H04041 PUDDLETOWN CHURCH CONTINUED 6/23/04 HARDY FORUM ARCHIVE
From: ? kgwilson@uottawa.ca
Subject: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 23, 2004 9:12:35 AM PDT
I have just heard that the Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury has decided in
favour of the application to build a kitchen/lavatory block in Puddletown
Churchyard, and granted a faculty to allow its construction. This is obviously
extremely disappointing news for the overwhelming majority of local residents who
were opposed to this desecration, and for the even larger number of world-wide
Hardy enthusiasts who were equally concerned. There is, I gather, one more
possible course for appeal (I'm not clear on the process, but it would seemingly
involve the Court of Arches), but whether the local objectors plan to try this
route remains to be seen. If any other list-members living locally have more
substantial information than this, I am sure that many of us would appreciate
hearing from them.
Those planning to attend this summer's Hardy conference in Dorchester might be
well advised to take a side trip to Puddletown to see the churchyard, for one
last time, in the unspoiled form that, seemingly, it won't be retaining for much
longer.
Keith Wilson
Professor 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
-----
From: peter.brown46@btopenworld.com
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 23, 2004 10:33:08 AM PDT
Keith,
I presume then that Churchyards do not come within the
remit of English Heritage, and further that the
Diocese is not subject to the local Council's or
County authority's planning laws thereby obviating the
usual process of pressure on local Councillors etc.?
Peter [Brown]
82 Connaught Gardens
Palmers Green
London N13 5BT
UK
-----
From: kgwilson@uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 23, 2004 11:58:24 AM PDT
Reply-To: HARDY-L@csusm.edu
For those who may have missed the earlier postings on this topic,
the parish council (who turned the proposal down), and the West Dorset
District Council (who turned it down) were overruled by the regional
planning inspector. Objectors then made further appeal to a consistory
court, presided over by the Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury.
This is the court that has just granted a faculty allowing the block to
be constructed.
My assumption is (I'm sure others on this list have more knowledge
of the specifics of its mandate than I do) that English Heritage, if it
had any role at all in such matters as this (and I suspect it wouldn't),
would be a purely advisory body. Decisions are made by the relevant
planning authorities. Certainly the local opposition (which was loud,
informed and numerous) knew precisely the route to follow in the various
levels of appeal. What makes this case additionally disappointing
(beyond the damage that is being done to a historic site with very
important Hardy associations) is that the parochial church council --
representing a small minority of local opinion -- pursued this in the
face not only of major local opposition but after two lower-level
authorities had agreed with the objectors and turned the proposal down.
My understanding is that there are still viable alternatives to the
proposed plan -- facilities that would be only a short distance away
from the churchyard -- but that these are being ignored in favour of the
churchyard construction.
Keith Wilson
Professor of English
University of Ottawa
kgwilson@uottawa.ca
-----
From: kaffi@onetel.net.uk
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 23, 2004 12:57:08 PM PDT
"I presume then that Churchyards do not come within the remit of English
Heritage, and further that the Diocese is not subject to the local Council's
or County authority's planning laws..."
Not so. Indeed, building and other activities in churches and churchyards
are governed by two sets of legislation: planning law and church law. The
Parochial Church Council therefore had to get planning permission for their
proposed building from the local planning authority (West Dorset District
Council) and a faculty (permission to undertake work in a churchyard) from
their own bishop. As St Mary's is a Listed Building the District Council
has to consult English Heritage and other statutory conservation bodies
about anything affecting the church and its setting. In fact, after
consultation, the District Council actually refused the application. The
applicants then exercised their right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate
(a national body). The Inspector allowed their appeal, concluding among
other things that, on balance, the new building would not have a significant
adverse effect on the character and setting of the church, and that it was
entirely appropriate to the location. He acknowledged "the numerous
objections from Thomas Hardy enthusiasts", but did not consider that the
churchyard's literary associations were sufficient to override the needs of
the church community. He also pointed out that the question of building
over buried remains and relocating gravestones was not a planning matter; it
was for the diocese to decide on. Thus having got their planning approval
the Parochial Church Council had to petition the diocese's Consistory Court
for the necessary faculty, which they have now got. As Professor Wilson
points out, the objectors were also allowed their say at that Court.
