BELCHAMP
OTTEN RECTORY: the case that began Save Our Parsonages
MAY 1997
Noël
Riley
25 October 1990
Met Enid (our Rector's wife) in Somerfield, shopping
for Sunday's coffee morning at the Rectory. She was
disgruntled after being asked, by the second person
within a week, when Trevor (the Rector) is retiring,
so the Rectory will go on the market. Lots of people,
it seems, are dying to buy it.
It is particularly tactless of these otherwise
friendly neighbours to ask such a direct question.
Enid feels she is being squeezed out of her home long
before she's ready.
We all know that Chelmsford Diocese wants to sell the
Rectory as soon as the Rector retires: it's been on
the 'unsuitable' list for years: how can a building
that has been happily inhabited and valued by its
community for generations be unsuitable?
1 January 1991
Went to a New Year's Day lunch party with
friends in a nearby village. Our Rural Dean was there.
We got into conversation about the likely changes to
our parish life when Trevor does retire. An
amalgamation of more parishes (we are already three)
is inevitable; the Vicar of Belchamp St Paul will
probably be appointed as our priest, and will have to
run five parishes instead of two as he does at
present. Here followed a little homily on the lay
ministry: we can't expect a priest in every parish any
more; it's up to parishioners to take a more active
part in running things. I feel as though I have heard
this before.
And what of the Rectory? It will certainly be sold:
quite impractical and far too costly to maintain. 'Try
running a house like that on £13,000 a year; it's not
fair on parsons.' I counter that we live in a similar
sized house on rather less than £13,000 a year, and
we are responsible for all the repairs. Anyway, most
clergy, like the rest of the population, have working
spouses, so they are not as badly off as they used to
be. But he doesn't hear. He's following the party line
and doesn't want the alternative view.
12 March 1992
Telephone call from Michael, who lives in the
next village and whose family have been patrons of our
benefice for centuries. The Bishop of Colchester is
coming to lunch and wants to visit another parishioner
for tea. Could he come to us? I am delighted, of
course, at this chance to air grass-roots opinion.
Tea in the drawing room, with the best china (do
Bishops ever drink tea from mugs?). In among the
pleasantries I introduce the Rectory question, saying
I hoped we'd be allowed to keep it as our parsonage
after our priest retires. A bigger benefice would be
less unacceptable than the loss of 'our' house. No
chance, he affirmed. (Michael had had the same
response, I afterwards heard). We felt flattened and
frustrated.
30 January 1993
Call from Enid: 'You'd better come to church
tomorrow - I think you'll be sorry if you don't.' I
can guess why.
31 January 1993
I guessed right: Trevor announced his
retirement. Tears broke out in many a pew. He's been
here for 34 years but he is over seventy and
bronchitic: we must wish him a long and happy
retirement. He has, after all, done his best to steer
our parishes towards a future that satisfies everyone,
but the Diocese has played for time and won.
23 March 1993
Meeting of the combined PCCs with the Rural
Dean, to 'discuss' the future of our benefice. The
Rectory brought forth a good deal of feeling. It is
clear that the Rural Dean is not in favour of keeping
it.
28 March 1993
Trevor's last service as Rector, followed by
a parish lunch party in Bulmer village hall, with
speeches and presents. Colette has organised a
petition against selling the Rectory. She knows it may
be the last chance for some time to get everyone
together. Now that Trevor is leaving we're really on
our own, and we must do what we can. Several pages are
soon filled with signatures; perhaps signing the
petition provides some solace in the prevailing sense
of rudderlessness.
29 March 1993
PCC Meeting: Trevor told us that there will
be at least six months' interregnum. We already knew
this to be Chelmsford's policy - as a means of saving
stipends. In any case the rearrangement of the
benefice will mean considerable delay in settling our
future. During the interregnum the church wardens will
be responsible for running things and for finding
parsons to take services.
6 April 1993
A group from our three parishes met
informally to talk about the future of the Rectory and
to discuss our course of action. We need to be
prepared if we are not to be caught off guard in the
inevitable struggle ahead. Discussion helps us to
marshal our arguments and we decide to write a letter
to the Bishop of Colchester, with copies to the Bishop
of Chelmsford, the Archdeacon and the Rural Dean. We
are asking for 'reliable assurances' that the Rectory
will not be put up for sale during the interregnum.
