John H Allen john at Cfyq5E-se_R4fFJ6MSSyBHlLul6LiHeHBmNdUtssTHrSC7Dg5SkCgoA9Mc1Dx04JPOcXZeghD7ul.yahoo.invalid
Thu Oct 15 20:29:53 BST 2009

I am not sure that any general conclusions should be drawn from the Hanley
decision. I have the feeling that there is a hidden agenda.


The local objections may result from the activities of the St. John's Trust
who for many years have fought to save the building. The Trust is not happy
with the proposed conversion and perhaps saw the removal of the bells as the
thin end of the wedge. It is a pity that we could not benefit from the
support of EH!


I find it interesting that there was not more documentation put into the
application for the removal of the bells. The parallel application for the
conversion of the church (49827) has yet to be determined and if refused
will put everyone back to square 1. In the light of the considerable work
and cost in converting the church, why would the applicant sit lightly
(apparently) to the application for the removal of the bells?  The
conversion application has far more supporting documentation. The frame and
fittings cannot be in good shape so extra cost will need to be incurred to
make the bells secure and prevent damage to the bells, fabric and the
occupants. Why would any developer be happy to incur these additional costs?
Very odd!








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20091015/56fc9c8c/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list