Labour has been warned of the challenge churches face paying for repairs (Image: Manchester Evening News)
Labour is accused of hitting historic churches with a “shameless stealth tax” which could see them forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds in VAT on repairs. The end of a Government grant scheme which allowed churches to recover VAT on maintenance work has triggered a warning that some places of worship may be forced to close. Champions of churches warn it is impossible to run a parent and toddler group when there is a “leaking roof or a crumbling tower”.
The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme has been replaced a new “renewal fund” backed by more than £18million. But the Liberal Democrats warn the 51 places of worship receiving help could face an average VAT bill of nearly £59,000.
Anna Sabine, the party’s culture spokesperson, said: “The Government has chosen our churches to foot the bill for its Budget black hole. This ‘Places of Worship Renewal Fund’ is nothing more than a shameless stealth tax that saddles communities with thousands in added VAT. “Our churches and listed buildings are far more than places of worship. They are the beating heart of our towns and villages, home to food banks, toddler groups and lunch clubs. Under Labour’s cruel tax, roof repairs will be delayed, doors will close, and the groups that rely on these buildings will have nowhere left to go. [We will] will fight this tax every step of the way and reintroduce VAT relief for listed places of worship.”
The Church of England’s Bishop of St Albans, Andrew Rumsey, has pledged to “press for churches to have better access to funding beyond the Renewal Fund, including for vital VAT relief on repairs, the loss of which is keenly felt by many”.
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Sir Philip Rutnam, who chairs the National Churches Trust, welcomed the Government’s new fund but said: “There are thousands of rural churches with small congregations struggling to look after extraordinary buildings. And everywhere churches now face paying 20% extra for repairs with the change to VAT. We need a comprehensive approach which includes a better grant scheme and VAT relief for churches, just like museums. You cannot run a parent and toddler group or a food bank in a church with a leaking roof or a crumbling tower.”
A spokesperson for the Roman Catholic bishops struck a positive note, saying: “Whilst the closure of the grants scheme that enabled listed churches to reclaim VAT on repairs is regrettable, the re-introduction of a straightforward grants scheme focussed on repairs at listed places of worship is warmly welcomed and a major step forward. The nine Catholic churches which are going to benefit from the new grant scheme are all in areas of significant deprivation where accessing funding for repairs is particularly challenging, if not impossible, without the support now being provided.”
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s spokesperson said: “This week we’ve announced that 51 places of worship are receiving a share of over £18million from the new Places of Worship Renewal Fund. These are all projects in areas of the greatest need, where fundraising to get repair works started can be almost impossible. Our upfront capital grant means that vital repairs and urgent improvements can begin at the earliest opportunity: getting church roofs fixed, crumbling stonework restored, and keeping the doors open to communities.”
Labour Hits Nation’s Churches with ‘Shameless Stealth Tax’
Britain’s historic churches are facing renewed financial pressure following the replacement of a government scheme that allowed eligible places of worship to reclaim VAT on essential repair and maintenance work. The change has prompted criticism from opposition politicians and heritage campaigners, who warn that some congregations could struggle to afford the upkeep of buildings that have served their communities for generations.
The controversy centres on the end of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme and its replacement with the Places of Worship Renewal Fund. While the Government says the new arrangements will help the most vulnerable buildings, critics argue that the loss of VAT relief could leave churches with substantial bills and make it harder to preserve important historic sites.
Liberal Democrat culture spokesperson Anna Sabine has described the change as a “shameless stealth tax”, accusing the Government of placing additional financial pressure on churches at a time when many are already struggling to meet rising maintenance costs.
The dispute raises a wider question about the responsibilities of government towards Britain’s religious heritage, particularly when historic churches also provide essential services to people who may have few alternative places to turn.
Churches Face Higher Repair Costs
Maintaining a historic church can be an expensive undertaking. Roofs deteriorate, stonework erodes, timber needs replacing and centuries-old buildings require specialist attention. Even relatively modest repairs can become costly when contractors must work with traditional materials and comply with heritage requirements.
For congregations with large memberships and substantial reserves, these expenses may be manageable. Smaller rural churches, however, often depend on limited donations, fundraising events and occasional grants. A single major repair can consume much of a congregation’s available budget.
The previous grant scheme allowed eligible places of worship to recover VAT on qualifying repair and maintenance work. Its removal means that churches can face an additional tax cost on work that cannot easily be postponed indefinitely.
The standard VAT rate is 20%, although the precise financial effect depends on the nature of the work and the applicable rules. For a church already struggling to pay for repairs, that extra expense can force difficult decisions about which projects should proceed and which must wait.
Campaigners fear that delays could allow relatively small problems to become major structural failures. A leaking roof, for example, can damage ceilings, historic furnishings and internal decoration. If water continues to enter the building, the eventual repair bill may be considerably greater than the original cost of fixing the roof.
The financial debate is therefore not simply about taxation. It concerns whether churches will have the resources to maintain buildings that are both places of worship and important parts of the country’s architectural heritage.
The Government Defends Its Replacement Fund
Ministers have defended the new approach, arguing that direct grants can help channel money towards buildings facing the greatest difficulties.
The Places of Worship Renewal Fund has been backed by more than £18 million in an initial allocation announced for 51 places of worship. According to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the selected projects are in areas where raising the money needed to begin urgent repairs could be exceptionally difficult.
The department has said that upfront capital grants will help projects get under way sooner, supporting work such as repairing church roofs, restoring deteriorating stonework and making urgent improvements to historic buildings.
There is a practical argument behind this approach. Rather than reimbursing eligible VAT costs after qualifying work has been carried out, a grant programme can direct support towards specific projects that ministers consider especially urgent. Churches that lack the funds to start essential repairs may benefit from receiving assistance at the beginning of a project.