Such a step would be 'a serious and irreversible error
in stewardship' and we affirm the importance of the
Rectory in generating a sense of community in a future
enlarged benefice. We suggest that the sale of the
'new' Vicarage at Belchamp St Paul would provide funds
for the improvements needed at Belchamp Otten Rectory.
Our letter ends: 'As matters stand the PCCs and
churchwardens of our three existing parishes are not
prepared to consent to the sale of Belchamp Otten
Rectory as required by the Parsonages Measure 1938.'
Sock it to them.
16 April 1993
Trevor and Enid moved out of the Rectory two
weeks ago, but the key of the house is still with a
neighbour, who has suggested a group visit to look
round it. Several of us wanted to see for ourselves
what condition it is in. Can it really be as run down
as the Diocese and those favouring sale suggest? And
is it so huge?
It has two good-sized rooms downstairs, plus a study
and a kitchen big enough to eat in, but the ceilings
are not high and the house is square and compact, with
a central hall area. It would not be difficult or
expensive to heat with a modern central heating
system. Upstairs there are five bedrooms, plus a box
room that could be a small child's bedroom or a second
bathroom. The attic is floored in and would provide
useful storage space.
The walls, ceilings and woodwork seemed sound. I found
one rotten window sill and two windows with glazing
bars needing replacement - not bad for a house at
least 250 years old. Some might want to redecorate
here and there, but that would be a matter of taste
rather than necessity. We know that the house has been
reroofed and rewired during the past 20 years and the
fabric itself has been well maintained. There is an
Aga in the kitchen (which heats the water), and
homespun pine kitchen units, comfortably in keeping
with the quarry tiled floor. It is, without question,
a lovely house, and it is easy to see why the Rector
and his family enjoyed living in it. There is already
a queue of people hoping to buy it.
We decided to have an independent survey of the house.
The treasurer of Belchamp Otten PCC said he would
arrange it.
21 April 1993
PCC meeting. We talked about the planned new
pastoral scheme for our benefice. We all see the
necessity for a larger grouping, and after all we're
used to being three, so two small additional parishes
won't be too difficult. Some voiced reservations about
the incumbent we are expecting to have thrust upon us.
Will he preserve the numbers and nature of our
services? Will he visit the sick in hospital and at
home? Is he prepared to spend time in the two (church)
primary schools in the benefice?
The main objection is one of principle: we are not
being given any choice, and this is a fundamental bone
of contention with the Diocese. We have heard that the
Vicar of Belchamp St Paul was told when he arrived
there that he would have charge of our parishes later.
This was clearly out of order, both as a matter of
courtesy towards our Rector (who had shown no sign of
retiring) and of diplomacy towards us. No parish
should have an incumbent imposed upon it without any
say in the matter.
At our meeting we suggest that the quid pro quo of
accepting the neighbouring vicar should be retention
of our Rectory as the parsonage for the enlarged
benefice. Not everyone agrees. Most feel that we have
no bargaining chips at all: the Diocese will do what
it likes regardless of grassroots opinion. We feel we
don't count. In the end we draft a note to be sent to
the Diocese requesting that the Rectory should be
kept, and let for the next few years until we have a
permanent incumbent of our choice.
I feel frustrated by the passive accepting mood of the
meeting: why should the Diocese dictate to us? We
should count, and our opinions about our future parish
life should be heeded. There must be others, perhaps
in other dioceses, who have similar experiences to
ours.
12 May 1993
Colette rang: had I heard that the house has
been let to a local doctor and his family, on a six
months lease? This seems a bit swift, particularly as
we know they are among those hoping to buy the house,
but as he and his wife are both popular members of the
local community there is no reason to object. After
all, it is good to have the house lived in and cared
for while we have no rector, and the rent will help to
pay for repairs. We've heard that the surveyor
suggests £80,000 is needed (over a period of 5 - 10
years) to put the house into good condition.
12 June 1993
Church coffee morning at the Rectory. The Ds
(the tenants) are generous in their hospitality
towards the parish. Clearly they understand local
concern about the Rectory and its traditional role as
a community building. We are of course grateful for
this, and many people feel that if the house must be
sold they would be more favourably disposed towards
the Ds than any 'outside' buyers. But what of the
future? And what if the Ds grew tired of frequent
parish incursions? And when they move on?
28 September 1993
Ray (secretary to the PCC at Belchamp Otten)
came round and we composed a good letter which we will
send to the Bishop and the Church Commissioners giving
a range of reasons why the Rectory should be kept as
our parsonage. Size, flexibility, location, usage and
historical links are some of them.
