Heritage versus Access – January 2026
To listen to audio of this article click HERE
The headline in the Church Times caught my eye. “Legal obstacle to accessibility plan at church.” I would have moved on were it not for the fact that I recognised the building – St Martin’s Brampton – and recall seeing these impressive Burne-Jones windows when I visited St Martin’s some 15 years ago.
The story beneath the headline detailed the verdict of the Consistory Court of the diocese of Carlisle, refusing to give permission to the church to “install a lift, ramp and railings at the church entrance to improve accessibility for elderly parishioners.” I was not surprised to read that the proposed work had been opposed by the Victorian Society, who argued that “the church is the sole and unaltered work of a distinguished architect.” Reading to the end of the article I discovered that a “less harmful alternative” proposed by the Victorian Society had not been fully explored, so one hopes that an acceptable way of improving accessibility may soon be found.
Putting the specific case to one side, stories such as this do raise all sorts of questions with which many of us have struggled over the years. I remember when the forerunners of what became the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act were being introduced, many within the churches where I was involved seemed to be looking for possible exemptions to avoid expenditure on modifications and adaptations. Thankfully, attitudes continue to change, and many buildings are now far more accessible and welcoming, but plenty of barriers to full access and participation still exist in far too many public buildings. Indeed, as someone about to enter their eighth decade, and who has twice in recent years been incapacitated by broken ankles, I know the frustration which the inability to negotiate even a modest step can evoke. I am glad to say that the subject of barriers to participation, in its widest sense, is one of the key themes which Christians on Ageing are focussing on in 2026.
I recently visited Caernarvon Castle, where the majestic King’s Gate has benefited from a major investment to install a rooftop deck, floors in its towers and a lift to allow visitors to reach parts of the gatehouse that have been inaccessible for centuries. It is a magnificent example of what can be done – but of course it is an internal modification. In Brampton, the issue is external – in how the historical building presents itself, and the recent ruling seems to rate that a higher consideration than whether people can gain entry to view the treasures it contains. A letter to the Church Times the week after the original article appeared took issue with that decision, calling it “an extraordinary reversal of our much-vaunted progress towards inclusivity” while the latest edition includes a powerful article by Tim Goode under the headline “Liturgy of exclusion in stone” which draws on his book Breaking, Not Broken: Ableism and the Church after Constantine. His crie de coeur says this: “What is needed is not the demolition of heritage, but its theological reinterpretation. Sacred architecture must be read anew, not only as an artefact of the past but as a site for contemporary ecclesial imagination.” https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/30- january/comment/opinion/liturgy-of-exclusion-in-stone
As I said earlier, there is still hope of a “less harmful alternative” emerging in Brampton, but the question of how heritage and accessibility co-exist will remain. And whatever the answer is, it cannot simply be the one allegedly beloved of some folk, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here!” It is where we must begin, and must constructively engage our ecclesial imagination if we are to sing honestly, “All are welcome in this place.”
