<!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 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=093491617-18082009>From
the perspective of somebody working for a local authority planning
service, I think your Registrar is being overzealous. The whole point of
the ecclesiastical exemption scheme is that these matters are left for the
church to deal with. The option of involving the council is as I see it
there to deal with really major works (like completely reordering the interior
of the church) and I cannot see augmenting the bells as coming into this
category. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=093491617-18082009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=093491617-18082009>We
certainly didn't consider it necessary to involve the local authority when
we augmented Lancaster Priory's bells three years
ago.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=093491617-18082009></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=093491617-18082009>Peter
Rivet</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </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>David Beacham<BR><B>Sent:</B> 18 August 2009 16:59<BR><B>To:</B>
ringing-chat@GM-jl8oJmpQGfHq04kC8iC4muz3EgI69_Vv5hS15t60lZVdPEvffQJF7iZisEv9sMa9fkAzi3QDYjOuYnWT6h9JACN0.yahoo.invalid; change-ringers@gJhpMzQPcXs0vy2a_igMeDFJyY0yJOiAtnReOJy6oMvjvPJCtjJ61iyrMbgzAvL4sEwGs7VhNULMJNWEF42MbjkrUIcT.yahoo.invalid;
bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Bell Historians] Faculty
Petition - advice please<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><SPAN
style="DISPLAY: none"> </SPAN>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P>As a recently retired DAC bell advisor I thought I knew all about
the<BR>faculty application process. However, a petition to install a flat 6th
in<BR>my own church (Worcester, All Saints) has got hung up on a late
direction by <BR>the Diocesan Registrar. The petition had completed all the
usual processes, <BR>i.e. consultation with the DAC, English Heritage and the
Georgian Group (it <BR>being an C18 church) and no objections raised. Now, the
Registrar is saying <BR>that it also needs to be referred to the Local
Authority and a Public Notice <BR>inserted in the local press. He cites the
Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000, <BR>Sections 13 (3) and (4) and Appendix B as
requiring this action.<BR><BR>I have never before heard of a faculty
application to augment a ring being<BR>subject to approval by the Local
Authority. Furthermore, since part of the<BR>application process requires the
churchwardens to display a Citation (i.e.a<BR>Public Notice) on the church's
notice board for a period of 28 days, and<BR>which they did weeks ago, why on
earth should further notice be required by <BR>way of a notice in the local
paper?<BR><BR>The Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000 may be found at<BR><A
href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002047.htm#13">http://www.opsi.<WBR>gov.uk/si/<WBR>si2000/20002047.<WBR>htm#13</A><BR><BR>Can
anyone out there with the required specialist (legal) knowledge say<BR>whether
or not the Diocesan Registrar is interpreting the rules correctly?<BR>Has any
other church had to involve the Local Authority in this way in<BR>recent
times?<BR><BR>DB<BR><BR></P></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>