Case Study: Church of St John the Evangelist, Lancaster

Site description and context

The Church of St John is a Grade II* listed church in the historic city of Lancaster. It dates back to 1754 and retains some original Georgian interior, including box pews and galleries.

The church benefits from a dedicated group of local volunteers and was vested into the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in 1983. In the past, it has been used for concerts and community events. However, in 2015, Storm Desmond badly affected the church. Water ingress led to outbreaks of dry and wet rot that presented risks of damage to the historic interior and limited opportunities for public events and therefore income generation.

Training requirement embedded into the procurement process

Historic England offered a Repair Grant and worked with the Churches Conservation Trust for about a year before the Summer School was due to take place. The repair scheme had already been developed by the Churches Conservation Trust to RIBA2 with various surveys undertaken. The development phase grant was offered in November 2023, followed by the repair phase grant in May 2024. The Summer School took place in August 2024.

Historic England organised the overall programme and logistics for all trainees attending the five weeks Summer School. To complement the on-site training delivered by the contractor, Historic England organised courses in the 'Repair and Maintenance of pre-1919 Traditional Buildings' and 'Energy Efficiency for Traditional Buildings'. We also organised visits to other sites and the delivery of practical workshops in crafts such as mud masonry with Alex Gibbons, plastering with Keith Langton, and stone masonry with Matthias Garn.

The Churches Conservation Trust had previous experience of delivering training on live sites and, working with the design team, the training requirements were fully embedded into the procurement process. Working with an informed client whose design team was on message facilitated this process.

The ‘Expression of Interest’ clearly stated that the client was looking for a suitably experienced contractor with a strong commitment to training. It also referred to the Historic England’s website where information on the previous Summer School was available.

The Pre-Qualification Questionnaire included an appendix explaining the summer school scope with actual dates for the Summer School, number of days that trainees would be on-site, and the maximum size of a gang of trainees on any given day. It also gave information on the contractor’s roles and responsibilities regarding the on-site training.

The invitation to tender included several training activity summary sheets. These specified what the contractor was expected to deliver (number of attendees, number of days, and nature of the activities). Each activity was individually costed and formed part of the Bill of Quantities. In the Quality Assessment, a section was dedicated to training with three questions accounting for 18% of the scoring.

Some of the works the trainees took part in included work on the ceiling joists and pull-plate, mixing mortars and making sample tests for the mortar repairs, removing defective mortar from the joints, repointing with lime mortar, as well as paring back the masonry face where weathering had affected it. The trainees made templates for stones that needed replacing.

The archaeologist visits allowed some of them to observe the recording while others attended the progress meeting and site visits with the conservation officer and the design team. The lead working demonstration and the visit to the quarry where the slates came from were particularly well received.

What have we learned?

Preparation and Procurement

• It is critical to allow time to work out the learning potential the site offers and the logistics required to deliver on-site learning supplemented by workshops. Delivering skills training must be considered an intrinsic part of the project from the beginning rather than an add-on.
• Lancaster provided opportunities to visit other historic buildings within the city and allowed the workshops to be delivered using the facilities at Lancaster and Morecambe College, all of which are easily accessible by foot and public transport. It also provided a wider variety of options for evening meals, which was welcomed by all.
• The tenders were originally due back in four weeks, but it was extended to five. Ideally, more time should be allowed for the return of the tender, as the contractor might need to engage with sub-contractors and consultants to organise the delivery of some of the training.
• For the on-site work, the trainees were split into a ‘gang’ of about six who worked together for the week. This worked well as it created a cohesive group while enabling a rotation of tasks on some days and between 'gangs'. Each trainee had their own dedicated programme for the Summer School and none did more than four weeks out of the five weeks. The dedicated programme worked well, but the Summer School was still considered a very intensive period for all.

On-site delivery of the training

• Various delays in the programme made delivering the training on-site challenging. The Summer School dates could not be moved, and the contractor had to adjust to the ongoing programme. Having a dedicated space for delivering some demonstrations, if there was any downtime, as well as for practice, was very useful. Additional visits to workshops and manufacturers would have been welcomed.
• The site manager was responsible for overseeing the learning programme. Ideally, a dedicated learning coordinator should oversee all aspects of the training on-site, including producing risk assessments, providing relevant PPE, and ensuring that suitable learning activities are delivered if delays or inclement weather prevent work from taking place. On this occasion, trainees were on-site for a maximum of four days a week, giving the site manager one day a week without trainees on-site.