in Wales - fascinating. (Wish he didn't pronounce pulpit with the "u" the same as in "up" rather than "pull".)

They are talking as though this sort of worship is 200 years ago because the chapel was founded that long ago.

Be fair to the guy - he's now said the building was for worship.

[ 31. July 2013, 19:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
(Wish he didn't pronounce pulpit with the "u" the same as in "up" rather than "pull".)

There's a difference between those u sounds?

Edit: OK, after saying it again and again, I can sort of hear it. If there was a link to follow, I might be able to hear it better.

[ 31. July 2013, 19:54: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Sorry Penny, I'm not quite clear what you want to discuss. Is it the TV programme (which may have a limited audience restricted to the UK), or is it the view that Nonconformism is dead - which sounds potentially more like a Purgatory topic?

If you could clarify a bit that would be great and we can take it from there.

Cheers

Ariel
Heaven Host

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Can't provide a link at the moment since it isn't up on iPlayer yet. Will do when possible.

And here it is. Programme link

There's lots of historical stuff about it on the net, so hardly the mystery the programme suggests.

I'm not sure how I want to discuss it - but I think it's really the way that the programme seems made by people who have no idea about the continued existence any sort of religion, let alone what went on. I was thinking of it a trivial thing, really, so that's why I put it here. So Ariel, I can't really help. I just needed to talk to someone about it.

[ 31. July 2013, 20:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
(Wish he didn't pronounce pulpit with the "u" the same as in "up" rather than "pull".)
There's a difference between those u sounds?

Can't speak for American accents, but in Southern English there's a marked difference; the 'u' in up sounds (to northern ears) almost like an 'a'.

In the Midlands and North, there's no difference at all and the 'a'-like sound is absent.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think there's mileage in a discussion about change of use of a building. St. Fagan's has a very interesting church, which has been moved brick by brick from its original home. Without such an action, the church would probably eventually have become a ruin, whereas now it is visited by several hundred people each week. The old wall paintings have been restored and people can learn about what early churches were like in Wales, and what mattered to the attendees, even if it is no longer used for worship.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Karl, thank you for the elucidation. It is a sound I have never heard in that word, despite having heard a lot of accents. I'm wondering if it was a lone survival from the man's natural voice, in a desert of RP. If it had been accompanied by other similar sounds it wouldn't have been so jarring. It came across as if it were a word he had never heard in use, which fitted with the odd attitude to what Nonconformists did.

[ 31. July 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've never heard the southern "up" vowel in "pulpit" either; I'd expect speakers from north and south to use the "put" vowel.

Incidentally (language geek time) it's known as the "put/putt" split - in the South those words are distinct; in the North they're homophones.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
(Wish he didn't pronounce pulpit with the "u" the same as in "up" rather than "pull".)
There's a difference between those u sounds?

Can't speak for American accents, but in Southern English there's a marked difference; the 'u' in up sounds (to northern ears) almost like an 'a'.

In the Midlands and North, there's no difference at all and the 'a'-like sound is absent.

As one of my young nephews (from the High Peak) said of my dad (from South London): "Grandad doesn't say 'Booxton' (Buxton). He says 'Baahxton'. "

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The use meeting house/meeting hall is actually correct. The problem is that the meeting that is referred to is actually the main meeting for worship! The Quakers still use the archaic form.

The meeting i.e. the people the membership constituted the church not the building. The meeting hall was simply where they gathered and when it was not being used for worship might be used for other purposes completely. You find the deliberate secular use of meeting halls happens within some URCs to this day e.g. for a barn dance or church fair.

Jengie

p.s. Meeting is a participle of to meet, rather than the noun.

[ 31. July 2013, 20:53: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've never heard the southern "up" vowel in "pulpit" either; I'd expect speakers from north and south to use the "put" vowel.

I have heard pulpit pronounced like "pulp it" by one person, who I think hails from the Midlands somewhere. He also pronounces "long" the way that most people pronounce the organ that you breathe with.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

I would have thought that to understand the history of a building in a village, you ask the people who know the area. They probably know why there are three in the village, very close to each other, capable of holding 800 each.

I don't know about the specifics but historically at the height of chapel life in the Welsh valleys there were more pew spaces than population.

The sad thing was how denominations were in competition - you set out to convert chapel folk from over the road as well as the heathen, so each built big enough to fit in the masses.* And were only ever full to the balcony for funerals, and the hymn festival - Cymanfa Ganu - etc and that does stick in folk memory though (See Robin Gill's book - The myth of the empty church).

