14 replies to this topic

[Sebastian-Smythe]

Surely a bit of lateral thinking is needed with recourse to Burley’s Parish Church spire. Why don’t they rid St Mary of that overbearing wimple and take a leaf from Norman Shaw’s book? St Margaret’s ecclesiastical emporium on Queens Road in Ilkley shows there’s no need for a spire. The lack of things pointed saves brass all round. You can still have bells or long playing records of same, and possible future expansion outwards instead of upwards. Inwardly St Mary’s shows it’s rustic heritage when compared to Shaw’s religious magnificence. The continued use of pews restricts the use of the building to that of formal prayer. Whereas at St Margaret’s chairs have long taken the place of pews and it’s interior used for many and varied events.

Time to cast off the old and bring in the new!

[blunt pencil]

I think that your views are a little offensive.

The question of whats the point of a steeple - Well, i suppose for historical reasons, as the church was built with one. To that end, you could argue whats the point of any structure or building, when we could knock the lot down and put up a prefab.

As for religion - i.e. what are the point of pews and why not hold fairs, etc. The catholic religion has strong views on the use of a church. There is no right or wrong, but we as educated / civilised people should respect those views.

[spyglass]

Like a loyal Pavlov dog I respond. I just cannot help myself.

Two questions have been posed

1)What is the point of a steeple?

2)What are the point of pews?

Answer - absolutely none whatsoever - though not for the reasons discussed here!

As for the catholic religion having strong views on the use of a church, regardless of any arguments about the relevance of religion generally or use of churches, it beats me that anyone can have any respect for the catholic church views in particular after well the publicised terrible activities they have condoned and covered up for many years. Belgum as well now! Add also helping to spread AIDs and the misery of unwanted/too many children both of which lead to extremes of poverty and refusing to accept women as equal status to men by peddling extreme doctrines.

I just hope this post is not too extreme this time!

[LEE122]

Sebastian-Smythe, on 15 September 2010 - 05:41 PM, said:

Surely a bit of lateral thinking is needed with recourse to Burley’s Parish Church spire. Why don’t they rid St Mary of that overbearing wimple and take a leaf from Norman Shaw’s book? St Margaret’s ecclesiastical emporium on Queens Road in Ilkley shows there’s no need for a spire. The lack of things pointed saves brass all round. You can still have bells or long playing records of same, and possible future expansion outwards instead of upwards. Inwardly St Mary’s shows it’s rustic heritage when compared to Shaw’s religious magnificence. The continued use of pews restricts the use of the building to that of formal prayer. Whereas at St Margaret’s chairs have long taken the place of pews and it’s interior used for many and varied events.

Time to cast off the old and bring in the new!

same reason as mosques have domes I guess, no pews or chairs restricting the use of a mosque but can hardly see them being utilised for anything other than prayer or religious stuff,

not religiious personally and don't go to church but a stereotypical village church with a spire is part of our heritage and should be preserved, I would like to see it kept in tact for my children and grandchildren to enjoy, whether that be just admiring it or using it. I will be contributing to the S.O.S fund.

a church without a spire is well..erm.. pointless!!

[Harveybos]

It's worth mentioning that St Mary Church is a Grade II listed building, and an important part of the Burley in Wharfedale Conservation area, so I doubt that removal of the spire would be an option. You can read more on the Conservation area here
Conservation Area Info

[weirdmusic]

Harveybos, on 17 September 2010 - 09:24 AM, said:

It's worth mentioning that St Mary Church is a Grade II listed building, and an important part of the Burley in Wharfedale Conservation area, so I doubt that removal of the spire would be an option. You can read more on the Conservation area here
Conservation Area Info

Does being a Grade II listed building prevent the whole structure (church, tower, steeple) from being adapted?   Perhaps so that it can used as a multi-purpose building, similar to what the Methodists did with theirs?

[Sebastian-Smythe]

weirdmusic, on 18 September 2010 - 07:41 PM, said:

Does being a Grade II listed building prevent the whole structure (church, tower, steeple) from being adapted?   Perhaps so that it can used as a multi-purpose building, similar to what the Methodists did with theirs?

St Margaret's is in a conservation area and it don't have a point, sorry spire, and it's had some world famous godsquad under it's arches. Desmond Tutu for one, the former Archbish of York another, it also has a Green Man on one of it's columns.

If the spire was deemed unsafe they would have to do something 'cos acts of whatever god can't be used as excuses.

[weirdmusic]

weirdmusic, on 18 September 2010 - 07:41 PM, said:

Does being a Grade II listed building prevent the whole structure (church, tower, steeple) from being adapted?   Perhaps so that it can used as a multi-purpose building, similar to what the Methodists did with theirs?

To answer to my own question:  Being Grade II listed doesn't stop buildings being adapted.  The majority of listed buildings are churches. Listing doesn't stop organisations updating their building to make them fit for the 21st century. 

Methodist Church - A Grade II listed building which opened in 1867, the church has portable furniture in its worship area to allow things to be moved around to suit different types of events.

[weirdmusic]

LEE122, on 16 September 2010 - 08:02 PM, said:

................................ not religious personally and don't go to church but a stereotypical village church with a spire is part of our heritage and should be preserved, I would like to see it kept in tact for my children and grandchildren to enjoy, whether that be just admiring it or using it. I will be contributing to the S.O.S fund.  ................a church without a spire is well..erm.. pointless!!

"LEE122" - would you consider contributing to a "Perpetual Fabric Fund"?

