<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.legds2
{mso-style-name:legds2;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:165168334;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1306763690 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579 134807567 134807577 134807579;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>Following the recent letters in the RW coming out of
Worcestershire with respect to Great Malvern, I have been left trying to think
through some of the issues involved. Therefore, I have looked again
at the Consistory Court judgement with as critical a view as I can muster. I
had in mind the question asked some time ago on this list – what is wrong
with the judgement?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>There are two points that strike me as questionable. It
might be of interest that both relate to “application of the Law”
rather than “the facts of the case”. Whether they could be used as
a basis for appeal I don’t know – it would be better to ask a
lawyer that question!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Please forgive me if these points have been raised before
and I have missed them. I have read Chris Pickford’s RW article, the Church
Times piece and relevant messages on this list since March.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Perhaps those with a better knowledge of the various legal
issues might care to comment...and apologies for the length of the posting, I
can’t say it in much less!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><![endif]>Listed Building Act 1990.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Para 36-37. Charles Mynors here considers a phrase taken
from the Court of Arches, the full version of which can be found at para 28.
The full sentence reads: “Where a church is listed, there is a strong
presumption against change which would adversely affect its character as a
building of special architectural or historic interest.” He then goes on
to state that he is “mindful” of the Listed Building Act 1990 that
says that the decision maker is to have special regard to “the desirability
of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. It is pointed out
that this act would apply in the absence of the ecclesiastical exemption;
presumably then it does not apply (or not all of it) in the presence of the
ecclesiastical exemption. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Although both of the key phrases above address
“architectural and historic interest”, it will be obvious that
there is a clear difference in meaning and scope between them. The former
applies to “character as a building”; the latter applies to a
“building or its setting or any features”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Para 57. In summarising the legal position, it is now
explicitly stated that “building, features and setting” are to be
taken into account. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Paras 118-123. It is clear from para 118 that
“features” have been introduced into the consideration. Even if the
wording here is not an exact quote from the Listed Building Act 1990, there is
a clear separation of the consideration into two elements – one taken
from the Court of Arches and one taken from the Listed Building Act 1990. There
is a repeated reference to the bellframe as a ”feature” in the
following paragraphs 119 to 123. The whole thrust of this section is to address
the “feature” and then extrapolate from the feature to the
“character of the building”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>My question can be stated as follows. Is it correct that in
delivering a Consistory Court judgement the Chancellor should be
“mindful” of the Listed Building Act 1990, and apply an approach to
his reasoned conclusions that seems to be so obviously drawn from that act?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Just to build on this point further, if I am reading it
right the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 actually
states at section 16 (under the heading Listed Building Consent) “<span
class=legds2><span lang=EN>In considering whether to grant listed building
consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State
shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it
possesses.” There is no mention of “decision makers”. And
further on Section 60 of the same act covers the ecclesiastical exemption.
Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding something but is it not the point of the
exemption that the Listed Building Consent is not required? How then could a
set of conditions that apply to the Listed Building Consent process be brought
into the faculty process? </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><![endif]>The Views of Regular Worshippers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Para 56. In summarising the legal position, Charles Mynors
states that “Where there is disagreement the views of the regular
worshippers are to be given particular weight.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Para 118 to 137. In drawing up the reasoned conclusions,
there does not appear to be any attempt to consider the views of regular worshippers
(excepting the briefest mention of the ringers in para 136). This is in spite
of the fact that the case for the petitioners (para 72 to 90) gives ample
evidence for doing so. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>My question is as follows. Is it not a serious omission to
have excluded the views of regular worshippers in the reasoned conclusions?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Chris Frye<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>