[Bell Historians] The case for and against Ecclesiastical Exemption

[Andrew Wilby]

Peter is right about the potential problems with delegated authorities 
and I was trying to avoid over complicating the description of the 
secular process for those for whom it is something of a mystery.

However delegated means delegated; the decision still remains the 
responsibility of the Planning Authority as an entity and cases can be 
called in to committee by members.
If we were dealing with a proposal in my authority involving a bell 
frame as Peter has suggested then it would be open to the applicants to 
request a call in to ensure full debate and if I had the slightest doubt 
about the view of the Officer concerned I would.

I find it amusing that within the authority in which I am involved, EH 
opinion counts for little and the committee is inclined to ignore them. 
In contrast, within the Ecclesiastical Exemption they seem to be given 
far more credence than was ever intended in the legislation.

I strongly suspect that if church communities were better informed about 
the strengths and weaknesses of both systems they would either demand 
reform of the faculty process or opt for the secular.

Ringers have a particular insight into Cof E problems in general because 
we are one of the few groups with an overview beyond parochial and 
diocesan boundaries.
If reform is going to come from anywhere it may need to come from us.

How about some reforming resolutions to the General Synod?

Andrew




Peter Rivet wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2505 - Release Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00
>
>