[Bell Historians] Re: Hanley

fartwell2000 alanjbirney at aDefUqHVv8quBkfCX8fgqZNQb3zeALCFcEnIwy7QwbJUCV2y-ESe6Zj8trijkpu69n-XSjjmiyyHribPeotp.yahoo.invalid
Fri Jul 30 12:05:17 BST 2010

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, Robert Lewis <editor at ...> wrote:
> At 17:43 28/07/2010, I wrote:
> >I have just heard that Stoke City Councillors have today refused the
> >application for removal of the bells by 5 votes to 4. It seems that
> >they were persuaded by the Friends of St John's that an alternative
> >scheme to re-hang the bells in situ was possible.
> I understand from someone who attended the meeting that the Friends 
> of St. John quote was supplied by Taylors. But it was not made 
> available to other parties beforehand.
> Maybe there are grounds for appeal.

 Though not living in that area, from what I've seen in print and on the web, There seems to be a case of grounds for appeal.

 I've seen the Church a few times and it is quite a size- I wouldn't like to have to foot the bill for sorting out the subsidence of the building, and if the building is stabalised, what guarantee is there that subsidence won't strike again?

  There appear to have been a few "red herrings" reported in the press as regards the bells-they date from 18th C, they are a war memorial.

I hope that the Stone ringers do appeal and that the Association and CCCBR if needed support thier appeal. I'm sure that the Stone ringers would make good use of the Hanley bells if they managed to aquire them.

 Can the Friends of St John make any promises that Hanley bells would be put to good use in a building that would be restored as a business venue that will be quite possibly be open to the public till very late hours 24/7?



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list