In July 2024 the CHERISH Building Project Team (CBPT) requested feedback from the
Congregation of St Mary’s Church, Kings Worthy. A full congregation consultation paper was
available as well as the following questions by means of a starting point for comments and
discussion:
- What do you like most about our worship and use of St Mary’s building currently?
- Is there anything you don’t you like about St Mary’s building at the moment?
- Are there any changes that would make you feel more included and welcomed at St
- Mary’s?
- If you could make any changes or improvements to the building and systems at St Mary’s, what would they be, and why do you think they are important?
- Are there any other comments you would like to make?
A total of 44 responses were received via email.
Members of the CBPT also attended the Home Groups to collect feedback in person, reaching an
additional 12 people (this is on top of those who attended, but also sent feedback via email).
This represents 62% of the Electoral Roll who attend St Mary’s, including the 6 members of
CBPT, plus 4 members of the congregation not on the electoral roll.
TOTAL RESPONSES 66
Thank you to all who took the time to consider these questions and send in feedback and
to all of the Home Groups for warmly welcoming and discussing these areas with the CBPT.
Feedback received has been categorised as follows:
Accessibility/Inclusivity
Audio Visual
Building/Space
CHERISH Youth/Children/Families
Community Use/Engagement
Doors/Porch
Fire/Health and Safety
Font/Baptistry
Funding/Financial
Heating
History
Hospitality/Servery
Lighting
Midweek/Visitors
Moving Forward
Music
Pews/Seating
Pulpit
Solar/Environmental Awareness
The collated full feedback document is over 30 pages long. This document provides a summary
of comments which are within the scope of the CHERISH Building project. Please be assured
that comments outside the scope of this project have been circulated to the relevant hub for
their consideration.
Accessibility/Inclusivity
The traditional feel of St Mary’s Church is widely valued but there is a real feeling that the
building is not fit for purpose and is restrictive in terms of accessibility and inclusivity. Whilst
there is the intention for St Mary’s to be inclusive, we are restricted in our ability to make this a
reality. Feedback demonstrates there is a desire for making the building truly inclusive, in both
the physical sense and the services/assistance we offer to those attending.
We need to ensure those who are able can see, those who are able can hear, and everyone is
comfortable. Suggestions:
- Provide sign language in services (currently visibility of Makaton signing in services is difficult)
- Improve AV
- Providing hearing loop throughout the building.
- Improving accessibility (including up to the altar)
- Providing a flexible space that allows for inclusivity
- Improve heating
- Improve lighting
- Improve signage
- Engaging with and inviting the local and wider community with disabilities
Audio Visual
Current issues:
- The AV system has a limited lifespan and needs upgrading.
- The system is not fully inclusive; visibility and audibility issues exist.
- The current setup is a mix of different systems, making it illogical and not user-friendly.
- Sound mixing is difficult.
- More plug sockets needed.
Proposed Solutions:
- Invest in a single, comprehensive AV system rather than multiple separate systems.
- Upgrade the audio-visual desk to a better position with at least 32 channels for futureproofing.
- Install wall or ceiling-mounted speakers and a stage box with sufficient in/out sockets.
- Provide storage for equipment to reduce setup and packing time.
- Consider using large TVs on stands instead of a projector for better visibility.
- Ensure the system is secure with a lockable box to prevent theft.
Additional Considerations:
- The upgrade requires significant investment and willing volunteers.
- Some believe the current system is adequate and upgrading should be a lower priority.
Building/Space
Although there were some comments made about tired décor, feedback on the appearance of
the building in general was positive. The congregation like the traditional feel and the sense of
history. Any changes would need to me made in a sympathetic way to retain this. To create and
elegant, sacred and beautiful space.
Some felt that the church is adequate for the current use, but the general feedback was that the
building isn’t fit for purpose for 21st century worship or as use as a community space. current
space limited services like Breakfast Church, Learning for Life and other activities.
There were mixed opinions on the dark wood. Some considered the Hatchments to be
oppressive and would prefer temporary art (like the Good Friday feet) to be on display instead.
There were many comments made about the amount of clutter in the church, furniture and
other items which may not be necessary.
Many suggested that the side chapel could be made into an intimate, separate, quite space
which could be used for private prayer or meetings. Suggestions of glass partitions for privacy
and heating purposes without cutting off the area from the main church.
There is a sense that the side aisle feels like a separate space to the main church.
Overcrowding at the high altar during communion is a concern, both from accessibility and
health and safety. More space is needed for the music group.
There was the suggestion to add a mezzanine floor to increase space.
CHERISH Youth/Children/Families
A need for a dedicated space for children/parents, but is this inclusive?
More flexible space would allow for us to carter for families. Having more flexibility may attract a
youth worker.
Community Use/Engagement
Comments were made about the number of halls already available in Kings Worthy and that we
do not want St Mary’s to become another community hall. However, St Mary’s Church has the
ability to be the largest venue for performance in Kings Worthy.