24 October 1993
The churchwardens are doing a grand job in
finding clergy to take our services: we're rather
enjoying the variety. We even get our old Rector,
Trevor, now and again; quite like old times. But
services are not the only function of a parson, and
our lack of a parish priest is growing more serious
and obvious, as well as onerous for the two
churchwardens.
29 March 1994
PCC Annual General Meeting. Still no
permanent incumbent, and the Rectory question is on
hold. I think the Diocese is following a policy of
letting us stew, perhaps imagining that time will wear
down our resistance to its plans.
28 June1994
Meeting with the Archdeacon. Members of the
PCCs of our three parishes met in Belchamp Walter
Village Hall in a mood of unrest if not open
hostility. We have a growing sense that we are being
told what is to happen rather than being consulted
about what we'd like. It's the old story: we're asked
to contibute more and more - in money and in kind -
but we're not given the power to decide anything or to
shape the pattern of our parish life. The meeting bore
this out.
The Archdeacon began in honeyed tones. We had the
usual homily about the cost of stipends, how we could
no longer expect one parish, one priest (which we
haven't had here for more than 200 years anyway). We
must develop the lay ministry.
The meeting grew restive: we've heard all this before
and we know this is just a sugar-sweet preamble to the
bad news. Let's get to the point. As he sensed the
mood of the meeting the Archdeacon grew stern; he
hasn't the patience to remain emollient for long:
'I've suspended the patronage of this living pending a
new pastoral scheme.'
This actually means that we have no say in what
happens next, either to our pastoral care or our
Rectory. He explained that unless we agreed to the
neighbouring vicar becoming priest in charge we
ourselves (in other words the churchwardens) would
continue to be responsible for finding clergy to take
our services. After two years he would have the right
to impose a priest in charge for up to four years, and
he could renew this at will for another four years.
This sounds like blackmail.
His line brought a volley of objections. We'd
virtually have no say in our pastoral care for years
to come. And we know that the intention is to appoint
the Vicar of Belchamp St Paul to be our 'pastoral
carer' and later our permanent Rector; the benefice
will eventually include his two parishes plus our
three. We object strongly in principle to not being
given a choice of priest. Some are implacably and
personally opposed to the neighbouring vicar on the
grounds that he is a bachelor (an ex-monk), can't be
heard in church, and is unused to children. How can he
run a gregarious ministry in a group of five parishes?
The meeting grew distinctly unpleasant: rudeness on
both sides. The Archdeacon must have been well aware
that he was alone in the middle of a hornets' nest.
The Rectory question came up. He first tried to cajole
us into letting 'that old barrack' go without a fuss,
but when he realised that opposition is strong he
started on the familiar theme of financial
responsibility and how we can't expect, these days,
for one small (and, he implied, insignificant) rural
benefice to be greedy in its share of the financial
cake with regard to housing the clergy. We are already
costing more than the average in terms of stipends
because of our low ratio of population to parson. This
is a sting we find particularly offensive.
Someone wanted to know how the Rectory would be sold.
Could we be reassured that it would go on the open
market, without favour to the present tenants? This
seemed to surprise the Archdeacon, which made us
wonder if he had arranged a private deal, but he
agreed that, yes, it would be sold openly.
What about the Rectory as a meeting place? It has
always been a very real focus for the life of the
community, and the more so as there is no longer a
school or a post office in the village, and there
never was a village hall. The Archdeacon responded
with another well-rehearsed get-out: 'The Diocese only
provides housing for the clergy, not parish
accommodation.' Rubbish! Practically all parsons need
to meet parishioners at the parsonage for all kinds of
reasons. The traditional role of the parsonage lives
on, with more or less 'open house' ministries in the
majority of parishes, and even in the smaller 'new'
vicarages and rectories. Some of these are of course
ill adapted to the privacy for the parson's family
that the Diocese also affirms to be a right.
We suggested that Belchamp Otten Rectory offers both
parish accommodation (which could be self-contained if
necessary) and privacy for the parson's family life.
We feel it is our building and resent the highhanded
attitude of the Diocese. The Archdeacon seems to
regard us as a pack of unruly schoolchildren, but he
can't keep us in order, and the meeting ended in a
state of turbulence, with nothing settled and everyone
angry, especially the Archdeacon.
