[Bell Historians] The future of Hanley bells

Thu May 6 18:07:22 BST 2010

First of all my thanks to everyone that has taken the time to comment in favour  of transferring the bells to Stone.

As Peter Rivet said, the guidance on dealing with LBC applications changed last month.

We have a meeting next Monday with the planning officer  to find out how to re-write our justification statement in line with the latest guide lines.

It is interesting to note that most of the comments received against the transfer of the bells had nothing to do with polices on historic buildings and every thing do with the emotional side of loosing their bells. 

This application will come before planning and development committee for decision, hopefully early June of July.

Simon Linford spoke yesterday on Radio Stoke about the application. (+15mins from the start)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p007l0s6/Breakfast_with_Pete_Morgan_05_05_2010/

Dave Simpson

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Rivet
Sent: 05 May 2010 15:10
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] The future of Hanley bells

As Sam and Andrew point out this is not something which will be determined on the basis of objections or letters of support.  The case officer will be trying to come to a conclusion based on the issues involved, not on the number of people writing in.  Also I know from my own experience that planning officers view letter writing campaigns conducted by people living outside the area with a great deal of scepticism!  So it's important to put forward arguments which can be related to policies on historic buildings and their contents rather than emotional attachment to bells.

Current guidance on dealing with planning and listed building applications is contained in PPS5 (Planning Policy Statement: Planning for the Historic Environment).  This came out in March 2010, replacing earlier guidance, so it's a fairly recent document.  This means that the staff at Stoke as in every local authority Planning Service will still be learning their way round it, especially as the Policy Statement is accompanied by a lengthy Practice Guide.

For details of all the relevant documents (and I'm afraid there's a lot of them!) see http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/planningpolicystatements/planningpolicystatements/pps5/

It seems to me that the most important considerations here are those from section HE7 of the Practice Guide onwards.  Much of it is concerned with what happens when a listed building has no economic use.  Paragraph 91 says:

"Where substantial harm to, or total loss of, the asset’s significance is proposed a case can be made on the grounds that it is necessary to allow a proposal that offers substantial public benefits. For the loss to be necessary there will be no other reasonable means of delivering similar public benefits, for example through different design or development of an appropriate alternative site". 

This needs to be read in context, but it seems to me to provide a sound basis for arguing that there are public benefits to be secured from relocating Hanley bells somewhere that will allow them to be appreciated as a heritage asset.

As Andrew points out there's quite a lot of case law involving historic buildings.  If anyone wants to research them the standard textbook is Charles Mynors' Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments (4th edition 2006, so it has yet to be revised to take account of the latest guidance).  A few extracts from it are available on the internet:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XBsuBGm5AccC <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XBsuBGm5AccC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=charles+mynors+places+of+worship&source=bl&ots=zaG0Qsm-OD&sig=x1LZ-lyd9nU1YATLIMZ01AT-Dt4&hl=en&ei=r3jhS6jjDoyI0wSauf2eAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false> &pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=charles+mynors+places+of+worship&source=bl&ots=zaG0Qsm-OD&sig=x1LZ-lyd9nU1YATLIMZ01AT-Dt4&hl=en&ei=r3jhS6jjDoyI0wSauf2eAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is a brief summary but I hope that it is some help.

Peter Rivet

-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Wilby
Sent: 05 May 2010 11:31
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Have you voted yet?

Sam is quite right. These replies are not votes and are not weighed.
To be taken any notice of at all they need to address the "material issues"

Peter Rivet may better to be able to help with this but the issue is, I believe, whether or not the removal of the bells is counter to the interests that the Grade 2* Listing seeks to preserve.

If it were only Grade 2 then the the external appearance would only be the issue.
The star upgrades the status and in this case from what I have read mainly concens the internal construction of the nave itself.

Therefore it can be argued that the bells are not the focus of the listing and in any case are not original having been recast.

It follows therefore for the Committee that on balance, taking into consideration all the other factors such as problems in making them safe, the fact they they will never be sounded again et,c that it is reasonable to agree to their removal.

If it hasn't been done already, someone with the time might research a few precedents where bells have been removed from listed buildings to demonstrate that this is not a unique situation even if this Planning Authority hasn't had one recently.

Andrew

On 05/05/2010 09:45, Sam0austin wrote: 

I've seen your submission Richard. If anyone else is going to vote then I suggest they could be more imaginative with their comments.

"Bells are meant to be heard" & "They should ring to the Glory of God" seem to have been done to death by ringers, and I'm not sure if that will 'wash' with Stoke Council; remember they are civ servants and may not be ringers, musicians or Christian. 

If someone knows how these planning departments work, I'm sure a paragraph or two's worth of guidence for 'would-be' voters would be welcomed.
Aye

Sam
Sent from my iPhone

On 5 May 2010, at 09:31, Richard Grimmett <richard at 2ZqlPnF-eZS40THIj0PfqvN0kShVcPJgiL36zeYtbHBrDWot_eZHVXtMS16uzapUVr2L-0IzYDt6vo7fBQ.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

Robert Lewis wrote:
> 
> 
> At 19:22 08/04/2008, you wrote:
> Time is running out. 7th May is the deadline.
> 
> No, not the general election ...
> 
> To save Hanley Bells:

They don't make it easy to check your submission is logged. I cannot 
find mine. I submitted weeks ago and received an acknowledgement about 
a fortnight later, but I cannot find it on the site.

Clarrie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100506/0a378f51/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100506/0a378f51/attachment.jpg>