Last year the Diocese of London agreed to sell St Mark's Church Mayfair, to the businessman George Hammer. According to Jonathan Wynne-Jones, writing in the Telegraph last September, "Mr Hammer, who has been dubbed the Godfather of Beauty, wants to turn the church into a cafe and “welnness centre” which will be used for yoga, massages and aromatherapy. A “therapeutic bath” is included in the plans."
The Save St Mark's group lead by Lady Sainsbury were successful in convincing Westminster City Council, last December, to reject the application.
Ruth Gledhill, writing in the Times on Friday, provides the latest update in this long running saga.
"Even though Westminster has turned down Hammer's planning application - the pic here shows campaigners cheering outside after the planners met in December - the diocesan finance committee is expected to press ahead with its plan to sell the Grade-I listed church to Hammer on Monday evening. But the bombshell dropped by Gumbel today, in a letter to Archdeacon of Charing Cross Dr William Jacob, is that he was offered the church to house his abundant flock, and said 'yes'. If anyone can afford to restore this redundant wreck to its own and God's glory, it has to be HTB. But it seems like this is one battle in their spiritual war the evangelicals are not going to win."
The decision by London Diocese is sell the leasehold is inexplicable when Revd Nicky Gumbel and the PCC of Holy Trinity Brompton had previously offered to buy the church and enable it to continue to be used as a place of worship. Ruth Gledhill also publishes a letter from Nicky Gumbel pleading with Dr William Jacob, the Archdeacon of Charing Cross, not to sell the church building.
13th March 2009
Dear Dr Jacob
Re: St Mark’s North Audley Street
I have been shown a copy of your letter to Lady Sainsbury which states, ‘I feel it is also necessary to make the contents of this letter publicly available’. I am writing to ask that if you do so, you also make our response publicly available. We strongly oppose the proposal to lease the church to George Hammer with immediate effect.
Even if it is the case, as you suggest, that there is not a need for another parish church in the area, there is certainly a need for the building in the Anglican church. We are an Anglican church and we need the building.
It may not be possible for the ‘diocese to restore the church itself’. However, it is possible for one of the churches within the diocese to restore the church. We remain ready, willing and able to take on the work St Mark’s needs to survive. Our interest in St Mark’s and our desire to see it become a home to a worshipping community again is public knowledge; please see Ken Costa and Jo Glen’s letter of 12 December 2007. I also wrote to Michael Bye, as Head of Property for the Diocese of London, earlier this week to reiterate the fact that HTB remains ready, willing and able to take on St Mark’s North Audley Street and that we feel very strongly that it should remain a church and be used for ecclesiastical purposes only.
We have not only a practical use for the building, we have an urgent need for it. We are overflowing at both HTB and St Paul’s Onslow Square and would like to start satellite services in St Mark’s. Our experience at St Paul’s has shown that these fill up very quickly. The Sunday congregation at St Paul’s has grown from zero to a thousand people in the last eighteen months. We think we could do something similar at St Mark’s and we would be willing to discuss the issue of renting the building. Mr Hammer’s solution is not the only solution. As you know we have a strong track record of restoring churches and maintaining them for Anglican worship. We are offering to do this with St Mark’s North Audley Street.
You write to Lady Sainsbury, ‘It is disappointing that people have felt the need to intervene in the future of St Mark's, without any thought for the real implications and consequences, and without consulting those of us in the diocese with responsibility for these buildings'. I don’t know whether you have HTB in mind for this sentence, but if you do, may I remind you that so far from "interfering", discussions with us were initiated by the diocese who said ‘You can have the church tomorrow, if you want it’. To which I replied immediately, ‘We do want it and can use it for church purposes and to the benefit of the whole diocese’.
I would be grateful if you could ensure that the Finance Committee is made fully aware of the history of these negotiations and of our desire to recover this church for worship.
Yours sincerely,
Nicky Gumbel
The Church of England exists for the evangelisation of England. Why then is this opportunity to keep St Mark's Mayfair open as a centre for Christian mission and place of worship being ignored while a secular and commercial venture is favoured?
Diocesan officials are supposed to be the civil servants of the Church of England. Why then are the servants so determined to shut down much needed facilities and so hinder the ministry of living, growing, self sustaining, missionary minded churches? Is there another agenda at work here perhaps? The local church is the only hope for our nation and Mayfair is no exception.