27 October 1994
Saw my friend J from Clare in the auction
rooms and we chatted about the difficulties of antique
dealing: the trade is depressingly quiet. Then she
mentioned her involvement with problems over the the
Vicarage in Clare. Apparently the Diocese (St
Edmundsbury and Ipswich) wants to sell this fine old
vicarage in the face of both opposition and common
sense, and while the battle over it rages, the Vicar
is being housed outside the village, in a house
costing £800 per month.
The Vicarage has already been divided to provide a
good house for the Vicar, a lettable self-contained
maisonette, and two rooms for parish use (which the
Parish Council is prepared to rent from the Diocese).
It could be put into good order within a few weeks and
for a cost of about £40,000, but the Diocese,
apparently aided and abetted by various interested
factions, hopes to make a killing by selling the
Vicarage and its garden in a grand development scheme
known as the Clare Plan; most of the garden will
become a car park. Ugh.
Access is a problem, however: the house next door was
bequeathed to the parish some years ago, and the
Diocese hopes to use its garden for access to the area
behind the Vicarage, but so far they have failed to
persuade the owners (the churchwardens, as trustees)
to give it up. The story is convoluted in the extreme,
but it provides another example of diocesan
intransigence. There is anger in Clare about the
Vicarage problem, which has been simmering for years.
J and I have decided to call a joint meeting to see
what can be done about these neighbouring historic
parsonages.
10 November 1994 Various people from Clare and from
our group of parishes assembled. Father Aquinas,
Rector of Foxearth, also came. He is full of useful
knowledge about church law and procedures as well as
being a spirited opponent of parsonage privatisation.
We went through our mutual grievances about Clare
Vicarage and Belchamp Otten Rectory and the way we
feel trampled by our respective dioceses. Our feelings
must be replicated all round the country, and we all
agreed that we should form ourselves into a group and
try to get in touch with others in the same boat.
There must be a way of raising the public
consciousness about what is going on. We decided to
call ourselves Save Our Parsonages - the Our with a
capital O to emphasise the grassroots nature of the
campaign. We would launch ourselves with a press
release to the major newspapers, to the Church Times
and to magazines like Country Life, Country Living and
Perspectives on Architecture. As somebody put it,
'Let's put our toe in the water and see what happens.'
We agreed the wording of the press release, and also
decided to undertake a questionnaire on historic
parsonages all over the country, to establish the
present state and feeling about them. Information is a
pressing need.
11 November 1994
Sent the press release to 14 publications.
Now I wonder what will happen. I hate the badgering
aspects of PR, but I suppose I'll have to ring them
all to follow up my press release.
12 November 1994
Our helpful local reporter took up our story
and the first information about Save Our Parsonages
appeared in the East Anglia Daily Times. Rang the
Church Times and found a sympathetic ear. They'll run
a piece next week. No doubt some will respond. Let's
hope we stimulate positive as well as negative
comment.
15 November 1994
Spent hours on the telephone, and sent out
more press releases, some with photos of Belchamp
Otten Rectory. Interest seems to be stirring.
30 November 1994
Response from The Times. Would I find a
parson who lived in a large old vicarage and liked it
- so they could publish a story. Spent the morning on
the telephone and eventually came up with a Suffolk
vicar who was given a hard time by the Diocese because
he exercised his freehold and insisted on living in
his 1830s vicarage. He has five children and is very
happy there.
5 December 1994
The Times story keeps boiling along: the
reporter wants more and more information, and I spent
most of the day on the telephone.
8 December 1994
Short piece in the Times about the launching
of SOP, with a picture of Belchamp Otten Rectory.
Helpful, but is this all?
21 December 1994
At 8.30am I had a telephone call from a man
who works for an ecclesiastical charity: had I seen
this morning's Times? Our big story (half a page)
appeared - at last - and my telephone number with it:
the telephone rang continually all day. The calls were
all from potential supporters. I took their addresses
and recorded their different experiences and points of
view. 'At last somebody is doing something' said one.
It's all rather encouraging, if time consuming.
30 December 1994
£25 arrived in the post from a parson who
wanted to cheer us on and who, quite rightly, guessed
that money is needed as well as enthusiasm to keep
things going. So far I reckon I've spent about £20 on
telephone calls, £8 on stamps, and four or five
working days just to get this far. We'll have to think
about a system of membership of SOP, with
subscriptions, although it is important that we don't
exclude anyone from communicating with us.
