<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't wish to be patronising but it sounds from
this as if Fr Richard is going to be God's gift to the good folk of
Hanley and to the local ringers. When the time comes, the Exercise should
respond generously. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When I was in a similar position in Bristol
Diocese, with St Thomas (then long unrung) and St James (where ringing ceased on
redundancy), both I (as DAC Bells Adviser) and the other Redundant
Churches Committee members were heartened by the backing I received from
the G&B DAR as well as from the then RCF and the Roman Catholic Church (the
bodies in which these churches were
respectively vested). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The result, finally achieved some while after I
left, is that both rings of bells are in better condition now than ever they
were before the two churches became redundant!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Let's hope the same may happen at
Hanley.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DLC </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(aka Fr David, St Mary de Castro
Leicester)</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mapmdad@w3PZG6LqtFVQ5l6GC-mAbu5TQe190a3RKr0BZEibW1a5IfyeKoiSUfaeAnV62DU09GJPtM2QB1uKMZ4JDc3HwHMFSQ.yahoo.invalid href="mailto:mapmdad@ZoSWfZL3Wfx9Sydpm9sTOw8xgx8y6n7jrbd0OPK-95UXPEByDV_-i0XEVsfbcPV4hGayopN1QXiWggIaIw.yahoo.invalid">mapmdad</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com
href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:04
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Bell Historians] Re: St John's
Church Hanley</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>Sorry not to have posted until now on this topic. As the recently
<BR>appointed secreatary of Lichfield diocese redundant churches uses
<BR>committee (as well as parish priest of two parishes, one of which has
<BR>a ring of six bells) I have picked up a veritable can of worms with
<BR>Hanley.<BR><BR>Our local ringers association have commissioned a report
from an <BR>independent consultant (Adrian Dempster). We spent a happy hour
<BR>(actually it was blowing a gale) at the top of the tower last Tuesday
<BR>examining the bells and the frame. I'm awaiting the report.<BR><BR>Some of
you have raised the bigger question of the future of the <BR>building. I am
working with the redundant churches committee at the <BR>church commissioners,
and have also involved the local authority <BR>conservation architect should
listed building alteration or <BR>demolition be necessary. Speaking purely
personally I think that to <BR>demolish would be a shame. Saint john's is not
a beautiful building, <BR>but it has the architectural features noted by
others here, and it is <BR>a good building right in the city centre. However,
the final decision <BR>lies elsewhere, and this building cannot carry on as it
is. <BR><BR>One pressing issue, irrespective of the future of the building, is
to <BR>safeguard what i am told is a very good peal of bells. I am grateful
<BR>for the help of the local bellringers association and for the
<BR>intervention of the keltec trust. I am open to suggestions and to
<BR>donations towards the cost of the work. Please accept that i am new <BR>to
this situation. Rather than trying to second guess the diocese, or
<BR>speculate on procedural matters, I will value your support and <BR>advice.
<BR><BR>Fr Richrd Grigson<BR><BR>--- In <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A>,
"Peter Rivet" <peter@...> <BR>wrote:<BR>><BR>> Controls over the
demolition of redundant church buildings raise <BR>interesting<BR>> issues
and I must admit that I had to look up the answer to David's<BR>>
question.<BR>> <BR>> It is set out in the government advice note PPG15
(Planning Policy<BR>> Guidance - Planning & the Historic
Environment)<WBR>. Paragraph 8.15 <BR>says that<BR>> in the case of Church
of England churches, partly or totally <BR>demolishing a<BR>> church in
pursuance of a Pastoral Measure is still exempt from <BR>listed<BR>>
building control. However the Church Commissioners have agreed <BR>that
where<BR>> they want to demolish a listed church in these circumstances
they <BR>will ask<BR>> the Secretary or State if he wishes to hold a
non-statutory public <BR>inquiry<BR>> where English Heritage, the local
authority or any of the <BR>recognised amenity<BR>> bodies put forward
reasoned objections. Interestingly this doesn't <BR>apply to<BR>> places of
worship of any other denomination - the view taken by the <BR>Courts<BR>>
is that a building cannot be considered to be in use as a place of
<BR>worship<BR>> if it is totally demolished, so they would need consent to
knock it <BR>down if<BR>> it's listed.<BR>> <BR>> But paragraph 8.17
of PPG15 goes on to say that when a Church of <BR>England<BR>> building is
no longer in regular ecclesiastical use, it is fully <BR>subject to<BR>>
the normal listed building controls. This applies once the <BR>declaration
of<BR>> redundancy under the Pastoral Measure comes into operation. The
<BR>same also<BR>> applies to those churches vested in the Churches
Conservation <BR>Trust, even<BR>> though church services are held in most
of them on an occasional <BR>basis. I<BR>> have looked up English
Heritage's listing description for St John's <BR>Hanley<BR>> and it
describes it as "now disused" so I would have thought that <BR>it is<BR>>
fairly clear that it is now within the remit of the local planning<BR>>
authority.<BR>> <BR>> The reason that St Johns is listed grade II* is
because it uses <BR>cast iron<BR>> structural and decorative components,
notably the gallery columns, <BR>the<BR>> window frames and the
castellations. The church was built in 1788-<BR>90. It<BR>> is thought that
these components are some of the earliest to have <BR>been used<BR>> in any
type of building in Britain, only those at St James <BR>Liverpool of<BR>>
1774-5 being identified as earlier.<BR>> <BR>> Contrary to what I
expected the listing description does mention <BR>the bells,<BR>> which is
unusual in the case of twentieth century ones: "Bell <BR>chamber with<BR>>
peal of 10 bells, the original peal of 8 bells cast by Edward <BR>Arnold
of<BR>> Leicester and installed in 1791, supplemented by two additions in
<BR>1891, and<BR>> all re-cast and rehung from a contemporary bellframe in
1923".<BR>> <BR>> Peter Rivet<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>>
[mailto:<A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A>]On
Behalf Of David Bryant<BR>> Sent: 14 March 2007 21:33<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:bellhistorians%40yahoogroups.com">bellhistorians@<WBR>yahoogroups.<WBR>com</A><BR>>
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: St John's Church Hanley<BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> "In reply to the comment by Giles Blundell - in fact it's the
<BR>other way<BR>> round. Ecclesiastical exemption means that the Church of
<BR>England, the<BR>> Roman<BR>> Catholic Church and a few other
denominations which are <BR>considered to have<BR>> adequate procedures in
place for dealing with alterations to <BR>places of<BR>> worship don't need
to apply for Listed Building Consent. This <BR>means that<BR>> the local
planning authority doesn't have to get involved in <BR>fonts, bells<BR>>
and other things that require a Faculty. But churches still have <BR>to
apply<BR>> for planning permission for external works, including
alterations,<BR>> extensions and access ramps."<BR>> <BR>> But as I
understand it, the faculty procedure still applies, <BR>rather than<BR>>
secular planning controls, under certain circumstances if the <BR>building
is<BR>> no<BR>> longer used as a church but still owned by the diocese -
hence my <BR>question<BR>> about whether it has been deconsecrated.<BR>>
<BR>> David<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> No virus found in this outgoing
message.<BR>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus
Database: 268.18.11/722 - Release Date:<BR>> 14/03/2007<BR>>
15:38<BR>><BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>