A relevant joke is made about (south) Welshman on a desert island who when finally rescued was discovered to have built a pub, a rugby pitch and 2 chapels, when asked why 2 replies 'Well you see there's the chapel I go to and the chapel I don't'

And population explosion in these areas co-incided with non-conformist confidence so lots of energy in mission to the new communities, and whereas the location of the parish churches was based on the old patterns the chapels could start in the heart of mining terraces etc.

* And in places you can add in the Welsh and English speaking chapels of the same breed...

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

In the bilingual Valleys parish where I was curate over 30 years ago there were, as I recall, twenty-one places of worship still in operation for a population of under 10K.

At least two of them had seating for 1,000 and regular congregations of less than a dozen. I guess quite a lot of them will have closed since I was there.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

This had a hall alongside for the other things - it was a typical galleried Noncom chapel in the main part. I did wonder about the minutes of the meetings for business of the place, as a source.

The hall is going to have three bedrooms, on with an ensuite bathroom above it, with the stairs formed by re-using the pew timber. The main part is going to be the living area, and has to be kept largely open plan.

Nothing was said about the burials outside.

A friend I spoke to on the phone about the programme immediately went to the joke (I must admit I hadn't heard the version with the oub and the rugby pitch before.) The local chapels seem to be collaborating now.

The couple have a very respectful attitude to the place, and were interested in the history. Unlike the woman in the Kentish hamlet my parents lived in, who bought the tin chapel that was next door to her pub, razed it, had the tombstones broken up as hard core under the drive of the house she was building, and built over the bodies of people whose relatives were still living nearby. And expressed her lack of caring about this clearly.

Nebo was initiated by a cause (an expression I had not seen before, but it is in several places on chapel histories) supported by an ironworks owner, whose son insisted on marrying the local girl he got pregnant, and then learning Welsh. There was also a very respected minister.

[ 01. August 2013, 10:49: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Penny S

Are TV shows about house conversions coming back? I thought they'd gone out of fashion due to the financial crisis.

Anyway, the ones that involve the conversion of chapels normally give the impression that Nonconformity is dead, yes. It's unsurprising, because in many areas where these properties are becoming available Nonconformity has probably already faded away, bar perhaps one or two places of worship which are struggling to remain. And few people outside those small congregations will have much connection with that world now; there's no widely recognised Nonconformist penumbra or sphere of influence any more.

I studied in Swansea nearly 15 years ago and was surprised at how many abandoned or converted churches there were. I understand that Welsh chapel culture has pretty well gone, although some active chapels remain.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In the Welsh village where some of my wider family live, there used to be about 6 chapels (even Methodism had several different denominations and there was a time, so my relatives tell me, when some of them didn't even talk to each other!). Gradually, one by one, they all closed. Now, worshippers have to travel to the next small town along the valley if they wish to attend church.

I don't mind churches of dubious architectural value closing and being turned to other uses, if congregations dwindle. But there should be some serious thought given to the spiritual history when they are sold - sympathetic reuse, rather than just the highest bidder. At the very least, perhaps the church could ensure a lasting memorial and historical record could be left at the nearest museum, so important history does not get lost in the passage of time.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think there's mileage in a discussion about change of use of a building. St. Fagan's has a very interesting church, which has been moved brick by brick from its original home. Without such an action, the church would probably eventually have become a ruin, whereas now it is visited by several hundred people each week. The old wall paintings have been restored and people can learn about what early churches were like in Wales, and what mattered to the attendees, even if it is no longer used for worship.

Breathtaking, isn't it? Saw it a few weeks ago. The wall paintings were somewhat shocking, in the sense that it made the place feel very gaudy. We are not used to seeing the original bright colours.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

I don't mind churches of dubious architectural value closing and being turned to other uses, if congregations dwindle. But there should be some serious thought given to the spiritual history when they are sold - sympathetic reuse, rather than just the highest bidder. At the very least, perhaps the church could ensure a lasting memorial and historical record could be left at the nearest museum, so important history does not get lost in the passage of time.

When my Methodist church closed in 2011 I found out that the circuit was obliged to sell the church to the highest bidder. I think this applies to churches that are registered charities. (Few Methodist churches have to deal with covenants that restrict their use.) It's a shame, but circuits need the money.

As for church records, some of these will be kept in archives at local libraries. Some churches are lucky to have a church member (or even a complete outsider) who's taken it upon themselves to write up a history of the church. These little books are very useful for (former) church members and for anyone interested in local history.

[ 01. August 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Can't provide a link at the moment since it isn't up on iPlayer yet. Will do when possible.

And here it is. Programme link ....

Can't get it - I'm not really in Ambridge, I am only of English ancestry and currently listening to Radio 4 on puter.....

