| H03083 "PUDDLETOWN CHURCH BUILDING PROPOSAL"10/16/03 HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:06:50 -0400 From: John Gould <jgould@andover.edu> Subject: Fwd: Puddletown Chuch I just received the message below. I hope anyone on the Hardy list who can speak to this group of muddleheaded churchyard levelers will do so. John G. >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:10:53 +0100 >Subject: Puddletown Chuch >From: "jane mcintyre" <jayne.mcintyre@btinternet.com> >To: jgould@andover.edu >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) > >I am sure you are aware of the church's application to build a kitchen and >toilet block in Puddletown churchyard, over the grave of Hardy's aunt and >demolishing some of the ancient yew trees. There was an article in The Times >a few months ago on the subject. The council initially refused planning >permision but despite protests from a large number of the local community >the church is appealing against the decision. It doesn't take much >imagination to realize the impact the building would have on this lovely >church and churchyard. If you have any contacts on your Hardy site who could >protest to the council it would be much appreciated. Those of us who had our >say initially are not allowed to do so again. Many thanks - C.McIntyre From: "john bridell" <harrybatt@mn.rr.com> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:24:07 -0500 Hello from the USA. Does anyone have the address where we can get mildly angry and voice our concern via email? I haven't had any shove or pull over in Dorset since 1850, but I do hav e some luck with unviscious protest. John Bridell, Minneapolis, MN USA From: "john bridell" <harrybatt@mn.rr.com> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:26:43 -0500 Sorry! I meant to add that anyone who would hew an ancient yew ought to be tarred and feathered. England owes its integrity and freedom to the yew tree long bow. John Bridell From: "Roger Willoughby" <rogatess@breathemail.net> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:57:03 +0100 I think to say the Longbow is that important to our freedom is stretching it a bit! The church in question, that you are all familiar with, has a very active congregation and in this day and age maybe we should encourage the continuing development of the Church. Also to give disabled toilet access is now very important in the UK and as such this should also be encouraged. As to whether we should chop down an ancient Yew and "ruin" the aesthetic balance of an ancient church, surely the forum members should familiarise themselves with the plans and layout before passing comment? From: "ann WHITLOCK" <ann@whitlock282.freeserve.co.uk> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:01:22 +0100 Thanks for the information, John. I am appalled at the prospect. I have spoken to the planning office in West Dorset, and have a name and number to contact on Monday for detailed information. I also intend to find out whether or not there are preservation orders on the trees. Any information will be passed on asap, to help to protect the grave and the yew trees from desecration. Ann Whitlock Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:48:33 +0100 From: David Herrick <David.Herrick@bristol.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch I was going to post something along the same lines. Although it is important to preserve our heritage it has to be remembered that churches are functional buildings used by the local community and as such have to be adapted from time to time to keep abreast of needs. It also seems unlikely to me that the local parishoners have decided to try and do this without any thought for the effect on the environment which they live and worship in. But as Roger has said, without viewing the plans it is difficult to know. Dave Dr D.R.M. Herrick ALSPAC 22/24 Tyndall Avenue Bristol. BS8 1TQ Tel: 0117 3311613 Fax: 0117 9285010 E-Mail: David.Herrick@bristol.ac.uk Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:34:05 -0400 From: Keith Wilson <kgwilson@uottawa.ca> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Courtesy of contacts in Puddletown, I know a little of the history of these plans. My understanding is that this has been an immensely divisive local issue, and that the church authorities have been singularly insensitive in their attempts to ride roughshod over very passionate and justified local objections. When planning permission was refused by the council (and denial of planning permission is never made lightly), the many local residents opposed to the plans thought that their battle was substantially over. It is now the church authorities who are appealing to be given the right to do something that they know is not only deeply offensive to many local residents (not to mention a world community of people who have regard for Puddletown Church) but also sufficiently problematic that one level of planning authority has already denied them the right to do it. In short, I'm not sure that "parishioners" as a collectivity "have decided to try and do this." Rather, it is a powerful element within the Puddletown church (but far from a majority within the whole Puddletown community) that refuses to take "no" for an answer from the planning department of the council, concerned residents, conservationists, local historians, and Hardy enthusiasts. I would urge people to protest most vigorously. All best wishes, Keith Wilson David Herrick wrote: It also seems unlikely to me that the local parishoners have decided to try and do this without any thought for the effect on the environment which they live and worship in. But as Roger has said, without viewing the plans it is difficult to know. > Keith Wilson Department of English University of Ottawa 70 Laurier Avenue East (Room 313) Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1N 