MPCP(20)19 Annex S Church Commissioners Mission, Pastoral and Church Property Committee Closed Church of Crawshawbooth St John (Diocese of Manchester) Representations against draft Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Supplementary Views of the Representors and Correspondence with the Bishop Further Views of the Representors Our correspondence with the Bishop was sent to all those who made representations about this draft scheme and we have received further comments from Keith Ingley, Caroline Hudson, Sarah Shepherd, and Mr and Mrs Allison against the draft scheme and from Mr Thompson in favour of the draft scheme, these are attached as Appendix I . We also received a further representation out of time which is attached for information. Representations Against Mr Ingley responds with some detail and attached correspondence to questions about the land ownership and the claim by him concerning damages and the repair to the churchyard wall and adjacent land. Caroline Hudson, in a series of e-mails, reiterates her concerns about the proposals. She writes that she cannot say strongly enough how shocking it is that the Church is even considering this sale and argues that this has the potential to be a PR disaster for the Church and that the Church will quite rightly be questioned as to what attention they paid to the concerns of residents and the due diligence process. Having spoken with the prospective purchaser she also writes that the purpose of the building is not decided. The Ministry of Defence may not grant the plans and even if they do the people housed will be a mix of ex-military and others who have fallen on hard times. She suggests that other options of a housing association or private flats might be considered. She would not want the Church to sell based on a principle that it is supporting ex-service men when it will not be the case. Sarah Shepherd, having read the Bishop’s letter, raises various concerns where she considers the information she has been given is at a variance with that in the Bishop’s letter, or where questions remain unanswered. She is particularly concerned about how residents are to be chosen and whether or not there will be supervision and care provision on site. She also queries the extent of the public S1 consultation and contends that low attendance at the public meeting may be due to a lack of knowledge of the event happening. Whilst she fully appreciates the Bishop's desire to save this important and historic building, she says this has also to be balanced against the feelings of local residents. She notes the Bishop’s comments about employment prospects in the area but suggests that much of the new housing being built locally, is in fact to support the ever-growing needs of commuters wanting to move out of Manchester, to live in the comparative tranquillity of Rossendale. While the Local Authority does all it can to support new employment opportunities, these are not in the local area around Crawshawbooth, but mainly in the Bacup and Haslingden area. She concludes by repeating her assertion that this is not a suitable development for a small village such as Crawshawbooth and the development is not in the best interests of the proposed residents. Mr and Mrs Allison write that, not having been in possession of full written details, having read the correspondence they feel rather naïve not to have opposed the development. Having built their house and lived with the church as a neighbour for 30 years, they write that it will be their daily lives most affected by these proposed changes. They explain that, as a retired couple with a vulnerable seventeen year old living with them, the proposed new main entrance would be intrusive, whoever lived there, but with twenty people coming and going on a daily basis they argue it would leave them very much open to disturbance and being watched and overlooked. In response to the comments of Ms Shepherd, they set out questions which they believe have not yet been answered with regard to the prospective tenants and the level and nature of care and support required and seek further elaboration of how the accommodation will be fully supported and supervised. They also seek a response to their questions about the boundary plans and their suggestion that the proposed main entrance be moved to Pinner lane. Representations in favour Mr Thompson reiterates his support for the proposals, believing that the Bishop’s response was constructive and considered and he broadly agrees with its content. He responds to the comments made in some of the representations and counters the assumptions made about the suggested residents. He notes that if there was a problem, there would be a landlord to approach and the possibility of action should the need arise. He reiterates his strong belief that this is the last chance to save this historic building and questions the alternative negative impacts that come from a derelict building, such as theft, squatters, and vandalism. He also writes that if residents want problems relating to the church to be resolved, getting behind investment would be a very sensible route. He sets out information about Crawshawbooth as a small but thriving village and writes that it can very comfortably accommodate an additional 20 residents. S2 He finally notes, in response to the concerns raised, that as part of the planning proposal it will be necessary to consider privacy, and believes that it would be simple to resolve any arising issues by adding barriers such as large shrubs and/or fencing/walls. Response of the Bishop This additional correspondence was sent to the Bishop of Manchester. Our letter to the Bishop and his response are attached at Appendix II. The Bishop writes that it has always been clear that some element of care and supervision would be provided to the residents if that were necessary. He quotes from the document made available at the drop-in which stated that there would be “full disabled access and care facility should they be needed”. He also confirmed that the prospective purchasers have indicated that ‘so long as they are ex-military personnel and are deemed safe to live an independent life, passing all relevant protocol checks and due diligence conducted via the MoD and us as landlords, they will be deemed suitable as a tenant for occupation’. The Bishop also writes that the current plans that the prospective purchasers have drawn up constitute a ‘sketch scheme’, to give an initial indication of the possible internal layout of the proposed development. He writes that he is sure any concerns about potential overlooking or the loss of privacy will be given serious consideration and will be a matter the local planning authority will address in any application for planning permission and listed building consent that is submitted. The Bishop makes clear that residential accommodation for veterans/ex-Armed Forces personnel is the intended development and therefore rightly the focus of the current proposals. However, he notes that given the current situation, this might prove rather more difficult to move forward and that the prospective purchasers have, in his view, openly and honestly, indicated a willingness to contemplate other forms of residential accommodation to secure the future of St John’s. The Bishops notes that any proposal for a change in the use of a former Church of England church can generate strong views but believes that the statutory consultation process provides the opportunity for local people to have an input to securing the best possible outcome for a building such as St John’s. In the light of what is an open and transparent process, he thinks there is even greater reputational risk to the Church if we were to close our minds to using such a building to meet a recognised need of a disadvantaged group of people. The Bishop concludes by reiterating that the statutory duty of the Diocese is to secure the future use of the church building, but notes that if the Commissioners allow the draft scheme to proceed the prospective purchasers will still need to secure planning permission and listed building consent for their proposals. Harvey Howlett 1 May 2020 S3 Go back to top of Annex Appendix 1 Representations Against From Mr Ingley Dear Mr Howlett, Thank you for your email regarding the above, and the response from the Bishop. It a shame that he does not answer any communications that I have sent to him as a member of the Board of Finance, or Bishop, along with the closed church secretary? Rev Alan Simpson and others. Could he also be the person who ordered the Diocese registry (J Myers) and the Commissioners associate planner (Mr Norman Bilsborough) into making fraudulent claims of Ownership / Use of our toilet block in 2012? Evidence provided by these people Rejected by the Land Registry as Conjecture and Tampered with. Shame on both on them, I would also suggest that they would have known that the Land Registry does not have the remit to take any action, even against what was Attempted Thieft of Land/Property by Deception. The LR would also like to know if these people think they are stupid? As for the response from the Bishop, especially question 5. Didn't the Diocese Property Manager (Another new name addition) tell him that the Diocese was ORDERED to have these trees removed as a matter of urgency on the 25th May 2013 by Preston Highways Dept, on this same day, the person I now know as, Rev Simpson rang me for the first time, advising that he was now in the process of arranging for the Diocese surveyor and contractors to visit the site to seen what could be done about these trees, and could not give any consideration to the reported damages until he had ascertained who owns this land, retaining walls and who the maintenance contractors were which, he thought was the local Council but he was not 100% sure of that.