[Bell Historians] Hanley

[Richard Grimmett]

John H Allen wrote:
.........
> 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 asked before, had any campaign been mounted by people interested in 
the removal to get local support?

> 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!

You are asking a question not only of a developer but also of a bellringer.

I am sure any developer would wish to be very forcefull in their 
arguments to continue with their proposed development, however surely 
the majority of the case for the removal of the bells should come from 
the diocese and the recipient church - after all it is they who have 
asked and agreed to the move? I can understand the application may need 
to come from the 'owner' of the property, but (whilst I understand 
contracts were exchanged some time ago) has transfer actually happened - 
and if it has does that include the bells?

Clarrie