Bevis Marks synagogue and planning law
The Grade I listed Bevis Marks synagogue opened in 1701 and was the first synagogue to be built following the resettlement of Jews in England in the second half of the 17th Century. The building relies mainly on daylight and candlelight for internal illumination, and there has been a continuing controversy about plans to build a tower block next to it. A previous application for a 48-storey office block was rejected in 2021 after an independent review concluded that the plans for the tower block would result in “a significant reduction in sunlight”.
The developers, Welput, have submitted a planning application for a building that would be 43 stories instead of 48 and slimmer at the top than the one previously proposed. The changes, they claim, would allow for more light in the synagogue. According to a report by the BBC, “hundreds of objections” have been filed against the new application.
Review of charity regulation in Scotland – possibly
The Scottish Government has launched an online review of charity regulation, with the intention of establishing the purpose and parameters for a review. It asks ten short questions, split into three sections:
- The need for a review and the purpose of a review.
- The parameters for a review – What should it cover and not cover?
- Technical areas for review.
The Scottish Government has already undertaken to look at three areas of the current law: reorganisations of statutory and Royal Charter charities, incorporation to a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) and audit thresholds.
The consultation questions are here. It closes on 22 July.
Knocking down an unconsecrated church building?
Kent Messenger reports that a planning application to demolish St Gabriel’s Church in Rough Common, Canterbury, and build a house in its place has been rejected. The incumbent, Revd Peter Harnden, had hoped to sell the plot to developers to generate funds for his parish. After the application was turned down by Canterbury City Council, he appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but his appeal failed. The Planning Inspector cited possible negative environmental effects on the nearby Stodmarsh Nature Reserve.
Strangely, the plot is owned by the parish rather than by the Diocese or the Church of England, and the building was never consecrated – which means that it is not subject to the faculty jurisdiction. [With thanks to David Lamming.]
There was a Gilbertian element to the provenance of the paintings by the incumbent’s wife, “whichever one it may be”, in Re St John Marchwood [2024] ECC Win 3, in the petition as reframed by Ormondroyd Ch for “the removal of paintings from the eastern wall (retrospective) and storage within the church”[1].
The Chancellor was critical of the role played by the incumbent: “As a very experienced incumbent, he should have known better, and should have taken advice both on the operation of the faculty system and on the correct treatment of historic paintings before taking action”. That advice was not hard to obtain – although he was apparently “under pressure from members of the congregation who had for whatever reason taken a disliking to the paintings” and “was motivated by a desire to serve those to whom he is called to minister”. A consequence of the unauthorised removal of the paintings had been that the proceedings had been far more protracted and controversial than would otherwise have been the case.
Of the threefold assertion for the removal of the painting – the simple desire of an owner to change a listed building (the “will of the congregation”) did not in itself amount to a clear and convincing justification required, nor “the main reason … in that the PCC and congregation apparently preferred the appearance of the paintwork underneath the paintings to the paintings themselves, which the Petitioners describe as “dark and dull”. These alleged benefits were hotly contested by the Parties Opponent.
The Chancellor addressed these and the mistreatment of the paintings and granted a faculty for the four outer paintings to be permanently removed and stored, on condition that they were to be restored, preserved and stored in the body of the church. He imposed a further condition that the three central paintings should also be restored and then reinstated.
Change at the Church Times
Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times since 1995, has announced that he is to retire at the end of September. The paper is currently advertising for his successor.
The Church Times is a very useful resource on law and religion – and not only in relation to the C of E. We wish him a long and very happy retirement.
Quick links
- Tabitha Juster, Farrer & Co: Protected beliefs in the workplace: recent tribunal cases – most but not all of which we have covered previously.
- Georgina Robinson, The Conversation: Water cremation: sustainable body disposal is coming to Scotland – here are the benefits: on alkaline hydrolysis.
- US Commission on International Religious Freedom: Annual Report, May 2024.
- Elien Verniers, Strasbourg Observers: Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v. Belgium: the ECtHR’s perspective on balancing animal welfare with religious freedom: “the aim of this blog post is not to advocate against religious freedom, but to give more context to the ban and its underlying animal welfare rationale” – we noted the case here.
And finally…
“You boy! What is the Government’s majority down to this afternoon?” pic.twitter.com/UcjMwv4LRF
— Fr Paul ✠ (@revpaulwhite) April 27, 2024