26 January 1995
Nerve-racking interview with Radio 4 Sunday
programme reporter. I had prepared a good store of
ammunition on parsonages, and was ready for some
difficult questions, but she threw me completely by
starting off, 'Tell me about yourself.' This was not
what I expected and I was embarrassed. Let's hope she
edits the piece sympathetically: she could make me
sound a complete wally if she chooses. My respect for
radio interviewees has taken a leap upwards.
29 January 1995
Woke up to the sound of my own voice on the
radio: an odd, disembodied feeling. The interview came
out surprisingly well and strengthened our case for
looking at old parsonages more sympathetically. The
opposing view was contradictory and merely proved our
contention that local communities and their clergy are
being steamrollered.
Within half an hour the Telegraph rang. They wanted to
run a story about the campaign. Could we organise a
protest shot outside a threatened parsonage? End of
peaceful Sunday. Clare was the obvious house to
choose, and I spent the morning rallying supporters.
At 2 o'clock we assembled, to be joined by others who
wanted to swell the rumble of discontent. The picture
only took 5 minutes, and then the reporters were off,
no doubt to capture more 'stories' that other people
had prepared for them.
30 January 1995
Our picture appeared, in colour, across the
back page of the Telegraph, with a disagreeable leader
inside - obviously written by a pro-flogger - perhaps
an archdeacon. I spent the morning alternately
answering the telephone (more interviews requested,
mainly for local radio from Suffolk to Yorkshire) and
writing a letter to the Editor of the Telegraph. BBC
Newsnight were interested: would I be prepared to come
to London and appear, live, arguing with the
opposition? Yes, but I couldn't leave home till after
9.30: there was a PCC meeting and I couldn't miss it.
I could be in London by 11 pm. They needed to do more
research and would come back to me. BBC Television
News wanted to run a story at 6 o'clock that evening.
Could I come to Clare for an interview? Yes. By this
time my adrenaline was flowing, and with it my
arguments: I felt I could tackle anything and anyone.
The news interview went well, and although they
chopped it, they allowed me to make some telling
points. Newsnight did not ring back.
The PCC meeting was the most stressful event of the
day. I sense irritation with my activities on the part
of certain members. Others are supportive. Odd,
because we're almost all united in our feelings about
the Rectory. The Diocese's proposals for our new
pastoral scheme were read out and discussed. We have
to respond. While we accept the enlargement of the
benefice 'with regret', we do not accept Belchamp St
Paul's Vicarage as our parsonage but suggest that
Belchamp Otten Rectory is the more suitable. We have
asked for a meeting with the Diocesan Pastoral
Committee about this.
27 March 1995
The Vicar of Belchamp St Paul now officially
has 'pastoral care' of our parishes. This seems to
have slipped in.
9 April 1995
Talked to Aidan (our 'pastoral carer' and
likely future Rector) on the way out of church, and he
surprised me by saying that although he liked his
present vicarage (Belchamp St Paul), he did not mind
where he lived, and would move to Belchamp Otten
Rectory if asked to do so - an utterly reasonable
view.
4 May 1995
We were bidden to Belchamp St Paul Primary
School to meet sundry members of the diocesan
hierarchy. There was the Bishop of Colchester, the
Archdeacon, the secretary of the parsonages committee,
the vicars of Shrub End and Stansted, the Bishop's
Rural Officer and a church warden from Lexden. The
chairman was another peaceable parson, who must have
been shocked by the vitriolic exchanges he tried to
control later. Members of the PCCs of the existing
three parishes were ranged opposite - a most
infelicitous arrangement.
The meeting began with the usual rehearsal of reasons
why benefices were having to be enlarged: fewer
clergy, higher pension bills... The chairman outlined
the planned new scheme for ours. Irritating this, as
we've heard it so many times before. Pretty soon the
mention of the Vicar sparked off a torrent of feeling:
'We can't hear a thing he says in church'; 'Our
congregation is down to two or three'; 'He's no good
with children'; 'My wife and I offered to run a Sunday
school but were given the thumbs down'...
The Vicar was present at the meeting, perhaps
inadvisedly, but I felt sorry for him when somebody
went so far as to say 'He's an ineffectual little man,
and soon there won't be anybody in any of our
churches.' Our own parish is more charitable and he
gets a warmer reception in our church. Many of us felt
that this display of unchristian feeling was uncalled
for, especially as it is hardly the Vicar's fault that
the situation has arisen.