However, the central criticism is that a targeted fund does not necessarily offer the same level of support or predictability as a scheme under which eligible repair costs could qualify for VAT reimbursement.
Churches that do not receive a grant may still need to complete essential maintenance. Their buildings do not stop deteriorating simply because funding has been allocated elsewhere.
The debate consequently centres on whether the replacement arrangements provide sufficient coverage for the scale of the need, rather than whether targeted funding can be useful in its own right.
Why the Row Matters Beyond Religion
Churches are often viewed primarily as places for Sunday services, weddings, funerals and other religious occasions. Across Britain, however, many also provide facilities for a much wider range of community activities.
Church buildings host food banks, lunch clubs, parent-and-toddler groups, charity meetings, local events and support networks. In some villages, the church is one of the few accessible buildings available for regular community gatherings.
That role makes the maintenance issue particularly important. If a building becomes unsafe or unusable because of a damaged roof, unstable masonry or other structural problems, the consequences can extend beyond its congregation.
A food bank may need to find alternative premises. A community lunch club may have to suspend its activities. Parents and carers may lose a convenient place to meet, while older residents could lose a familiar source of social contact.
Sir Philip Rutnam, chair of the National Churches Trust, has warned that thousands of rural churches with small congregations face difficulties maintaining their buildings. He has called for a comprehensive approach that combines an effective grant scheme with VAT relief for repairs.
His argument is that historic churches cannot continue delivering community services if their buildings are allowed to deteriorate beyond practical use.
For communities with limited alternative facilities, the condition of a church can therefore become a local social issue as well as a heritage concern.
Church Leaders Call for Further Support
The Church of England has also indicated that the end of the previous VAT arrangement remains a significant concern.
Andrew Rumsey, the Bishop of St Albans, has pledged to press for better access to funding beyond the renewal fund, including renewed VAT relief for repairs. His position reflects concerns that some churches will continue to face substantial expenses even after the introduction of the replacement programme.
The Roman Catholic bishops have taken a more positive view of the new grants while acknowledging the loss of the previous scheme. A spokesperson welcomed the renewed focus on repair funding, describing support for nine Catholic churches in areas of significant deprivation as particularly important.
That response illustrates the complexity of the dispute. The new fund may provide meaningful help to selected buildings, particularly those in disadvantaged areas where fundraising is extremely difficult. Yet support for individual projects does not automatically resolve the financial challenges faced by churches outside the programme.
The question is whether the replacement system can protect a sufficiently broad range of historic buildings while giving congregations the confidence to plan repairs over several years.
Church maintenance is rarely a one-off expense. Even after a roof has been repaired, future costs may include drainage work, electrical improvements, accessibility measures and the conservation of stonework or stained glass. A funding system that helps with one project but leaves future liabilities uncertain may not provide the long-term stability churches need.
A Political Dispute Ahead of the Budget
The row has emerged amid wider arguments over taxation, public spending and the Government’s approach to balancing its finances.
Opposition parties have questioned whether churches should bear additional costs when many of their activities benefit the wider public. The Liberal Democrats have called for VAT relief for listed places of worship to be restored, arguing that historic buildings should not be left to shoulder costs that their congregations cannot reasonably afford.
Supporters of the Government’s approach may counter that public money is limited and must be directed towards competing priorities. They may also argue that a targeted grants programme can provide clearer control over how funds are spent.
Both considerations matter, but they do not remove the need to assess the practical effects of the policy. If grants reach only a fraction of the buildings requiring urgent work, ministers may face renewed pressure to explain how churches outside the scheme are expected to pay for repairs.
The Government’s wider funding commitment also needs to be assessed in context. The initial announcement of more than £18 million for 51 places of worship is significant for the projects selected, but it does not by itself establish whether all eligible churches across the country will have adequate support.
A full assessment would require details about the number of applications, the total value of outstanding repair work, the criteria for awarding grants and the number of buildings left without assistance.
Without that information, claims about the overall success or failure of the new system should be treated cautiously.
The Risk of Losing Historic Buildings
Britain’s churches represent centuries of local history. Some contain medieval architecture, historic monuments, traditional craftsmanship and records that connect communities with previous generations.
Their value cannot be measured solely by the number of people attending services each week. Many are important landmarks even for residents who rarely enter them, while others attract visitors whose spending supports nearby businesses.
Nevertheless, historic status does not pay a contractor’s invoice. Buildings must be maintained in practical terms if they are to survive.
The danger identified by campaigners is that congregations facing higher repair costs may delay work until a building develops a more serious problem. In the worst cases, churches could be forced to restrict access or cease using parts of their premises.
Such outcomes are not inevitable, and the new fund may prevent deterioration at the buildings receiving support. But they underline why the policy’s reach and long-term impact deserve careful scrutiny.
A Question Ministers Cannot Ignore
The controversy over church repair costs presents the Government with a difficult balancing act. Ministers want public funds to reach projects where assistance is most needed, while church leaders and heritage organisations want a system that recognises the continuing financial burden of maintaining historic places of worship.
The new Places of Worship Renewal Fund offers support for selected buildings, but critics say it cannot necessarily replace the broader protection provided by the previous VAT-reclaim scheme.
The most useful test will be whether churches can carry out essential work before minor defects become expensive emergencies, while continuing to provide the services that local people rely on.
If the Government believes its new arrangements are sufficient, it will need to demonstrate that the funding is reaching the buildings most at risk and that the wider repair backlog is being addressed.
If significant gaps remain, ministers may face growing demands to restore VAT relief or introduce additional support.
For now, the argument over Labour’s alleged “shameless stealth tax” reflects a broader question about how Britain values its historic buildings. Preserving churches requires more than public statements about heritage: it requires a realistic plan for paying the bills that keep those buildings safe, open and useful to the communities around them.