Tuesday, 1 April 2014
The Wells Palace saga continues
Continued from here…
The Archbishops’ Council has issued this press release:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 11:44pm BST
Archbishops’ Council hearing on home for Bishop of Bath and Wells
31 March 2014
The Archbishops’ Council has appointed a committee to hear an objection raised by the Bishop’s Council of the Diocese of Bath and Wells to a Church Commissioners’ decision to move the residence of the diocesan bishop.
The committee will meet at the Palace in Wells from 28-29 April. It will consider the grounds of objection, and all relevant circumstances, to the Church Commissioners’ decision to move the bishop’s residence from the Palace in Wells to The Old Rectory in Croscombe. It is for the Commissioners to satisfy the committee that the objection should not be upheld. If it fails to do so then the move will not go ahead.
The committee members are all members of the Archbishops’ Council; Mrs Mary Chapman (Chair), Mr Philip Fletcher and the Venerable Cherry Vann.
The committee will visit both the Palace and the proposed new house in Croscombe and hear evidence from the Bishop’s Council and the Church Commissioners. Both parties may call witnesses. It has also invited the new Bishop of Bath and Wells, Rt Revd Peter Hancock, the Chapter of Wells Cathedral and the Palace Trust to make representations. The meeting will not be open to the public.
The Archbishops’ Council is required under the regulations relating to section 7 of the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure 2009 to hear the objection. It is the first time that an objection has been raised under Section 7.
The decision of the committee is final and the decision and full reasons will be announced at an agreed date, to be confirmed, after the meeting.
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
After the Archbishops' Council's Committee has concluded its work at Wells will the committee members be moving on to the North of England hopefully seeking to restore Dunelm to Auckland and Carliol to Rose?
How refreshing to have an item on this blog not connected with Gay marriage! In this respect T A is becoming a bit like FiF with its one issue infatuation.
Father David, Such a shame then that you felt unable to resist the temptation to raise the marriage issue in this completely unrelated thread!
TA is only reflecting what other people are talking about!
What is so refreshing about this welcome news, is that the Church Commissioners are being persuaded that they need to work with the people for whom their decisions are most relevant.
"God from on High hath heard".
Tess, currently there are 15 items on the T A blog site. One concerns the Bishop's Palace at Wells, one about Bishop Peter Ball, another one labelled Opinion. Three are about Women's Ministry and no less that nine concern same sex marriage.
I note that even on one of the few threads that are not about marriage equality you make sure it becomes about that again. Pot? Kettle?
Following Pilling, the "pastoral" statement and the first gay weddings on Saturday, how surprised should you be that this is a much discussed topic in the Anglican world?
What major news would you have preferred here? Can you link to some of them?
Father Ron —
I am not sure that the Church Commissioners "are being persuaded that they need to work with the people for whom their decisions are most relevant." They have not shown any such inclination to date. The new factor is that the Bishop's Council of the Diocese of Bath & Wells have exercised their right to appeal against the Commissioners' decision to move the bishop's place of residence out of the palace (where he also has his office and chapel) to a house three miles down the road at Croscombe. And that house, which is being bought by the Commissioners, is intended by them to be only a temporary residence! To date, the commissioners have stuck stubbornly to their decision in the face of near-unanimous objections. Perhaps, now that they are to be forced to justify their decision before an independent appeal panel, they may have the grace to accept that they may be wrong and back down.
People here are forever saying due to sexuality the church is out of date and out of touch, yet whether someone lives in a castle or a massive detached house is meant to resonate with the ordinary people of the diocese?!
If the local goodies in the diocese 'win' and the baddies at central office 'lose', is it true that the Bishop will end up living in a (wonderful) flat from which he and his family can only access their garden by going out through public 'theme park' space to get there? No letting grandchildren or other visitors run wild outside while you watch them through the kitchen window as you prepare their tea? No stepping out in shirt sleeves on a summer 'day off' with lunch and drinks on a tray?