Then the Rectory. The committee had been to look at
both houses: they were satisfied that the Vicarage at
Belchamp St Paul was an adequate house for a parson.
Belchamp Otten Rectory needed lots of money spent on
it and the expense of renovation could not be
justified. We could use the village halls at Belchamp
St Paul, Belchamp Walter and Bulmer for parish
gatherings. The fact the Belchamp St Paul was at an
extremity of the new benefice was of minor
significance.
There seemed to be some attempt to listen to our
views, but the exchanges between the Archdeacon and
some members of the parishes became so heated that
rational discussion was all but impossible and the
chairman soon lost his grip on order. It didn't help
that we were in a school with the diocesan committee
behind the table, confronting us - hardly conducive to
peaceful discussions with both sides on an equal
footing.
The fact is that both sides are not on an equal
footing. The Diocese controls the finances and
therefore feels empowered to decide everything. They
are morally bound to listen to parish opinion but they
are not bound to follow it. Whatever our individual
feelings about our case, we are all enraged by the 'we
know what's best for you' attitude of the Diocese.
After all, they are making decisions which will not
affect them one jot, but which will have consequences
in the parish communities for generations to come. And
their decisions are based on financial rather than
pastoral considerations. We feel this meeting has made
things worse rather than better.
3 June 1995
Coffee morning and bazaar at Belchamp Otten
Rectory. I attempted to pass the time of day with the
doctor's wife who is living in the house. But she gave
me a hostile reception to say the least. She seems to
have taken my activities in support of the Rectory as
a personal threat. Apparently a photographer was seen
stalking round the building and taking photographs,
and some other people turned up and started looking
into windows saying they were from the National Trust.
I explained that I had nothing to do with any of these
and I have nothing personal against her; I just think
the Rectory should be kept by the Church. By this time
a friend of hers arrived and started shouting at me.
Somewhat abashed, I felt it best to retreat. A pity
there has to be such unpleasantness.
28 September 1995
Just in case they have not hoisted our case
on board yet, and in order to forestall the diocesan
point of view which will soon arrive in their
in-trays, we sent a strong letter to the Church
Commissioners, setting out the case for keeping
Belchamp Otten Rectory. It was signed by all the
churchwardens and sundry other PCC representatives of
all three parishes.
19 October 1995
Letter from Church Commissioners to say our
letter is ahead of the draft scheme and they'll keep
it for later. At least we are on their mailing list.
23 October 1995
Collapse of resolve at Clare: one
churchwarden has given in and signed the document
releasing the Vicarage; the other feels there's no
point in struggling on and risking destructive
divisions in the PCC. The plan is now for the Diocese
to buy the house next door to the old vicarage from
the Trustees (the churchwardens) and rebuild it as a
new vicarage. The Vicar is happy at the prospect of
being housed in the centre of the village. The Diocese
has now spent nearly £40,000 on architects' plans,
surveys, feasibility studies and the rest, besides the
payments for the temporary vicarage over the past four
or five years.
28th October 1995
Colette rang to tell me that Father Aquinas
died yesterday. I knew he had been in hospital, but
did not realise how seriously ill he was. He was a
feisty and knowledgeable campaigner, always ready with
ideas and encouragement. This is a sad loss.
21 May 1996
Letter from the Church Commissioners with the
amended pastoral scheme. We have three weeks to 'make
representations' about it. Interesting how long they
take to move (months and months) and yet we're given
the briefest possible time to organise our objections.
These can come from anyone, anywhere, not just the
parishes concerned.
30 May 1996
S came round and we spent the afternoon
addressing envelopes. We have circulated members of
SOP and asked them to write to the Church
Commissioners in support of our bid to retain our
Rectory. We sent out a letter explaining the situation
and outlining the general arguments for its retention.
Let's hope some will take the trouble to write. At
least we have the feeling we are doing something.
5 June 1996
Copies of letters that SOP members have
written to the Church Commissioners keep rolling in.
Every one seems to make a different point, some of
them very tellingly. This is most heartening. I feel
sure the Church Commissioners must be impressed by so
many good arguments, especially from clergy.
9 June l996
A vicar in Suffolk rang to suggest a
petition. I mention that we have already done one two
years ago, but perhaps I'd better try another, at
least in Bulmer, the village of largest population.