At http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/45/mlearned_dir/mlearned_s.htm
there is a very good exposition of the faculty system and the guidance that
has developed on balancing the needs of a church community with those of a
church's lay or literary associations.
K Eldron
kaffi@onetel.net.uk
-----
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 26, 2004 8:31:43 AM PDT
This is truly the saddest news about Puddletown Church.
And thank you K. Eldron for the added information (truncated below).
I had a very nice note from Patrick Roper and suggested he post it on the Forum -- perhaps it slipped his mind so here is part of it. His note included the following url for a most useful UK government archive. This may be of interest to some of you.
With every good wish,
Rosemarie
-----
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 26, 2004 8:44:13 AM PDT
I should add that Bob Seitz has a beautiful section on Puddletown with superb pictures of the church-- exterior and interior..
See
http://members.aol.com/thardy1001/index7.html
Cheers,
Rosemarie
-----
From: Rosemarie.morgan@yale.edu
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 28, 2004 10:34:37 AM PDT
I am a member of the group of objectors to the toilet block plans at Puddletown Church and today I received the official letter giving full details of the outcome of the Consistory Court hearing (although Keith has kindly supplied most of them already).
I just wanted to say how shocked I am to read that 79% of Puddletown villagers opposed the plans. What an extraordinary state of affairs that a majority vote of this size can be overruled by the Chancellor of the Diocese of Salisbury. The implications of this are too numerous and too far-reaching to go into here but readers will draw their own conclusions.
And Britain once thought of itself as the mother of democracies!
In sorrow,
Rosemarie
-----
From: kgwilson@uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 28, 2004 1:03:43 PM PDT
I too was astonished at this outcome, given that local 79%-against figure. The
church authorities' presupposition seems to be that the will of the relatively
small minority who regularly use the church for its intended purpose should prevail
over the community's wishes. While one can understand this logic within limits, it
has recently given rise on many occasions in England to significant
architectural/aesthetic/historical/environmental misfortunes. In the present
instance, the existence of alternative possibilities within the next four years at
a school site only ten yards further away (beyond the boundary of the churchyard)
makes this a particularly unfathomable, not to say obstinately and wilfully
destructive, decision. Since further appeal would cost thousands of pounds that
the local objectors don't have, their only further hope seems to lie with the
parochial church council's deciding not to proceed, because of the opposition, with
what they have now been given the legal right to do. Given the PCC's intransigence
in pushing their agenda thus far against such widespread and heartfelt opposition,
this must surely be a very slight likelihood.
All best wishes,
Keith
Keith Wilson
Professor 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
------
From: helengibson@clara.co.uk
Subject: RE: Sad news about Puddletown Churchyard plans
Date: June 28, 2004 2:51:37 PM PDT
Just a message to add that there is considerable disappointment to this
decision in the Hardy Society too. David Selwyn attended the hearing
as our representative and spoke strongly against the proposal to cover
the Hardy relatives' graves. In the words of Claire Hewitt, the formal
objector, he was 'a wonderful witness'.
There was a good write-up in The Telegraph (June 18)headed: 'Hardy's
family gravestone lost under public loo', subtitled: 'if this can happen
here then nowhere is sacrosanct'.
As Keith says, the final decision lies with the PCC, and we are invited
to write again to either Mrs Ursula Pomeroy, Secretary of the PCC,
Duddle Farm Bockhampton, Dorset, or to The Bishop of Salisbury, South
Canonry, The Close, Salisbury, Wilts SP1 2ER.
Donations to help pay for the legal costs are also welcome, and these
should be payable to Mrs Diana Bugler, c/o Mrs Hewitt, 5 The Green,
Puddletown DT2 8SN.
Finally, may I add that I was shocked to read that evidence disallowed
by the Chancellor was:
1) an ancient law that prevents building on disused graveyards
2) the possibility of installing a tap in the vestry, a dishwasher to
improve coffee making facilities, and the possibility of installing a
disabled toilet in the disused South Porch after consulting an
architect.
It seems that all alternatives were ruled out.
A mistaken judgement indeed.
