In 2019 St Matthew’s church closed to public worship and changes were made to the parish boundaries as detailed on the attached

map .

The burial ground remains open and managed by the Seven Towers Joint Council.  For enquiries, please contact the office.

In July 2026, the Church Commissioners published proposals to convert the church building into a residential dwelling.  Details of this scheme, and the decision making process can be found here.

As part of the public consultation on these proposals, the Seven Towers Joint Council submitted the following representation.

Objection to the Draft Pastoral Church Buildings Disposal Scheme, Twigworth St Matthew

Context of response

We write as representatives of the Seven Towers Benefice, in which St Matthew’s is situated, and who remain responsible for the management of the St Matthew’s churchyard as an open burial ground. As well as having historic and cultural significance  as the final resting place of Ivor Gurney and of both the son and wife of  Herbert Howells, the churchyard is regularly used for burials and interments; 12 over the last two years, despite the church building having its last service in 2019. In summary, it now serves as an important place for remembrance and reflection, with daily visits from friends and relatives, including a strong traveller community presence.  Its maintenance relies on a small number of volunteers whose goodwill is likely to be affected by any unsympathetic disposal scheme. In addition, we are concerned at the reputational damage which may be caused to local churchgoers and the Benefice Council.

Whist, we would welcome an appropriate re-use of the building of St Matthew’s church, recognising its strong landscape and heritage significance, in particular its landmark spire we do have to object to the current draft scheme proposals, which lack sufficient clarity and safeguards.

In particular:-

1. The boundary marked in red on the plan  is insufficient in detail to assess the line on the ground to assure us that there will not be impact on existing marked graves which range in date from 1844 up to 2019.
2. Indeed, it is not apparent that there is any safeguarding for protecting known graves from disturbance, nor measures to deal adequately or at all with human remains disturbed during any development works.
3. There is no evidence that there are any adequate definitions of “residential use”, for example whether this would include hostel accommodation, or short term lettings such as Airbnb. There is no apparent suggestion that any binding condition would be placed on a purchaser let alone their successors in title.
4. There is no evidence that “ancillary purposes” are adequately defined; a very large area is marked in red which seems far in excess of normal parking and likely to detract from the nature of the churchyard as a place of quiet reflection. Again, there is no suggestion that any specific conditions to maintain the ambience be imposed.
5. There is no evidence that the intention that the property should be used for a “single” residential property is well-defined; such as whether use as a house of multiple occupation would be excluded, or how any change would be restricted in the future.
6. The question of what sort of construction may be permitted appears to be delegated entirely to local planning enforcement, which seems a dereliction of the Commissioners’ duties.
7. There are no provisions contemplated to preserve or enhance the trees in the area which are conducive to the ambience.
8. The clause allowing access to the remainder of the churchyard with vehicles and equipment “causing as little damage as possible to the said churchyard or any graves, tombstones, monuments and memorials therein” is inadequate. There must be a clause prohibiting any damage. In addition, placing the onus on the “parochial church council” to seek permission from the Consistory Court to make good any damage, without an express condition that we be indemnified from any costs arising is inappropriate.