[Bell Historians] was More Telegraph letters, now DBA's

[Andrew Wilby]

Mark Regan wrote:
>
> <The exemption is very important. Give planning control to EH and 
> councils you enter the world of politics and personal opinion becoming 
> ‘policy’.>
>

Shall we get our facts right?

EH does not have any Planning powers. It only acts as a statutory 
consultee and its' responses are not binding on the Planning Authority. 
[Unlike the Highways Agency which does have the statutory power of veto 
but is the only body, other than the Secretary of State, with such power.]

Planning powers are exercised in a quasi judicial process. Members of a 
Planning body must decide every application before them on the evidence 
presented to them. They must not have taken any personal or prejudicial 
view before determining the issue, otherwise they must declare it and in 
some cases not take part in the decision even to the extent of leaving 
the room. Failure to abide by these "Standards in Public Life" is 
grounds for appeal.

Planning decisions are taken on the majority vote of usually a committee 
of 12 guided by the advice of the professional specialist officers 
including lawyers.
Decisions, to be lawful, must be taken within the framework of 
democratically agreed policy, the law and government guidance.

Decisions have to be taken within a time-frame of 8 or 13 weeks 
depending on the scale of the application. For really big cases this can 
be extended by agreement but non determination within the time-scales is 
grounds for appeal.

There is a national inspectorate which hears the appeals, determination 
of which again has to be based on the law and material considerations.

Politics and whims cannot come into it.

It seems to me that the CofE process has not evolved over the years as 
has the secular. It badly needs to learn from the secular in terms of 
accepting reasonable time-scales for determination, democratising the 
decision making and curbing the ridiculously dictatorial powers of 
Diocesan Chancellors. It also should provide a reasonable Appeals system 
that does not involve the Court of Arches of all things!


> <The Church process allows everyone to contribute and a legal expert 
> decides on the evidence. It may not be perfect – it’s better than 
> politics and the whims of EH advisors.>
>
>
I would counter that the Church process simply does not do what is claimed.
Where is the open hearing unless a Consistory Court is called?

Why should a legal expert "decide" on the evidence? He should advise the 
decision makers on the legal position perhaps but for a Chancellor to 
play both Judge and Jury is not the way to reach satisfactory decisions 
in the democracy we have evolved however imperfect.

Where does politics and whims of EH advisor's enter into the secular? It 
is of course the Ecclesiastical process that suffers from this.

I am to an extent neutral about the Ecclesiastical Exemption.
However all the other churches exist in the secular jurisdiction without 
apparent problem so it can't be claimed that it couldn't work for the CofE.

The processes seem to be left over from a bygone age where through 
communal deference to higher authority we accepted the rule of Bishops 
and Chancellors without question.

This Ecclesiastical Exemption is the power of the state being exercised 
by the state church.

However this is also an age where we expect the state to act in a more 
democratic manner and indeed the CofE has pretended to move in that 
direction with Synodical Government.

It should be encouraged to apply the same democratic principles to the 
Faculty Measure.... otherwise it will deserve to lose it.

Andrew





















> .