Helen Gibson
-----
From: tomlessup@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Puddletown
Date: June 29, 2004 4:07:56 PM PDT
As a one-time Dorset resident, I have been following the List's Puddletown saga on a friend's computer with interest - and a certain wry amusement at the insults hurled at the English planning system by the opponents of the new building at St Mary's. Contrary to the views expressed, we are not witnessing the death of democracy in the "mother of democracies" - unless of course you regard, as some correspondents appear to, democracy as a system under which a country's laws - passed by a sovereign parliament and administered by an independent judiciary - must always yield to the will of the majority. A mature democracy is one that acknowledges the rights of its minorities. Britain is such a democracy, and the Church of England one of its minorities. Objectors to the proposal have not been ignored; they have been able to register their views at every stage of the civil planning process and at the Consistory Court hearing. The Inspector who heard the planning appeal and the Chancellor at Salisbury are professionals of the highest integrity, who considered the arguments of both sides in the light of law and precedent. Both came to the conclusion that the parochial church council had demonstrated a need for the facilities sought and that the proposed building was an acceptable means of providing them with minimum detriment to the church itself or to its literary associations. They would not have so concluded had the new building been a bog-standard brick kazi plonked down any old where in the churchyard; and indeed the application drawings and the description in the Inspector's report show it is very far from being anything of the kind.
I am not a Christian, but a fairly long lifetime of visiting old churches has taught me that those that are most alive and convey the strongest sense of continuity with the past are those that still play a meaningful spiritual part in their local communities. No doubt if worship ceased in St Mary's Puddletown (not a hypothetical risk: it's happening to churches all over the country) some organisation might buy the church and turn it into a Thomas Hardy centre. But if that happens, it will be a dead place: a facsimile of the past, not a link with it. If a small new building helps ensure that the church will still echo to hymns at evensong; that its porch will still have notices about fundraising events; that future generations will still be baptised in its font - won't it be worth it?
I guess these will not be popular views, but let me end with a simple question: the List has made much play with the fact that Puddletown's parish council and 80 percent of its inhabitants oppose the proposal but have been undemocratically overruled; but what if they had supported it with equal enthusiasm? Would List members have accepted this as a fine expression of British democracy - or dismissed it as misguided and ill-informed?
Tom Lessup
tomlessup@hotmail.com
-----
From: dcorney@midcoast.com.au
Subject: Puddletown
Date: June 29, 2004 5:17:38 PM PDT
Tom Lessup has put some sensible perspective upon the debate. Hardy, himself, was involved in remodelling churches and their churchyards. While he may have decried the practice, he was prepared to accept that change is necessary everywhere. In 100 years time the new toot will probably have also acquired some historical significance. In the passage of time the controversy too will be "only thin smoke without flame".
Regards,
David Cornelius
-----
From: kgwilson@uottawa.ca
Subject: Re: Puddletown (long)
Date: June 29, 2004 6:53:50 PM PDT
A propos of Tom Lessup's posting:
I heard no insults hurled at "the English planning system," other than the obvious implication that, like any other human institution, it is fallible, and therefore not unerringly and comfortingly governed, in the way that you suggest, by the exercise of right reason. Of course those opposed were "able to register their views at every stage' (whoever said they weren't?), views which at two of the four stages were agreed with by the official organizations before which they were registering them. But self-evidently, most acts of environmental vandalism in relation to listed buildings are finally officially sanctioned ones (if they weren't, those who perpetrated them would be subject to the force of law). If those responsible for seeing due process observed and for making final judgement on environmental matters always act in the enlightened manner that you imply, it is puzzling that for the last half century Britain has seen so much architectural and environmental devastation sanctioned by those who possess the legal power to authorize it: the centre of so many of its towns gutted into pedestrian- (i. e. shoppers'-) precinct standardization, so that Hereford can look like Worcester, and Worcester can look like Gloucester, and Gloucester can look like Bristol, and everywhere can look like Birmingham (if it's not even more unlucky, and ends up looking like the Elephant and Castle), with the same chain stores selling the same goods. Similarly benign and omniscient organizations have been responsible for the loss of marvellous buildings: the Euston Arch, the City of London Coal Exchange (pulled down so that passers-by could enjoy an empty site for 10 years while developers squabbled about what to do with it), the Mappin and Webb building -- all of this perfectly legal and in strict accordance with the laws passed by "a sovereign parliament and administered by an independent judiciary." Despite your touching faith in the infallibility of due process, appalling decisions get made, sometimes even by well-meaning people.
