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. TOTALLY contradicting what he had claimed in his first ever response to me, an email on the 21st May 2013.(Not disclosed). I gave him answers to all his concerns, including ownership of the Land.After the call had ended, I text him on his mobile number advising that details of ownership could also be found in the Diocese Registry book 25, page 83. All these and more details have also been sent to the Commissioner, Justin Welby, and their Legal Dept It is now clear that the Diocese Registry has been advising the BOF/Bishop how to get out of paying for damages that have been caused. BY NOT RESPONDING TO ANY OF THE REPORTED DAMAGE. (Could this be because they are only self insured?) I am sure that Norman Bilsborough will be able to confirm this. I would also advise that the BOF solicitor/deputy registrar Donna Myers who is based on the 5th floor of Church House, has withheld important information required
S4 by the Court regarding ownership of this unregistered land (along with Stewart Smith at the Commissioners Legal Dept) and their Closed Church Dept. Many of the contacts sent to Mr/Rev Simpson, firstly by Rev. Jenny Montgomery of St Johns church, and myself (including those above) have not been disclosed by her, she has also been making fraudulent claims /suggestions clearly to delay/stop the process of Justice, by substantially increasing my litigation costs which as a pensioner, I had to borrow. She has been given full details, evidence of this will be forwarded to the SRA.. As you will all know I have already put sign on my house regarding the disgracefull, deceitful and dishonest behaviour of many in this organisation. My garage has been badly damaged, my toilet block all but destroyed, my house has been flooded and now serious internal damp problems continue. I cannot use my garden, because the collapsed Church wall which caused most of this damage, and only pertially repaired with the aid of a GRANT FROM ROSSENDALE BC. IT IS STILL NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, along with the rest of this church wall. The Diocese Registry / Norman Bilsborough appear to be the only ones who know how to contact the BROOKS FAMILY, who they claim still own this burial land / retaining wall, which none of them have chosen to use including Lady Cissy Kate Brooks who was well known by two of my neighbours and many others in the village. I WOULD THEREFORE SUGGEST THE REGISTRY CONTACTS THE BROOKS FAMILY ASAP, BEFORE THEIR WALL/BRIDGE FULLY COLLAPSES CAUSING MORE SERIOUS DAMAGE AND POSSIBLE INJURY. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST THAT YOU CONTACT REVD JENNY REGARDING THIS MATTER AS I HAVEN'T GOT THE HEART TO TELL HER THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE HER OUT AS A LIAR. I AM SURE YOU WILL HAVE HER NEW CONTACT DETAILS IN NORTHERN ISLAND. I WAS PLANNING A SUPRISE VISIT. A MUCH LARGER SIGN IS NOW READY FOR PRINTING. INCLUDING THE DETAILS / NAMES OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS DISGRACEFULL SCAM. I WILL BE VISITING YOU ALL, INC BISHOPSCOURT, LAMBETH PALACE, No 10 AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AS SOON POSSIBLE AFTER THIS LOCKDOWN IS OVER. I WOULD LOVE TO TELL JUSTIN WELBY THAT I AM ALSO ASHAMED OF THE C.O.E. OR MORE TO THE POINT THOSE WHO ARE BRINGING SHAME ON IT. DOWN BUT, NOT OUT. Keith Ingley 1 Attachment 2nd May 2013 Church of England Diocese of Manchester
S5 Church House 90 Deansgate MANCHESTER M3 2GH
Mr Alan Simpson. Diocese advisory committee. Dear Sir, With reference to the contacts made to you by the Revd Jenny Montgomery on the 12th March and the 16th April 2013, together with my follow up Email of the 17th April 2013 regarding damage to my garage and the request for removal of dangerous trees, I still have not had any reply. This is to inform you that to prevent further damage and water ingress to my garage I will be sourcing a local builder to carry out the work needed and will hold the church responsible for payment of the same plus any damage caused to internal fixtures and fittings. As for the trees and the dangerous supporting wall of the church land I will now be contacting the Environmental Health office as they pose an immediate risk to both property and people. As the church has been informed of this on numerous occasions only to turn a blind eye, I shall be requesting they invoke the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as a matter of urgency. Yours sincerely
Keith Ingley. Recorded delivery. From Caroline Hudson
1st e-mail
Dear Mr Howlett, thank you for your email. I have read the letters submitted and the Bishops response and can only say my concerns are increasing. It seems the Church is committed to this change of use and sale no matter the concerns raised. Questions we are asking are being washed over and ignored. The now lack of the public forum due to COVID-19 could be seen to be taken advantage of as a way to get this through approval without the proper representations being made.