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

I don't mind churches of dubious architectural value closing and being turned to other uses, if congregations dwindle. But there should be some serious thought given to the spiritual history when they are sold - sympathetic reuse, rather than just the highest bidder. At the very least, perhaps the church could ensure a lasting memorial and historical record could be left at the nearest museum, so important history does not get lost in the passage of time.
When my Methodist church closed in 2011 I found out that the circuit was obliged to sell the church to the highest bidder. I think this applies to churches that are registered charities. (Few Methodist churches have to deal with covenants that restrict their use.) It's a shame, but circuits need the money.

...

All Methodist churches are held in model trust funds as part of the UK Methodist church and subject to the charity commission rules have to be sold for the best price for those assets to return back into the organisation to which they were given - not rerouted into another cause by subsided sale. Even if to a related cause - another worshipping group rather than the developer etc.

But as charity rules give us so many benefits elsewhere we just have to take it.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I go on holiday in N.Wales a lot - the closed chapels half make me sad, and then I'm half glad the buildings are no longer driving a small congregation to despair.

I'd like to think if I ever lived in one, a church-noticeboard-style sign outside saying 'Capel*** closed for worship in 20**; open chapels remain at ***,*** and ***' would be nice.

When thinking of my own small church with an uncertain future, I try to think that the building makes a great memorial / witness to the faith of the people who built and maintained it, but adds nothing to the majesty of He who, if we are not mistaken, made Everything.

And if we are mistaken - it's all moot.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
All Methodist churches are held in model trust funds as part of the UK Methodist church and subject to the charity commission rules have to be sold for the best price for those assets to return back into the organisation to which they were given - not rerouted into another cause by subsided sale. Even if to a related cause - another worshipping group rather than the developer etc.

But as charity rules give us so many benefits elsewhere we just have to take it.

I have seen a surprising number of houses being sold off by the Methodist church (some may have been other non-conformist denominations) where charity rules (possibly from their own Trusts rather than just the Charity Commission) are being misapplied - they insist that they have to continue to market the property after an offer has been accepted, presumably in case a better offer comes along. It seems to me that this behaviour is so contrary to Christian principles that it cannot be acceptable.

It is counter-productive anyway. We have discarded houses we would otherwise have found extremely interesting because this policy was explained on the leaflets - quite simply, we don't do business with people we don't trust to behave honourably. How awful to have to apply that to a church.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I thought that was standard for property sales in the UK outwith Scotland? In the boom years, I seemed to be forever hearing tales of gazumping.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

No. A property is not normally actively marketed after an offer has been accepted*. It may still appear on the various websites, but will be marked as 'sold subject to contract', and won't usually appear when a standard search is done (ie unless the box to include properties that are sold is ticked). It will not be advertised, and an agent will not give out the leaflet or arrange viewings.

It is also quite usual for a property to be withdrawn completely - we have always done this when selling, and insisted on it when buying.

*I'm talking about offers where the sale is going ahead and nobody is sitting around waiting to join up parts of the chain.

ETA In the boom years some agents behaved badly - it never was the norm. In my experience gazumping was more likely to be done behind the agent's back.

[ 05. August 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

We are in a giant circuit geographically and very rural so tiny rural chapels and a number have been closed and need to sell on, these have all been sold via 'private tender'(?) A set date for best bids to be in by.

As for your examples of people holding the market open that is not on, hold out for a better offer before accepting but once accepted it should be a commitment.

I occasionally see properties subject to repossession where they are advertised as having had an offer of £X and if anyone can improve on that they have a fixed number of days. This is linked to the obligation of the bank getting the best price towards clearing the mortgagee's debt, but it has a clear time frame, and I assume the potentially accepted offer people would hold off expensive surveys until after that date.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

Yes - private tender is quite reasonable, although I don't suppose it works very well when the market is quiet.

The properties that were being sold with the understanding that they would continue to be marketed did, I suppose, have the virtue of stating the position clearly on the leaflets! I had a quick look to see if I still had any of them, so that I could quote them, but I didn't keep any. It was very stern though!

As they had been on the market for a very long time I did wonder what would happen if someone came along and made an offer that was subject to the house being taken off the market. If the Trustees or whoever were intent on getting the best deal and nothing else had been put on the table for several years, I hope they would have had the sense to bend a little. However, their interpretation of their responsibilities is so skewed that I suspect not.

Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :

Two things:
Firstly, at least some early Primitive Methodist chapels were built so that they could be turned into houses. If the cause failed, they could sell the building as a house. If it succeeded and they needed somewhere bigger, they could sell the building as a house.

Secondly, having sold several Methodist buildings, this awful notion that you have to be open to higher offers up to the last minute stems from charity law. Trustees are required to get the best deal for the charity, or potentially face a law suit. I have never had a 'last minute offer', though. Sometimes I've had no offer at all!

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

It's a misinterpretation of charity law though.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0