Off we go again.
10 June 1996
PCC meeting. We discussed the new pastoral
scheme and compose a response to the Church
Commissioners. We reject Belchamp St Paul's Vicarage
as the parsonage for the benefice and 'urge the
retention of Belchamp Otten Rectory... to act as a
possible central parsonage in an expanded group in the
future.'
11 June1996
Started round the village with the petition -
house-to-house, and not just the church people. I
realised I would have to explain the situation - and
the arguments - to practically everyone. It would be a
time-consuming chore and I expected people to take the
parochial view - that Belchamp Otten is five miles
away and not much to do with us in Bulmer. The
contrary was the case. I was surprised how many a)
knew the state of affairs and b) felt strongly about
this local building: 'It's like losing the post office
or the school in a village,' said one. Too right. One
old lady wanted nothing to do with the campaign, while
a church-going neighbour, daughter of a builder,
positively thought the house should be sold. The rest
were keen to give voice - and signature - to
surprisingly strong feelings. I feel encouraged to
press on.
12 June l996
Went down the Street with the petition. J's
was one of the first houses: 'Why don't you give me a
couple of sheets and I'll do the Street for you.'
She's always a support, without any fuss; it's
wonderful to share the effort.
14 June 1996
Dismayed by a call from R, churchwarden at
Belchamp Otten. He's heard there is a petition going
round in favour of selling the Rectory specifically to
the present tenants. Much as we approve of them as
tenants, most of us think that if the house must be
sold it would only be fair to put it on the open
market. Anyway, selling to the Ds will only safeguard
it while they are there. What happens if they move on
in a few years' time? This news is certainly
dispiriting, but I just hope most people will take the
long-term view and resist signing this petition.
19 June1996
Last day for 'representations' to the Church
Commissioners. I've posted the petition and heave a
sigh of relief. My emotional energy consumption has
been running far too high for the past few weeks, but
the knowledge that we've done all we can is
comforting. Now we just have to wait - and hope. We've
been told not to expect any developments for months.
21 July 1996
The Bishop of Colchester came to Bulmer and
preached at a joint service with the other parishes.
He greeted the congregation on the way out, and I took
the opportunity to ask him to support us in our bid to
keep Belchamp Otten Rectory. 'Indeed I won't: the
cellar floods; it's not a suitable house.' So that's
their reasoning, and it's founded on a myth. I can
hardly believe my ears.
20 September 1996
Letter from the Church Commissioners
announcing a meeting with their sub-committee on 9
December. This will be a hearing of local views before
their arbitration of our case. I am bidden to a
meeting from 6 - 6.35 along with various 'outside'
people such as members of SOP, and the patron of
Ovington (one of the parishes soon to be joined with
ours). Later I hear that there are two other meetings,
one for local people generally and the other for PCC
representatives. Each is scheduled to last 35 minutes.
I wonder how they can possibly keep to such tight
timing. If our meetings with diocesan representatives
are anything to go by there's no way they'll be able
to contain the discussion so rigidly.
1 October 1996
It might strengthen our case for keeping the
Rectory if we are prepared to help with future
maintenance costs, which the Diocese say are above the
average for newer buildings. Even if this is not so,
we should show willing. I decided to write to certain
people in the three parishes asking them to pledge
support for a future maintenance fund if the Rectory
is kept.
15 October 1996
I've already had a couple of pledges and,
better still, encouragement for the idea of a parish
maintenance fund for the Rectory.
28 October 1996
PCC meeting. Representatives to go to the
Church Commissioners' meeting were chosen. Everyone
seems despondent about the outcome: they feel sure
that the Commissioners have already made up their
minds and will automatically support the Diocese over
the sale of the Rectory. The meeting to 'listen to our
views' will be a mere charade. It is true that one by
one the members of the diocesan hierarchy that we have
dealt with, from the Rural Dean to the Bishop, have
declared themselves against the parish interest. The
Church Commissioners' committee is our last hope. I
think we have to believe in their independence, and
say so. Time will prove which opinion is right.
7 November 1996
The SOP Newsletter is going out with a
request that as many members as possible should come
to the Church Commissioners' meeting. We have planned
our annual meeting for the next morning to make it
easier, but I don't suppose many will be able to come.
3 December 1996
Very much heartened by the response to the
maintenance fund letter. I only wrote to about a dozen
people, but pledges of support now amount to over £3,000
- a worthwhile sum.