• The letter stating “support” that the Bishop goes onto rely on, once read, doesn’t support the development itself nor the plans for use. It supports the Church being restored.
S6 • The matter remains that this would effectively be a homeless shelter. • There are no other “housing association” accommodations in Crawshawbooth, it is a small quiet village. • The public turn out to the meeting held to discuss the development had low attendance as not all home owners in the village were invited to attend • The Bishop mentions an on site “care facility” as part of the development – this was confirmed as not being part of the development during the drop in session, nor is there to be any supervision on site
I cannot say strongly enough how shocking it is that the Church is even considering this sale to such a development – the Bishop or the Commission need to visit an existing development, see the people there, how they live and their experiences. Then come and visit Crawshawbooth and tell us that its still even an option to consider?
This has the potential to be a PR disaster for the Church, the first incident that occurs (and there will be one, placing homeless people in affluent villages) the Church will quite rightly be questioned as to what attention they paid to the concerns of residents and the due diligence process.
I would like to understand the next steps after the Commissioners meeting and the potential timescales involved.
Thank you Caroline Hudson
2nd e-mail Harvey thank you for this. I am going to immediately start a campaign involving local residents to submit their clear objections, I don’t think the volume of concern is being heard as not all neighbours have been notified. Difficult in these times to get an understanding but at this time most believe it to be a retired military home which is not the case it will be a homeless shelter. More to follow, thanks for you advice and guidance so far. Kind regards 3rd e-mail Hi just a final note from me, I spoke to the prospective purchasers today and its clear the purpose of the building is not decided. The MOD 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. The other option is housing association or private flats (not as lucrative) I don’t want the Church or Bishop to sell based on a principle that this is supporting ex service men when it will not be the case. Thought it was worth sharing.
S7 Kind Regards Caroline
From Mr and Mrs Allison
Dear Mr Howlett, Thank you for the recent documents which we have received regarding the proposed plans for St. John's church, Crawshawbooth.
However, having now studied (i) the Bishop's response, albeit only to questions you posed, and (ii) having read the other peoples' representations, we would like our "comment" now given greater value, at least until we have further definite information, and in writing, about the Ministry of Defence and the developer's intentions. Most of our understanding, we realise, comes only verbally from conversation (from questions we asked at the drop in session in February and responses other people attending have passed on) and we do not have much in writing. The Bishop also uses a lot vocabulary such as "I trust", " I understand" "I am persuaded" in his reply, none of which gives us any confidence in having anything concrete to hang onto should things go wrong for us, the facility's near neighbours.
We notice that as the Bishop was not asked to comment on our proposal for moving the main entrance, our concerns seem to have been trivialised.
It seems, not having been in possession of full written details of this proposal at the time (even though we did attend the meeting at the village centre) nor of the problems that can be associated with the resettlement of some ex service personnel, we did not actually oppose the plans and now feel we have been quite naive in believing there would be no issue with a landlord or any prospective tenants ever. Indeed the Bishop himself says "As I understand it, all the relevant background checks on potential tenants will be undertaken in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence to ensure as far as possible that those housed in St John’s would be no threat to nearby residents ".