Let me explain:
In yesterdays Yorkshire Evening Post (30.9.2010) , there was a front page article about the parlous state of the finances of Leeds Parish Church. They've lost £170K in two years. (http://www.yorkshire...sis.6558073.jp)

What is the financial position of St Mary's Parish Church, Burley?  
Have the PCC (Parochial Church Council) of St Mary's used up all their funds on St Mary's Parish Centre & No1 Grange Road and in doing so neglected the funding & maintenance of their Parish Church?  
Hence the need for a very public "Save Our Spire" campaign.

(The Parish Centre was partially funded by a bequest from Bill & Nancy Jepson, who left the land & £30k.  How was the rest of the design/construction costs & buying of No1 Grange Road funded?  
The Parish Centre opened just 3 years ago, No1 Grange Road was supposed to be for the vicar, but he lives somewhere else in Burley - is it now surplus to requirements?).

In researching the funding of St Mary's Parish Centre & No1 Grange Road, Burley, I came across this website: http://www.churchcare.co.uk/index.php
Its stuffed full of useful information & links for anybody who has responsibility for a church building.
--------------------
Of particular relevance to the current issue of the "Save Our Spire" campaign is http://www.churchcar.../funding.php?IJ --- (the following is copied from this page) 

Longer Term Funding for Repairs:
Increasingly, public bodies as well as congregations consider that it is poor stewardship to wait until the needs of the fabric can be ignored no longer, and then to launch a big public appeal. Regular maintenance is vital. But it is prudent also to consider the longer term strategy to avoid future crises.

In particular it is sensible to consider how the burden of maintaining the fabric might be spread beyond the Parochial Church Council (A PCC is the executive body of a Church of England parish) and the regular churchgoers.

The Perpetual Fabric Fund -
The idea of a Perpetual Fabric Fund (PFF) is to provide a capital fund to which anyone can contribute in the knowledge that their money can only be spent on the fabric of the church concerned. .........

Friends Organisation -
Another approach is to create a "Friends" group - people who do not necessarily worship in the church on a regular basis but are anxious that the building be maintained. Subscriptions from the Friends can be used to maintain the building and fabric. ................... The Diocese of Canterbury produces an excellent book called A Friends Scheme for a Parish Church (£5.00)

Diocesan Church Repair Fund -
....................
--------------------------------

The St Mary's public appeal this year is for the Steeple/Spire - £30,000.  What will it be next year - the roof? The year after the walls ............... etc.

I'd like to know if the PCC of St Mary's has considered setting up a "Perpetual Fabric Fund"?  (Perhaps using proceeds from the sale of No1 Grange Road to start the ball rolling).   

I think a fund of this type could gain widespread support & would avoid the need for "Save Our ...." type campaigns.

[spyglass]

If this is a Grade II listed building does the church itself not have a liability to maintain it. Therefore the church (nationally - presumably the Church of England) which has loads of assets should sell some to fulfil its obligations and not rely on the general population who were suckered in to contributing towards its vast wealth in the first place.

[Sebastian-Smythe]

spyglass, on 01 October 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

If this is a Grade II listed building does the church itself not have a liability to maintain it. Therefore the church (nationally - presumably the Church of England) which has loads of assets should sell some to fulfil its obligations and not rely on the general population who were suckered in to contributing towards its vast wealth in the first place.

Nail on the Head spyglass!

That's what I don't understand about the godsquad. They've all this brass tied up in all manner of things
but when it comes to giving it out they cry poverty. To quote from one of their prayer books, "The Lord giveth and
The Lord taketh away." Perhaps The Lord should do a bit more taking from those who cry poverty and give to the needy.

[Wharfedale]

Even if we disagree about the merits of religion, is the spire a wonderful part of our community not worth saving?

If money has been spent on the community centre then it’s been spent and it can’t be unspent very easily so I really do feel that we should support this campaign.

[Flas# #arry]

Does ecclesiastical insurance not include structural problems? A metal rod in the centre of the spire expanding and distorting due to rust and shifting the masonry isn't exactly an act of god. Even though it might be seen as fair wear and tear, I'm pretty sure I could claim for something similar happening to my gaffe under our house insurance.

The trouble is that the skills needed to do this sort of work are in the hands of the few due to a skills gap, therefore the church will have to pay a premium for something Fred Dibnah could have done for the price of a new conrod for his traction engine.

[spyglass]

Wharfedale, on 02 October 2010 - 05:15 PM, said:

Even if we disagree about the merits of religion, is the spire a wonderful part of our community not worth saving?

If money has been spent on the community centre then it’s been spent and it can’t be unspent very easily so I really do feel that we should support this campaign.

Architecturally, I do not have a problem with saving church buildings. They are a part of our architectural heritage and depending on location are in some places part of the landscape as well. If Burley church has listed status then it must be worth preseving architecturally - though not for bunkum religious reasons. However the church is one of the richest asset owners in Britain (indeed the world) and should be able to fund the repairs itself.

The community centre is a lost cause in every sense of the word architecturally (though a valuable community resource I do not doubt).

[Sebastian-Smythe]

spyglass, on 03 October 2010 - 09:35 AM, said:

Architecturally, I do not have a problem with saving church buildings. They are a part of our architectural heritage and depending on location are in some places part of the landscape as well. If Burley church has listed status then it must be worth preseving architecturally - though not for bunkum religious reasons. However the church is one of the richest asset owners in Britain (indeed the world) and should be able to fund the repairs itself.

The community centre is a lost cause in every sense of the word architecturally (though a valuable community resource I do not doubt).

If the Parochial Council used a bit of latteral thinking they could use the tower for all manner of money making causes, for instance a mobile phone tower, astrocomical observeratory, dove cote for the village, wind farm, there's all manner of things.

In the middle ages parish churches were used as early super markets to sell produce etc. Some held libraries.