RE: Re: [Bell Historians] The case for and against Ecclesiastical Exemption

[Mark Regan]

This is good stuff...

That ringers are not seen as a relevant amenity group is a question that's bugged me for ages.

Yes - we need to lobby better. The CCCBR have completely failed in this arena. 

Let's do something about it?

Mark

>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: Andrew Wilby <andrew at wbupY8HaKAIcxGC44prYpUAwRjSva1Ga7eh7wbDT67t_IhSi5OkdgzMphXFMTNj_6rrGrZ0e0tVYTQ.yahoo.invalid>
>To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:21:24
>
>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
>>
>>   
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
>
>

Mark Regan
22 Sebright Avenue
Worcester
WR5 2HH
01905 354339
07971 573688