When we had this house built we never envisaged anything other than this grand old church being directly behind our bungalow and we have now lived here in the shadow of St John's for over thirty years since it was an operational place of worship and are the nearest neighbours to the church. As such it will be our daily lives most affected by these proposed changes, unlike other local residents who primarily concern themselves with how much better the building will look. From a report I recently read it seems that research on the transition of military personnel to civilian life is limited.
We are a retired couple with a vulnerable seventeen year old living with us and there is currently no solid boundary between ourselves and the church. Indeed we have full depth French windows in our main living room overlooking the church
S8 grounds and the proposed new main entrance would be intrusive to our current quiet, private way of life, whoever lived there, but with twenty people coming and going on a daily basis we feel it would leave us very much open to disturbance and maybe first point of nuisance, being watched and overlooked.
Although with somewhat extreme views after personal dealings with a few ex servicemen, Ms Shepherd's response has posed for us many questions we haven't yet had answered - eg/ Will these tenants be all male or a mixture or all female and with or without problems? How long will will they have been ex service? how long will they be staying ? Why do they need help with housing? As raised by the Bishop, what does an on-site care facility entall and will there be on-site live-in support for them be it physical and / or emotional ? We would also appreciate further information on the Bishop's comment "I understand that the accommodation to be provided in St John’s will be fully supported and supervised, so I’m persuaded that the impact on both the immediate neighbouring properties (and on the village with its limited medical facilities) will be minimal." Also it suggests he does envisage some impact?
What are the developer’s plans for the boundary ? How has the developer responded to our suggestion that the proposed main entrance be moved to Pinner Lane?
We would like these issues, where appropriate, referred back to the Bishop for further consideration and moreover to those charged with allocating tenants for their comments and look forward to receiving their answers, with detail.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Kenneth and Mrs Judith Allison
S9 From Sarah Shepherd
Harvey
Thank you for your emails of 18th and 24th April, and the opportunity to comment on the ongoing discussion with the Bishop of Manchester about the proposed development of Crawshawbooth St John.
The first thing that strikes me about the Bishop's response is that his perception of the proposed development is at times at odds with the information I have been given, by both written communication and orally at the drop-in session at the local library. The Bishop has made certain claims which clearly throw a different complexion on some on my initial thoughts. However, what worries me is why the Bishop has made certain statements as to his understanding, when that information was not provided to me, despite asking specifically about these subjects at the time.
Specifically, I asked how the residents would be chosen, and all I was told was that they were likely to be former servicemen who might have served anything up to 25 years, but whose ages might vary from 18 years to 70+ years. There was no mention of the MOD being involved in the selection process. It would be interesting to know what that selection process involves.
I asked specifically if there was to be any supervision on the site but was told no. I also asked about whether there would be some form of care provision for residents, especially for those possibly in their later years. Again I was told there would be no on site supervision, and no specific care provided, but if it was required by an individual, then it would be on an individual basis, by providers. The bishop on the other hand states that his understanding is that " the accommodation will be fully supported, and supervised, with an on site care facility." I would like to know what is the true position.
I fully appreciate the work currently being done in the church grounds to improve the drainage, and hence reduce the flooding risk to both the church, and to my, and neighbouring properties. I also note the Bishop's comments about the level of representations made, and the apparent low level of interest in the subject. I would contend that may well be due, not to a consensus of satisfaction amongst residents, but rather a lack of knowledge. I have a number of acquaintances who live in the vicinity of the church, who had not received the letter I did, and are unaware of the proposed development. From what I can glean, the letters were delivered to properties on the same side of the main road as the church, but not necessarily to nearby properties on the other side of the road, but in very close proximity to the church. As such therefore, the Bishop's view that 'the silent majority' were in favour, may not be a true representation, as the silent majority may in fact be unaware of the proposal. If local residents did not receive a copy of the notification I did, then it would seem awareness was reliant on a small notice in the legal section of the local paper.
