[Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory

[David Cawley]

I have been following the emails regarding Great Malvern with interest. I particularly appreciated Chris Pickford's considered reaction to the Judgment and balanced suggestions on future potentially contentious cases.

I sympathise with the Petitioners and with the Ringers at Great Malvern Priory; but having read the Judgment and the summary of evidence upon which it is based, I find it difficult to see how the Court could have reached another conclusion. It all turns on the evidence; as matters stand, the evidence of English Heritage and the willingness of a structural engineer highly respected in the Exercise and of the firm he represents to stake their professional indemnity on a satisfactory outcome to restoration must weigh very heavily on the side of the Objectors.

John Baldwin seems to me to make good sense when suggesting that the correct line of approach would be to take the decision to Appeal. This would require as John says, and as Chris has pointed out, adequate  and competent evidence. Additionally, it is for the Court to decide whether new evidence can be admitted, if it is simply the decision which is being appealed. There is also the question of costs, should the appeal fail. 

I think if I was the Petitioner in, shall we say, a very similar case, I would consider the evidence upon which the Judgment is based. If I was still unconvinced, it would be open to me to go over my own evidence. I must provide what was perceived to be lacking and supplement - or even withdraw - anything the reliability of which could reasonably be called into question, and add any new evidence, presenting it in the form of a new Faculty Petition.  

May I say, with respect, that this cause has prompted some indignant, perhaps ill-considered responses They may not help the very people with whom we sympathise regardless of the perceived rights and wrongs of the case. The email below has a personal and negative observation on the Chancellor and there has been one other. If the Petitioners, in this case, detect a conflict of interest they should advise the Diocesan Bishop of their fears. The email, self-entitled a "Rant" also says, 'One of these days an EH member (sic) will be a ringer and will therefore understand ....'  The English Heritage Inspector with whom the CBC and the CCCBR have the most dealings is Graham Pledger, who is a competent and loyal Sunday Service ringer.

    


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Ellis 
  To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:31 PM
  Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Great Malvern Priory


  Another sad day for ringing.

  IMHO Mr. Charles Mynors, because of his background, has a predisposition (is that the right word?) towards preservation.   He was therefore in conflict of interest with the entire case and he should never have been there.  Surely it can be appealed on that alone.  (Need input from our learned leader).

  What concerns me the most is that repairing the old frame is no guarantee and that it will need to be repaired again at a much sooner rather than a far distant date.   In other words any repair is a waste of money.

  Bells are hung to be rung and heard.   The frame is the means by which they can be rung.  No frame, no bells.   Does the public see or hear the frame?  No way.  So why this terrible concern for the preservation of  almost-modern frames by EH makes no sense whatsoever.

  One of these days an EH member will be a  ringer and will therefore understand the need for a proper frame.

  Rant over.

  Best wishes

  Alan


   







             
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090312/a2abb062/attachment.html>