There is a desire to increase use of the church during the week. Hosting events to encourage the
community to come into the church building. Other benefits are that any income generated can
go towards costs of improvements and running of the church. However, we would want to be
mindful of content and the activities that take place within the church.
Ideas shared; Community café, Christmas tree festival, affordable film screenings, band
rehearsals, music concerts, conferences (for example Local Council, but would require better
AV), drama groups, choirs, school performances, charity use (Basics Bank donation/pick up
point), support hub for the community, marriage courses and poetry readings.
The inclusion of a servery would be beneficial, especially when ‘Toast and Tea’ are using the
Church Rooms.
Doors/Porch
Having both doors open would increase accessibility and visibility into the church. Glass doors
may be more welcoming and improve sightline into the building. The doors from the porch into
the church need to be higher to assist pallbearers. One suggestion was bifold doors that open
right out. Retaining heat in the winter needs to be a consideration.
Fire/Health and Safety
Some suggestions were made for improvements. A first aid kit is needed in the church (not just
the kitchen), name the first aider at each service, fire alarm button in the church, review fire
procedures and possible obstructions.
Font/Baptistry
There were very few comments made about the font. We were asked about the possibility of
moving it and of a baptistry for full immersion baptisms.
Funding/Financial
Some concerns were raised over the potential cost of the works. Some felt that improvements
should be prioritised/limited to necessary changes to improve safety and comfort, efficiently
and economically.
Some suggested we appeal to the parishioners for fundraising and pledges (spread over a few
years).
It was suggested that if we give the community the opportunity to be involved in the project, it
would give a sense of ownership.
Heating
The overall feedback was that the church can be very cold and draughty, and heating needs to be
improved. Cold spaces are not welcoming spaces. Some suggested a more energy efficient
boiler. Another suggestion was that it would be more sustainable to keep the current boiler until
the end of its useful life. If the box pews are retained, in-pew heating was suggested.
History
The history of St Mary’s is important. Preserving the historically important features is critical.
Materials and craftsmanship should be well considered for the results to be timeless and not to
date.
Hospitality/Servery
Hospitality is an important part of St Mary’s. Many felt for newcomers it is daunting to exit the
church to the church rooms for coffee, and feel a servery would be beneficial and more
welcoming. A servery would also be beneficial for other events and services within the church
when the church rooms are being used.
Lighting
Although there was some suggestion that the current lighting is conducive to worship, the
majority of comments considered the church to be very dark and unwelcoming. For inclusivity
and accessibility, those with poor eyesight require better lighting to see and read.
Midweek/Visitors
In terms of using the church for mid-week activities, it was raised that we must be considerate
of the number of midweek visitors we welcome at St Mary’s. It was suggested that better lighting
would make the church more welcoming to visitors. Suggestions included midweek ministry to
the wider community, including lunch club, café, and support groups.
Moving Forward
There was a lot of support and excitement for the opportunities that the CHERISH building
project could provide.
We need to find a balance of moving forward but retaining a sense of the tradition and history.
Music
There was a lot of praise and celebration of the music provision and the music group. With
regards to the organ, opinions were mixed. Many people like the organ, but the majority of those
who do, also had an understanding that the organ needs costly repairs and that the longevity and
quality of sound a digital organ would be beneficial. Many commented that retaining the pipes
would be a good compromise.
There is a need to find a suitable location for the grand piano to allow easy access to the high
altar and a safer and more practical solution to the cables and wires needed for the sound
system.
Pews/Seating
65% of those who gave feedback mentioned the pews. 86% of those comments were in favour
of removing the pews finding them uncomfortable and inflexible.
9% were pro the partial removal of the pews. Suggestions included increasing the spacing
between the pews, keeping some of the pews and removing others to be replace with chairs,
removing some of the front pews to make room for the piano.
5% were in favour of retaining the pews. Those in favour of retaining the pews felt the pews were
uncomfortable, but felt that cushioning the seats and backs would improve their comfort.
Pros of pews; capacity, character, containing children, keeping out drafts, provide support when
kneeling, shelf for placing glasses and service sheets.
Pros of chairs/movable pews: comfort, health and safety (access), flexibility, inclusivity.
If the pews were to be removed, choice of seating should be in consultation with the
congregation. Many suggested chairs with arms would be preferred.
Consideration should be given to the storage and time taken to clear and set up the chairs.
Pulpit
There were mixed views on the pulpit. Some felt the pulpit should be used more frequently,
giving more projection and better line of sight for the congregation, particularly during busy
service. Others liked that the pulpit is not used.
Solar/Environmental Awareness
Comments made in this area were very much pro solar panels, but whilst reserving the beauty
of the exterior of the church. Any improvements to the lighting and heating should be done in an
environmentally sustainable way.