I also fully appreciate the Bishop's desire to save this important and historic building, and also his desire after almost a decade of effort, to get it "off his estate". However,
S10 this has to also to be balanced against the feelings of local residents, who may or may not be in favour of the development, but who have not been given the opportunity to give their thoughts. due to poor communication.
I note the comments of the Bishop about the employment prospects of proposed residents because of the support of the local planning authority. However, it is a fact that much of the new housing being built in the area, is not to accommodate workers of new developing industries, but in fact to support the ever growing needs of commuters wanting to move out of Manchester, to live in the comparative tranquillity of Rossendale. The Local Authority does all it can to support new employment opportunities, but these are not in the local area around Crawshawbooth, but mainly in the Bacup and Haslingden area.
Finally, I want to repeat my assertion from my previous correspondence that, in my opinion, this is not a suitable development for a small village such as Crawshawbooth. There are no facilities in the village to support, amuse or entertain, a large group of men. There are no support facilities in the locality, whether or not there are in the premises, to support the possible needs of residents. The development is not in the best interests of the proposed residents, and I hope the Commissioners give due regard to my comments.
Regards
Sarah Shepherd
S11 Representations In Favour
From Mr Thompson
Dear Mr Howlett,
Thank you for sharing the feedback from the Bishop and also copies of the representation received to date.
I believe the response from the Bishop is constructive and considered, and I would broadly agree with the responses that he has made.
Regarding the representation received, there appears to be a sweeping assumption in the representations against the proposal that all or some of the residents in the proposed development will be from a very specific demographic. That is to say that the residents are assumed to be male, predominantly with psychological problems, and will either likely have a history of crime or will shortly be involved with crime due to living in such a small and isolated village.
My understanding is that the military have been known to employ both male and female personnel, not that either is likely to be more of a risk to the community than the other. I am comfortable also in making a broad assumption that amongst the residents of Crawshawbooth we have people that have phycological issues and a criminal background, that is not to say that any of the residents in the proposed development will have either. Our control over residents in the general population is extremely limited but I am assured that if a problem resident was to be housed in the proposed development that there is a landlord to make a plea to and the possibility of action should the need arise. I would personally prefer to deal with a potential landlord of the building, if required, to deal with a potential problem resident rather than to see the church fall into greater disrepair. As I mentioned in my last email I strongly believe that this is the last chance to save this historic building and I question the alternative negative impacts that come from a derelict building, such as theft, squatters, and vandalism. Some of these issue are already present and would be eliminated with investment in the building.
Crawshawbooth is indeed a small but thriving village that can very comfortably accommodate an additional 20 residents. The village has several pubs, restaurants, takeaways, hairdressers, clothing shops, florist, a library, as well as many other shops and businesses. It also has several grocery shops, including a butchers and a bakers, and so daily supplies can be easily obtained within the village, there is also a pharmacy a very short walk away. Although the village does not have its own medical centre, it is situated on a main road with a very regular bus route and is far from isolated. There are large medical centres situated in both Rawtenstall and Burnley with direct bus routes to both.
The comment raised regarding flooding to neighbouring properties I understand will also be addressed as part of the scheme. I also am of the understanding that the likelihood of the property, land, and surrounding environment of St Johns Church has a significantly better chance of being improved with an interested investor than it is if
S12 any potential investor was to withdraw. Surely if residents want problems relating to the church to be resolved, getting behind investment would be a very sensible route.
Finally regarding the point raised around privacy, I am aware as part of the planning proposal that it is necessary to consider privacy. I believe that it would be extremely simple to resolve any arising issues by simply adding barriers such as large shrubs and/or fencing/walls. The understanding that there would not be any external windows looking onto neighbouring properties is very positive.
I hope that more residents get behind this scheme and I am happy to provide representation in person or via video conferencing if required.