6N5 Tel: (613) 562-5800, Ext. 1160 Fax: (613) 562-5990 e-mail: kgwilson@uottawa.ca Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:49:55 -0400 From: Keith Wilson <kgwilson@uottawa.ca> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch The brief minutes of the meeting last 13th March at which the West Dorset District Council (Development Control East Committee) turned down the application for permission to build on a part of Puddletown churchyard can be found at <http://www.westdorset-dc.gov.uk/DynamicData/Committee/Dev%20East/Minutes/13th%2 0March%202003.pdf>http://www.westdorset-dc.gov.uk/DynamicData/Committee/Dev%20Ea st/Minutes/13th%20March%202003.pdf. The reasons given were "Impact on the setting of the listed building and loss of trees" (i. e. there was no specific mention in the decision of the Hardy/Sparks familial associations). The month before the planning permission was denied the Times published a long article on the controversy (February 17th 2003, p. 3). Keith Wilson Keith Wilson Department of English University of Ottawa 70 Laurier Avenue East (Room 313) Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1N 6N5 Tel: (613) 562-5800, Ext. 1160 Fax: (613) 562-5990 e-mail: kgwilson@uottawa.ca Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:04:53 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan <rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Thank you Keith-- I endorse your views. "Keeping abreast of the times" or making adaptations to historical sites to "keep abreast of needs" are not necessarily laudable objectives. A progressive society is not one which subordinates the higher value to the lower. It was under such "progressive" auspices that the ancient Saxon church at Studland, Dorset, had its pre-Reformation frescoes whitewashed over to keep abreast of Protestant "needs" at the time of disestablishment of the Catholic Church. Later, it was under such "progressive" auspices that a sizeable brick-block "Toilets" facility was erected on the waterfront at Swanage, Dorset,--right at the most picturesque part of the ancient stone wharf -- to keep abreast of twentieth-century tourist "needs" (what had the year-round fishermen and quarrymen been doing for past centuries one wonders?). And kitchens at Puddletown church? Since when has it been a snack-stop? Cheers, Rosemarie From: "K Eldron" <kaffi@onetel.net.uk> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:58:17 +0100 An appeal from the decision of a District Council is made to the Planning Inspectorate, a national body based in Bristol. The hearing can take various forms - written, oral, formal, fairly informal, a full inquiry. It is likely that in the present instance, the Inspector will wish to visit the site. He or she will make a decision based on planning legislation. This allows 'material considerations' to be taken into account. These include a range of official guidance and strategic plans - in this case, the West Dorset Local Plan, the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and any relevant national and regional PPGs (Policy Guidance Notes). (These plans are quoted in the Council's decision notice - ie, notice of refusal - which can be found on the web.) The Inspector will also take into account the views expressed when the application was first considered. Members of the public who made representations at the application stage will be informed about the appeal. The District Council will send copies of their original representations to the Planning Inspectorate and they can make additional representations. It may also be possible (at the inspector's discretion) for them to give evidence personally at hearings and inquiries. An important factor will be whether the professional advisers (Development Control Officers) of West Dorset DC originally recommended the application be refused or whether they recommended approval and were overruled by the elected representatives; the views expressed by Puddletown Parish Council will also carry some weight (provided, of course, they were based on genuine planning grounds) - I'm not sure whether they are for or against the application? (They are the civil authority for the parish - not to be confused with the Parochial Church Council, who are the joint applicants!) Other material considerations are that the application site is within a Conservation Area and that the church itself is a Grade I Listed Building. Indeed, if the proposed parish room was being provided within or abutting the church, the application could have been 'called in' for decision by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Heritage (or some such title redolent of old-style Soviet bureaucracy). I'm not sure that is an option in this case as the building is away from the church. What all this is leading to is that lobbying one of Her Majesty's Planning Inspectors is no more likely to affect his/her decision than lobbying one of HM's judges to sway the outcome of a trial. I suspect that pressure needs to be directed at getting the PCC to withdraw their appeal and try to find a new way forward that satisfies the conflicting demands of the community. But the parish where I live having gone through a similar experience to this one recently, I fear matters may have gone too far for that. It is a dilemma that is increasingly causing polarisation between those for whom the church is primarily a building important for its aesthetic and historical associations and those for whom it is a living community, essentially consisting of people (a cure of souls in the old tongue, but souls that have bodies, able and disabled, that need to be fed). Life rarely being fair, it is the latter who are saddled with the crippling costs of maintaining the church's physical fabric.. Incidentally, West Dorset District Council posts details of all