As for your emotive comments about the church still echoing to hymn at evensong etc., I fail to see what the provision of a lavatory and kitchen have to do with whether this church continues to play "a meaningful spiritual part" in its local community (indeed, I'd have to say that alienating most of the residents of that community seems a somewhat eccentric way to further this laudable spiritual end). If worship ceases at Puddletown Church because of the absence of these facilities -- or, rather the unwillingness of present parishioners to do without them for a little while longer (they've done without them for some centuries already) until facilities are made available just ten yards further away than the present churchyard site -- the Anglican Church is in a parlous state indeed. And since when has the Church of England in any but the most reductively literal of senses been one of England's "minorities?" It's true that only a small minority of the population attends its services, but if the Church of England itself is such a vulnerable and marginalised organisation (the customary resonance of the term "minority"), how on earth did Bishops manage for so many years to occupy seats in the House of Lords, why are the Church Commissioners one of the country's richest organisations, and why do the Church Commissioners -- this marginal minority group -- include among their members two archbishops, the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Must be tough being a member of a minority in contemporary Britain.
As well as overriding the wishes of the 79% of the local population opposed to this plan, the Chancellor disallowed evidence relating to an ancient law that prevents building on disused graveyards; disallowed evidence relating to the possible installation of a tap in the vestry, and a dishwasher to improve coffee-making facilities; and disallowed evidence relating to the possibility of installing a disabled toilet in the disused South Porch after architectural consultation -- all provisions that would have gone some way towards meeting the perceived refreshment and lavatorial needs of the parishioners, but without the churchyard desecration.
Since this is, after all, a Hardy list, perhaps I should leave the last word with TH, in the form of his poem "The Levelled Churchyard" (the unbowdlerized 4th-stanza variant -- see Hynes, Complete Poetical Works 1: 197 note -- would seem the most appropriate version under present circumstances). Unlike Mr. Lessup, Hardy had scant confidence in the wisdom of duly constituted church authority, and on this -- as on so many other things -- the evidence would seem to be on his side:
"O passenger, pray list and catch
Our sighs and piteous groans,
Half stifled in this jumbled patch
Of wrenched memorial stones!
"We late-lamented, resting here,
Are mixed to human jam,
And each to each exclaims in fear,
'I know not which I am!'
"The wicked people have annexed
The verses on the good;
A roaring drunkard sports the text
Teetotal Tommy should!
"Where we are huddled none can trace,
And if our names remain,
They pave some path or p--ing place
Where we have never lain!
"There's not a modest maiden elf
But dreads the final Trumpet,
Lest half of her should rise herself,
And half some local strumpet!
"From restorations of Thy fane,
From smoothings of Thy sward,
From zealous Churchmen's pick and plane
Deliver us O Lord! Amen!"
All best wishes,
Keith
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
-----
From: hardycor@owl.csusm.edu
Subject: Puddletown
Date: June 30, 2004 9:15:33 AM PDT
I'm posting the letter below for Rosemarie, who sent it to the list
yesterday, but for some reason it failed to appear.
Betty
As a longtime Dorset resident with children still living in the area
I'm delighted to hear that
The Inspector who heard the planning appeal and the Chancellor at
Salisbury are professionals of the highest integrity, who considered the
arguments of both sides in the light of law and precedent.
Like Tom Lessup I love visiting churches and was enchanted to discover the
rustic Cerne Abbas church a few summers back -- sheep grazing at the door
-- the interior beautifully maintained --what a treasure! Certainly not a
"dead place" -- far from it; rather, a place of deep tranquillity, a
spiritual haven at peace within and without -- although I don't think
evensong has been sung in its precincts in decades.
Had Puddletown's residents supported the toilet block I doubt members of
the Hardy List would have expressed concern this past week.
When local residents successfully protested the proposed erection of a
small commercial building in my street in Swanage back in 1970s (which
would have considerably altered the character of the locality) -- I think
they would have been devastated to have been overruled by a remote body of
officials from elsewhere. I *feel* for the people for whom Puddletown is a
place called home -- it's really as simple as that.
Cheers,
Rosemarie
-----