Best Regards,
Allan Thompson
S13 Further Representation Received Out of Time
From Clare Blomeley
Dear Sir,
The proposal to convert St John’s Church , Crawshawbooth to 20 units for ex servicemen has just been brought to my attention. I was baptised at St John’s and live on Forest Bank on the path between the Vicarage and the church but received no notification of the proposed development.
Whilst I think this could be a good use for a decommissioned church in a city, I am very surprised and concerned that the Bishop thinks this is a suitable use for a church in a small village like Crawshawbooth. Whilst a group of 4 to 6 people might integrate into this community any more would be unrealistic.
Many ex servicemen suffer from PTSD. I have a friend who saw active service in the Falklands and he still suffers from severe mental health issues despite a supportive family. It is likely that many these single men will have similar issues without any family support. As an ex social worker I know that quite a few young people went from the institution of the care system to the institution of the army and that they struggle when they no longer have this structure and can turn to substance abuse to help them cope with life. This is not a suitable place to bring people with such problems.
I would ask the Bishop to consider that he has a greater responsibility to the cure of the souls in this parish than to 20 ex serviceman, who he also would not be serving by implementing this plan, or to the finances of the Church of England.
Yours faithfully,
Clare Blomeley,
S14 Go back to top of Annex Appendix II
The Right Reverend the Bishop of Manchester Harvey Howlett Casework Support Manager By e-mail only Pastoral and Closed Churches
Your ref: Our ref: RC24/101X 30 April 2020
Dear Bishop
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 Closed Church Building of Crawshawbooth St John Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme)
I refer to my letter of 7 April and your reply of 14 April.
This correspondence has been 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.. We also received a further representation out of time which I also attach 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 to such a development 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 MOD 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 your letter raises a series of concerns where the
Church House, Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3AZ Direct Line: 020 7898 1782 London Switchboard: 020 7898 1000 Email: [email protected] DX: 148403 Westminster 5 Website: www.ccpastoral.org The Church Commissioners are a registered charity (number 1140097). S15 information she has been given is at a variance with the descriptions you made or where questions remain unanswered. In particular the detail of how residents are to be chosen and whether or not there will be supervision and care provision on site.
She raises a concern about the extent of the public consultation and contends that the low attendance at the public meeting may well be due, not to a consensus of satisfaction amongst residents, but rather a lack of knowledge of the event happening.
Whilst she fully appreciates the Bishop's desire to save this important and historic building, this has to also to be balanced against the feelings of local residents, who have not been given the opportunity to give their thoughts. due to poor communication.
She notes your comments about employment prospects in the area but suggests that much of the new housing being built in the area, 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. The Local Authority does all it can to support new employment opportunities, but 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 our 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 been answered and seek further elaboration of your remarks that’s the accommodation will be fully supported and supervised.
They also seek a response to their questions about the plans for the the boundary and their suggestion that the proposed main entrance be moved to Pinner lane.
Representations in favour
Mr Thompson reiterates his support for the proposals writing that he believes your response was constructive and considered and that he would broadly agree with the response made.
S16 He responds to the comments made in some of the representations and counters the assumptions made about the suggested residents. He notes if there was a problem there would be a landlord to make a plea to 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.
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.
It would be helpful if you were able to comment further on the additional points raised, in particular :
1. are you able to comment on the difference of understanding about the question of the provision of care and support for the proposed residents? 2. would you be able to set out any more information on the way intended residents will be selected? 3. can you respond to the concerns of Mr and Mrs Allison and the possible re-design the development to avoid specific issues affecting their property? 4. could you respond to the question raised that the proposals identified here may not in fact be the intended development by the prospective purchaser? 5. have you considered the possible reputational risks to the Church from this proposal and the likely impact that might have on the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England?
As you will be aware the case is to be considered at a meeting of the Church Building (Uses and Disposals) Committee next Wednesday. If you are able to respond to the additional questions raised in this further correspondence and have any further comments you wish to be considered at that meeting we would need to receive your reply by 4pm on Tuesday 5 May so that they can be circulated to members in advance of the meeting.
