charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1"=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Regarding the question from David Bryant about what 'tr=
ouble'=20
might arise from English Heritage when dealing with a proposal to lower a r=
ing=20
of bells in a Saxon tower, I think EH would want to be fully assured that t=
he=20
proposal was necessary and that benefits to the tower would result. I doubt=
=20
whether they would be happy to have pockets cut for no good reason. If ther=
e is=20
evidence that the tower is suffering with the bells at high level and that=
=20
lowering is the correct solution, then I would guess that they would be pre=
pared=20
to work to a solution along those lines. EH works from the baseline that=20
everything should be preserved in its existing state and then they move tow=
ards=20
altering the status quo after considering the validity of the reasons for m=
aking=20
such alterations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The quickest and and best way to find out is to ask the=
m! They=20
have to be involved where there are proposals to alter a listed building (a=
nd=20
most churches are listed). It is useless to try to exclude them. EH is a=20
designated consultee in the faculty process and no diocesan chancellor woul=
d=20
consider a faculty petition without comments from EH. The advice from EH, D=
ACs=20
and the CCCBR is to involve EH at an early stage in proposals for bellwork =
that=20
will make changes. There have been many instances where proposals for work =
to=20
bells and towers are firmed up with no EH input; and sadly such instances=20
continue. I say 'sadly', because the crunch comes when EH becomes involved=
=20
at a late stage. People's attitudes tend not to be at their happiest w=
hen=20
one party sees a 'remote governmental body' being 'forced' on them and the =
other=20
party sees somebody actively trying to exclude them. The bigger crunch come=
s=20
when EH cannot support what is being proposed and this renders most of what=
has=20
been done useless. Clearly, this method of working is best avoided.</FONT><=
/DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Chris Povey</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>