<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Following on from today’s postings.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I think the CBC Bells Committee is an anachronism. In these changing times when it is likely more churches will close their doors it is unrealistic for organisations such as the CBC throwing a spanner in the works of those committed parishioners and locals who are prepared to maintain and improve their church buildings. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is not just bells; local church buildings need to be adapted to make them of more use to the community and this is often resisted by the “Bodies which need to be consulted” for Faculty approval. There needs to be a complete re-think of our & the heritage body attitudes. In my view we should be looking at improving community use of our church buildings. Which is better, a church building that is adapted to community use or one that closes because it cannot be altered because of Heritage body objections?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dave<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>