Yours sincerely
Harvey Howlett
S17 THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER
The Rt Revd Dr David Walker
1st May 2020
Mr Harvey Howlett Casework Support Manager Pastoral and Closed Churches Church House Great Smith Street London SW1P 3AZ
Your ref. RC24/101X
Dear Harvey,
Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 - Proposed Pastoral (Church Buildings Disposal) Scheme Closed Church Building of Crawshawbooth St John
Thank you very much for your letter of 30 April 2020 regarding the further comments which you have received from the representors following my letter to you of 14 April. Let me address the issues raised by responding to your specific questions.
1. Are you able to comment on the difference of understanding about the question of the provision of care and support for the proposed residents? As far as I am aware it has always been clear that some element of care and supervision would be provided to the residents if that was necessary. Certainly, the document outlining the proposals for the church which was made available at the drop-in on February 24 indicated there would be ‘full disabled access and care facility should they be needed’. I understand that whilst different levels of care might be provided, depending on individual need, there would be a minimum provision of an on-site caretaker/carer. I believe the prospective purchasers can provide more detailed information about the care system which might be used at St John’s should any representors wish to see that.
2. Would you be able to set out any more information on the way intended residents are selected? In responding to a query from one of the representors about who would be accommodated at St John’s, 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’.
3. Can you respond to the concerns of Mr and Mrs Allison and the possible re-design of the development to avoid specific issues affecting their property? The plans which the prospective purchasers have provided so far very obviously constitute a ‘sketch scheme’, to give an initial indication of the possible internal layout of the proposed development. I’m sure that any concerns about potential overlooking or the loss of privacy will be given serious consideration as the proposals are worked up in greater detail, and no doubt this will be a matter
Bishopscourt, Bury New Road, Salford M7 4LE Tel: 0161 792 2096 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @bishmanchester
S18 which the local planning authority will also wish to address should an application for planning permission and listed building consent be submitted.
4. Could you respond to the question raised that the proposals identified here may not in fact be the intended development by the prospective purchaser? My understanding is that residential accommodation for veterans/ex-Armed Forces personnel is very definitely the intended development and thus rightly the focus of the current proposals. However, in the minds of the developers the current ‘lockdown’ situation and the MoD’s attention to other priorities has raised the possibility that it might prove rather more difficult to move this proposal forward with the speed required to prevent further deterioration of this important listed building. They have consequently (and to my mind, openly and honestly) indicated a willingness to contemplate other forms of residential accommodation if that was a quicker way of securing the viable long-term future of St John’s.
5. Have you considered the possible reputational risks to the Church from this proposal and the likely impact that might have on the furtherance of the mission of the Church of England? I am conscious that any proposal for a change in the use of a former Church of England church can generate strong views about the acceptability of that use, with the potential change bringing with it a degree of uncertainty which could well feel uncomfortable and even possibly threatening. However, I believe that the statutory consultation process governing the way in which closed churches are dealt with (and of which this letter is part) provides the opportunity for local people to have an input as we move along a path 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, I think there is even greater reputational risk to the Church if we were to close our minds to using a church to meet a recognised need of a disadvantaged group of people.
In closing, I think it’s worth emphasising that as a Diocese our statutory responsibility under the Mission and Pastoral Measure 2011 is, in the case of a listed building such as St John’s, to make every endeavour to find a suitable new use for a closed church. That endeavour has meant that the property has been marketed over several years and every possible interest has been pursued, with the current proposals offering the prospect of finally securing a long-term future for this particular building. This, of course, is only one half of the process – if the Church Commissioners allow the draft scheme to go forward the prospective purchasers will still need to secure planning permission and listed building consent for their proposals. This provides further opportunity for local residents to express their views before the future of St John’s can be finally settled.
Yours ever,
cc Norman Bilsborough Alan Simpson
S19