<!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">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN class=487514215-10032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I feel
there is a huge leap of logic around paragraphs 122 and 123. Para 122 -
Likening the historical interest of an 1887 bellframe to that of medieval
wall tiles and citing inclusion on a website as evidence of interest is taking
things too far. And para 123 links the removal of that same limited
historic interest to adversely affecting the character of the priory.
Logical(?) conclusions stretched too far!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487514215-10032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487514215-10032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=487514215-10032009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com]<B>On
Behalf Of </B>Richard Grimmett<BR><B>Sent:</B> 10 March 2009
08:52<BR><B>To:</B> bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Bell Historians] Great Malvern<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>Perhaps I am being naive here, but can people explain exactly where they
<BR>feel the Chancellor went wrong? Was the problem in the evidence
<BR>submitted or the logic applied by the Chancellor, or
both?<BR><BR>Clarrie<BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>