As one of those strongly opposed to the handing over of the bishop's palace in Kilkenny to the Heritage Council, I would like to try to express the concern felt by many of us throughout the bishopric.
First of all we are conscious of what has happened to many fine old rectories and bishops' residences up and down the country. There have been countless instances of bad financial decisions. For example, the elegant 18th century deanery in Ferns was sold about 30 years ago, with 19 acres of good land, for £5,500. The new deanery cost £14,000 to build.
In recent years the old house has been beautifully refurbished at a very reasonable cost. Meanwhile, the new deanery during those 30 years has had almost £60,000 worth of repairs and improvements and is now worth about one-third of the value of the house it replaced.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the cost of maintaining the new and the old see houses. For instance what has been spent on the palace in Kilkenny in the last 10 years compared with the palace in Armagh or the see house in Meath?
Many of us see the palace in Kilkenny not just as a magnificent old building full of history but as a place which is part of the very heart of our bishopric. As well as being our bishop's residence, it has been a centre in which people have gathered for many special events over the years.
One also wonders about the measurements given by those anxious to convince us that the building has outlived its diocesan use. Given that quite an area was demolished under the restoration which took place when the late Dr McAdoo was bishop, and given that there are areas of unusable space in any old house, the actual usable area, leaving out the two very fine public rooms and the magnificent stairwell, is actually not over-spacious. Indeed the proposed new see house of 6,000 sq ft would seem to suggest that size is not a major concern.
Clearly the palace has always appealed to some occupants more than others. William Newcome, who was Bishop of Ossory from 1775 to 1779, wrote to his brother in London shortly after moving in, as follows:
"Kilkenny, May 24th 1775. I think my present situation agreeable and delightful. There are many very good habitable rooms in the house, below stairs a room of about 20 feet by 16 feet for me to see company in and a dining parlour of about 22 feet square. Above stairs a drawing room of 24 by 20, and within it another of 20 by 18. Over the two rooms below stairs are a bedchamber and study of the same size with those below
and on the middle floor are two good bedchambers. There are five sleeping rooms in the garret, some of which are very good. In the front of the house is a court planted with trees, large enough for a carriage to turn in, and adjoining to the rear is a pleasant garden, well walled in and well planted with shrubs and well laid down in grand walks and lawn, as anyone would wish to be master of."
(Original letter in the possession of Rev Canon J. Crawford.)
Since the time of Bishop Newcome there have been many occupants. Most of them have clearly enjoyed the house. Of course it needs improvement and updating from time to time. In this respect while we believe the see house committee has done excellent work, there is clearly need to refurbish the heating system and to do a number of jobs as set out in the survey.
But fortunately the roof, which we were originally told might need major expenditure, seems to be in good order. The survey says that over the next six months certain areas of the building need to be examined. But nowhere does it say urgent repair is necessary. In the long term (five to 10 years), as part of a major overhaul further inspections should take place, the external render (a typical wrong mix from the 1950s), should be removed and that further samples of brick and stone should be taken. It is very hard to see from the survey the basis for the claim that "considerable sums will need to be spent to repair, preserve and restore the building". Apart from the proper maintenance of the rainwater goods, the replacement of the ugly and cracked cement render, and the installation of an up-to-date heating system there is no immediate cause for concern.
Nowhere, in the course of events surrounding the palace, despite assurances that an estimate of costs would be obtained, has this information been provided, Indeed costs relating to all three options outlined in the survey: (1) To refurbish the palace; (2) To create a private apartment within the building; (3) To hand over the palace to the Heritage Council and build a new see house were not clearly provided and we were asked to vote without this vital information.
The voting procedures on which the decision is based are flawed. There are two separate dioceses within the bishopric: Ferns and Cashel/Ossory. The bishop summoned each diocesan council to a joint meeting on June 8th, at the end of which they were required to vote separately. For the chief officer to say that effectively a three to one vote in favour by Cashel and Ossory and a two to one vote in favour overall was the result is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
The facts are that the handing over of the palace could only be pursued if both councils separately voted in favour. This did not happen. Ferns voted against by 12 votes to 10. Because of this the proposal should have been declared lost. That that was not done is both regrettable and, I believe, wrong.
I hope and trust the legal advisory committee will so rule. If they should rule otherwise is there any point in Ferns "pretending" to have a separate synod and council?
What this whole process also highlights is the inappropriateness of allowing diocesan councils no say in the control of see houses other than that of agreeing to or vetoing their sale. See houses should be under the care of the diocese, with the RB exercising the role of veto rather than that of management. Where in the constitution does it say that see houses or palaces, as the case may be, are held in trust by the RCB for the benefit of the bishops for the time being? Where does the constitution say they are not held for the benefit of the RCB nor indeed of the diocese or united dioceses under the episcopal jurisdiction of the bishop? Where does it say that any monies raised from the sale of a see house or palace must be retained as an endowment for the see in perpetuity and cannot be diverted to any other purpose? If these are the regulations, isn't it time to change them? Or indeed, if monies from the sale of the Waterford or Cashel see houses can benefit the see, why not through the expenditure of some of that capital on refurbishing the existing palace?
We have a marvellous asset in Kilkenny palace which has been a source of unity and focus for our extended bishopric. What is now proposed is, in the view of quite a number of us, the worst possible way forward and is proving to be a very divisive issue within our bishopric.
The Very Rev Leslie D.A. Forrest is Dean of Ferns