[Bell Historians] Hanley

[John H Allen]

I understand that there was a considerable effort to seek support. What the
Stoke CC web site does not record is the many discussions between the
Council, other ringers, the Stone Ringers, the Lichfield Diocese and the
Church Commissioners. None of these would be recorded on the web site.

Richard indicates that the developer is also a ringer. Perhaps Richard
should encourage this person, whoever he/she is, to comment and to answer
the contractual questions which Richard raises.

John

 
-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Grimmett
Sent: Thursday 15 October 2009 23:20
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Hanley

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


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.19/2438 - Release Date: 10/15/09
12:02:00