9 December 1996
Mervyn and Bill - two of SOP's staunchest
clergy stalwarts arrived at tea time; so did Jerome,
an old friend and the editor of the Newsletter. Their
support gave me courage - almost enthusiasm - for the
meeting. I felt like a VIP with a posse of security
guards. I need not have been so nervous. The
atmosphere of the meeting was in sharp contrast- to
all our former meetings with 'the authorities'.
Margaret Laird chaired it. She is an attractive
grey-haired Commissioner with a serene smile and
reassuring manner: her charm makes her firmness and
efficiency acceptable to the most implacable
opposition. Instinctively one feels she's on one's
side.
She began by introducing the sub-committee: another
Church Commissioner, a clergyman, a lay woman and a
secretary. She explained that they had come to listen
to our points of view. Later they would go back and
deliberate and give us their judgement, probably in
February.
Points were made briefly and succinctly. The location
of the Rectory, in the centre of the new benefice, is
important, and so is its use by the community: a room
for parish use could be made self-contained within the
house. The fact that many clergymen favour 'open house
ministry' cannot be overlooked. The meeting was
well-mannered, and the only note of confrontation came
when I pointed out that the dwindling numbers of older
parsonages threatens the diversity in clergy housing
generally; we see the maintenance of a variety of old
and new housing of different sizes as fundamentally
important. 'Why?' fired the Canon bluntly. We were
amazed, but perhaps he was merely playing devil's
advocate and not just showing the crass lack of
imagination that his question suggested.
We told them that we had pledges of both financial
support for future maintenance of the Rectory and
practical help with decorating it if it were to remain
our parsonage. We felt our cases had been made
cogently, and provided a back-up for all the letters
that had been written already.
11 December 1996
Call from V: the meeting after ours, where
the Rectory tenants and their cohorts with a declared
interest in the sale of the Rectory were ranged
against local 'savers' was an altogether less polite
affair, but the savers were in a majority, and seemed
to put their arguments more calmly than the sellers.
Later I had a call from R, a local synod member, who
said the third meeting had gone well, he thought, and
those present had been impressed by the willingness of
the Church Commissioners' sub-committee to hear their
points of view.
Now we can only wait in hope. It's rather a relief not
to be able to do anything for the moment.
6 March 1997
A letter came with a Church Commissioners
stamp on the envelope: I broke out in a sweat at the
sight of it; but it was about an entirely different
matter. Much as I want the suspense to end, this was a
huge relief. I am surprised how much time I spend
thinking about the Rectory. Surely the Commissioners
can't let it go.
13 March 1997
Still no news about the Rectory from the
Church Commissioners. I feel a little optimistic. No
news could be good news. Or perhaps they will suggest
that the house should continue to be let until our
present incumbent retires in a few years' time - a
good old compromise that we'd accept gracefully, even
if it did mean a re-run of all this aggravation
sometime in the future.
21 March 1997
The letter arrived. It was long and polite,
summarising many of the points made in the meeting.
They'd had an 'independent' survey carried out on the
Rectory, which suggested a figure of £173,000 for
putting it in order, and that such expenditure could
not be justified. They decided that the Vicarage at
Belchamp St Paul is 'better suited to be the parsonage
house of the new benefice...'
So that's it. The letter tells us we can 'apply for
leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council' but I know
there's no more steam left for such action, and
certainly no money - it would be a costly move. I feel
gutted and let down. Can the Church Commissioners
really be independent of the Diocese with a judgement
like this? I can't believe it.
12 April 1997
I am writing to the Church Commissioners: I
need reassurance that they really are prepared to take
an independent line. And if the house does need £173,000
spending on it, which I doubt, the Diocese must have
been negligent.
25 April 1997
Letter from the Church Commissioners
enclosing the survey report, full of disclaimers and
warnings about possible problems in the future. But
its cover proclaims it to have been commissioned by
the Diocesan Board of Finance, the very body that
wants to sell the Rectory. What sort of independence
is this? Our correspondence will obviously run and
run, but in the meantime the For Sale sign will go up
at the Rectory, the community will lose a precious
resource and the Church will squander yet another
slice of its heritage.
POSTSCRIPT October 1997
Belchamp Otten Rectory has been sold for £325,000
to the former tenants, without any public notice
whatsoever: no marketing was done, and there was not
so much as a For Sale sign at the gate.
|