Timber frames

[Chris Povey]

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Alan Birney wrote that he wanted advice on preservative for timber frames. =
Assuming the 3-bell frame he intends working on is in a church under facult=
y jurisdiction, the best person from whom to seek advice is the Diocesan Be=
lls Advisor. Dioceses sometimes have recommendations for paint and preserva=
tives - and their officers can get agitated if something other than the rec=
ommended product is used. Be aware, too, that bats (if there are any - and =
there may be in an unrung 3-bell tower)) may not care much for creosote (or=
suchlike) and might just keel over with the odour. The fines for disturbin=
g bats can be quite severe. Just another thing to take into account.

Alan is probably aware of the de minimis provisions regarding work in belfr=
ies (and for anywhere else in/on church property), but it may be worth a fe=
w words for general interest. The de minimis provisions only allow a small =
amount of work to be done without obtaining a faculty; and 'very small' can=
mean a really minimal amount in some cases. For instance, in one diocese =
very local to me, de minimis for church bell work amounts to the following:=
oiling, greasing and replacement of consumables. The de minimis provisions=
do vary between dioceses, but even then it does not allow much work. As ev=
erybody probably knows, the faculty process has the force of law: real, pro=
per law. Anybody undertaking work beyond the de minimis level without a fac=
ulty is breaking the law and may be called upon to return to original condi=
tion at their expense anything that has been changed. Bellfounders/hangers =
are particularly keen to see the faculty documentation allowing work to pro=
ceed, because they can find themselves liable to big fines if they start wi=
thout that permission.=20

The really big problem occurs when work without faculty permission alters t=
he historic nature of something. This is where English Heritage step in and=
the heat goes up a few notches. We all recognise the importance of listed =
bells and that somebody would be jumping up and down a lot if damage were t=
o occur to one. Bellframes are much the same, and in some cases have their =
own separate listing, but I think it is fair to say that far fewer people r=
ecognise this. Bellframes are also much more DIY, particularly timber ones,=
so they are more at risk from inadvertent damage.=20

In practice, the de minimis limit may be eased a bit, usually by the DAC an=
d its advisors, so it's a good idea to get them involved at the start. They=
will give advice about EH's possible interest. Permission from the Vicar o=
r a member of the PCC to do a bit of work may be a possible line of defence=
if the proverbial hits the propellor, but they will not appreciate being s=
ucked in to any furore - even if they knew (or should have known, but somet=
imes ignorance is lamentably real) what the laws of the land were in such c=
ases.

Although ignorance of de minimis is no defence, I think it is fair to say t=
hat their existence is not well known and hence a lot of work gets done ill=
egally. I think the de minimis provisions can be their own worst enemy, bec=
ause they are both restrictive and woolly at the same time. The very great =
majority of us who work on bells would have to confess that we have sinned =
against de minimis in our time, either for expediency of out of ignorance; =
and much the same number would have to confess to being serial offenders. O=
n the other hand, if everything non-de minimis were to be taken to the DAC,=
their officers would be unable to cope with the avalanche of requests. I w=
ould like to see some sort of recognition given to modern (20th century) in=
stallations, where consumables are generally designed for intended and rela=
tively easy replacement, unlike older gear. A PCC near to me was taken to t=
ask in heavy fashion by an Archdeacon only a few years ago for sending thei=
r 1926 Taylor clappers off for rebushing without Diocesan permission. This =
would have been understandable if the clappers had been ancient baldrick on=
es; but modern ones...?

With regard to movement at sill level of frames, my experience is that bell=
frames actually move less than they seem to. You have to measure the moveme=
nt accurately. I remember a rough guide to movement v. ringability being so=
mething like: up to 1mm, ringability is excellent; 1-2mm, difficulty occasi=
onally becoming apparent; 2-3mm, getting quite difficult; above 3mm, very d=
ifficult.

Hope the above is of use.

Chris Povey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20030803/7c4f0ad7/attachment.html>