[Bell Historians] Cornhill Article

Chris Frye Chris at dfh1oPmJjQJEJYb78IcLlh5LkY2QR4Slv3QjLeLklI1uKCiGgfwhIxI3ykcPEeXPE6gxBSjMDWQypzyi.yahoo.invalid
Sun Oct 17 00:03:20 BST 2010

> Richard Offen. "Probably my poor wording..."

I thought the wording was clear. There were two independent points: (i)
number must not influence the listing of individual examples (ii) the
smaller the number of examples, the more important it is to both list and
consider preserving. 

However, I was not sure what was meant by invoking "current internationally
accepted heritage listing practice" and the following sentence that includes
"number of examples...must not influence whether one example is listed for
preservation or not."

Is it not UK practice that is important? I thought that "listing" in the UK
was not listing for "preservation" but just for "identification" - the EH
website says so anyway. And Church Care was careful to state a few years
back that their lists were not "lists for preservation". Unless I'm
misunderstanding how things work, is it not the faculty system that decides
to preserve or not.

So was there any argument put forward for maintaining a certain density of
"old style" rings? For that and other matters it would be very interesting
to know what were the arguments put forward by the Council for the Care of
Churches and Alan Hughes. Are the relevant documents in the public domain?
Has anyone had access to them and would they be able to summarise the key
arguments? I believe that in the Local Authority process they would
available as we have seen at Hanley.  

Chris Frye. 


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list