planning applications on its website. You will find there a copy of the formal application document, but unfortunately only one of the accompanying drawings (my own local Council posts all drawings, site plans etc). The drawing shows the proposed new parish room in elevation, but to anyone unfamiliar with the churchyard it is hard to work out where it is in relation to, or how it will affect views of, the church itself. However, there is a planning statement attached to the application which helps put it in context. The room will be constructed in natural stone, with oak joinery and cladding, and roofed with clay tiles. This is the architectural style of the traditional English lychgate, which is commendable - but, of course, the issue here is more one of site than style. Regards K Eldron kaffi@onetel.net.uk From: "Roger Willoughby" <rogatess@breathemail.net> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:27:24 +0100 I totally agree with Rosemary that" Keeping abreast of the times" is not always the best option. However, some communities develop and broaden over the ages and those that donât either stagnate or die. My point was, and I think David agreed, that it is better to offer views on subjects such as the Puddletown Church fore armed with all the facts, plans, church and community opinions. It is similar to me offering an opinion on the replacements buildings for the twin towers, at best my views are irrelevant at worst patronising. (I do of course think it is healthy for the forum to discuss these things ö it is after all a private discussion and should offend no one. Also K Eldron has come forward with further helpful facts with which to broaden our minds.) I can understand Rosemary having difficulty in seeing the benefit of a "snack stop" at the church, but surely she would not deny the community benefit of having disabled access toilets at a place of worship/community gathering. There was me thinking that the Longbow Vs. Crossbow would cause more provocative discussion. And contentious argument. (Oh and Rosemary, have you noticed how all fishermen have very red faces, well that's because they are always holding it in!) Roger Willoughby Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:00:12 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan <rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Keith-- is it possible for your "contacts'" to find out how many souls constitute the "living community" of the Puddletown church? The "living community" has now been mentioned twice and should clearly carry weight in this issue. When I was living in Swanage in the 70s-80s the "living community" of the convent and its beautiful chapel remained insufficient in numbers to support it: it is now a hotel, and a church at nearby Worth Matravers was sold off at around the same time for development as "living community" (housing) units. In 2002 I visited a rustic church in Cerne Abbas which hadn't seen a "living community" in many generations. But it was beautifully preserved and utterly unspoiled - a serene and sacred spot -- quite magical to those of us who spent a summer's afternoon there. I'd be interested to know what the "living community" at Puddletown Church comprises. Thanks, Rosemarie At 10:34 AM 10/17/03 -0400, you wrote: > Courtesy of contacts in Puddletown, I know a little of the history of these plans. My understanding is that this has been an immensely divisive local issue, and that the church authorities have been singularly insensitive in their Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:12:34 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan <rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process Thanks for the response, Roger. I didn't feel it to be a "difficulty" of perception --rather of culture and heritage. At which point I have to say that since the Twin Towers represented the word's largest "living community" ( I can't recall the actual head count but it belonged to and was inhabited by more ordinary working people from more nations across the planet than any other public dwelling on earth), I'm sure ideas as to its future would be welcomed from all and everyone. This monument to world trade belonged as much to the *people* as does any other public building in any other democratic nation. "Communities" broaden and develop, "otherwise they stagnate." Ancient public buildings, on the other hand, and as Hardy would also have claimed, are preserved and nurtured, otherwise they disintegrate. Preservation isn't modernisation and "disintegration" is used literally --as in deterioration into parts, losing the character of the whole. I hope that we are, indeed, "arming" ourselves with information as we continue to pursue this question. Ian Miller, of the Puddletown Society, wrote me yesterday that the Society has "decided to abstain from taking an "official" stance over the matter" in order to avoid "schism" in the community. This would suggest to me that the more interested parties engaged themselves in this issue the better-- given that the local community is thus strapped. Cheers, Rosemarie PS- Could the incumbent share the vestry which surely has washing facilities and may /could include a WC? From: "Gary Alderson" <Gary.Alderson@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:58:29 +0100 Not sure how many there are attending Puddletown church, but last time I was at Puddletown was about 2 years ago, on a weekday evening. A reasonably-sized quire - sorry - choir was practicing Faure's requiem, accompanied with a posh-looking electronic keyboard - clavinova, I think. Sadly no-one was sawing a cello in half or playing the clarinet. But they certainly have a "living community". The cross-legged knight is looking the worse for wear, but then I believe that's not new...
