[Bell Historians] The case for and against Ecclesiastical Exemption

[Peter Rivet]

Andrew's contribution is a very good summary of the procedures followed by
local authorities in dealing with major planning applications.  However to
speed up the system most minor applications are dealt with under "delegated
powers" which means the decision is reached by planning officers without
going before the Planning Committee.

The extent to which this happens depends on the procedures of the Council
concerned but if ecclesiastical exemption were to go then a lot of Listed
Building applications involving fonts, bells and the like would fall within
this category.  A decision would depend on the attitude of the case officer
and the Council's Conservation Officer.  If you have people with a degree of
expert knowledge on the subject this is fine but most Conservation Officers
don't; they can't be expected to know everything.  They are likely to be
guided mainly by what advice is available from English Heritage and
organisations like SPAB - which could be bad news when dealing with
proposals involving bell frames.

I agree entirely that the C of E needs to update its procedures, encourage
public participation, and give clear reasons for its decisions.  However
provided it is willing to do this, I think there is a good case for
retaining the Church's right to control internal alterations to its own
buildings.

Peter Rivet

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Wilby
Sent: 18 November 2009 02:10
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] was More Telegraph letters, now DBA's




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





















> .


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links