The benefice website is well out of date now, but you can find it on: http://www.life.clara.net/. Its financial details show a reasonably-sized church community. I'd advise you don't read the Hardy biography on the site if you want to preserve your sanity. TH's father's ability to build a cottage at age of -11 is quite something, even for a master mason. My own church is blessed in meeting in a school, so instantly gains the benefits of heating, WCs, level floors etc. To become part of a "living community" in an ancient church buildings these days, people do access to toilets and other modern conveniences. And moving people's remains is something that happened a lot in days gone by. The Bone Crypt at Rothwell, in Northants, for example, contains the bony remains of hundreds of parishioners; all moved once they'd decomposed and their spaces in the yard were needed, I expect. Strange how our sensitivity to what happens to dead people has increased while belief in a resurrection has declined. Having said which, if the extension is a typical modern abomination, I'm with the "leave it alone" campaign. regards Gary Alderson From: "Roger Willoughby" <rogatess@breathemail.net> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:02:29 +0100 Just had a thought, if it would help the forum I could pop over to Puddletown sometime next week and take some pictures of the doomed Yew Tree to further enhance our awareness. (Betty and/or John Cortus does this forum accept photo attachments or as I suspect are they stripped out to prevent viruses?) Would anyone find the photos useful? Roger Willoughby Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:36:22 -0400 From: Rosemarie Morgan <rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process Roger *do* email the pics to me and I'll pop them on TTHA's NEWS UPDATES where all can view them (Right, Roger----the Forum takes no attachments of any kind). Also the proposed site of the Toilet Block maybe? Does the church have its own choir or was Gary's close encounter one of a rare kind? This is bordering on sentimentality but an English churchyard without its proverbial ancient yew would be a sad thing indeed. Even London's old churchyards have struggled to preserve these (for those who don't know the history: the upkeep of the yew in ancient churchyards was for the purposes of providing the community with sapling strips for defence purposes: to arm the Longbow and John Bridell is correct: The British finally defeated the French thanks to this new technology! ) Many thanks, RM PPS-- Does Puddletown have a Village Hall for its teas and fetes? From: "Helen Gibson" <helen.gibson@ukgateway.net> Subject: re Puddletown Church and the Planning Appeal Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:07:49 +0100 I have been away from my desk for several days and am sorry not to have given any information before, and forgive me if I am repeating something already posted, but the date by which letters about the Appeal must be received is 24 OCTOBER, so there is real urgency if people wish to write. The address is: The Planning Inspectorate Room 3/02 Kite Wing Temple Key House 2 The Square Temple Key Bristol BS1 6PN 3 copies of each letter should be sent, and the reference numbers to be quoted are: Ref: APP/F1230/A/03/1126743 West Dorset District Council Ref: 1/E/2003/0067 This information comes from Claire Hewitt, a resident of Puddletown who has contacted the Hardy Society about this. I have her address and phone number if anyone wants to speak to her. Thank you to all who have posted details about this Appeal. When the Planning Application was refused earlier in the year we had thought that was the end of the matter, and were surprised when it went to Appeal. Let us hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. Best wishes, Helen Gibson Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:55:58 +0100 (BST) From: Michael Day <M.Day@bath.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Puddletown Chuch and the planning process On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Rosemarie Morgan wrote: > Roger *do* email the pics to me and I'll pop them on TTHA's NEWS UPDATES > where all can view them (Right, Roger----the Forum takes no attachments > of any kind). Also the proposed site of the Toilet Block maybe? In the meantime, I've been looking for existing Web images of St. Mary's Church, Puddletown in case they may be useful (listed below). I have one (not my best) on my Dorset Churches pages which shows part of the churchyard from the north-west, but (from the elevations provided with the planning application) I have a feeling that the proposed site of the parish rooms would be further up the path visible in the foreground. Perhaps the most interesting image of the church that I found was a calotype by James Francis Montgomery (1818-1897) from one of the albums of the Edinburgh Calotype Club - the Web site notes that Montgomery was Curate at Puddletown from 1856 to 1858, so it dates from the time when Hardy would have articled to John Hicks. Finding something unexpected like this is (for me) one of the glories of the Internet. Dorset Churches, page on St. Mary's Church, Puddletown: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~lismd/dorset/churches/puddletown.html Thomas Hardy Miscellany, page on FFMC: http://www.andover.edu/english/hardymisc/photos_ffmcb.html Thomas Hardy Country, page on Puddletown: http://members.aol.com/thardy1001/index7.html National Library of Scotland, Pencils of light: the albums of the Edinburgh Calotype Club, Vol. 2: http://www.nls.uk/pencilsoflight/index_two.htm Image #73 is the one of Puddletown Church, while #74 and #76 have Puddletown associations. Michael Day * Research Officer, UKOLN The UK Office for Library and Information * * Networking, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY. * * Tel. +44 (0)1225 323923 Fax +44 (0)1225 826838 * |