It is therefore with some regret that I call into question the application to council from St Botolph's for the grand sum of over £ 141,000 for the maintenance of the chancel.
Allow me to explain,
From my initial enquires I find that the term "chancel" refers to the east end of the church in which the altar is located and is usually separated from the rest of the church by either lattice work or a communion bench. This area is what is defined as the chancel and as lay rector the council have a duty and indeed a legal responsibility to maintain it.
I have asked officers at the council to review our obligations under this historic duty, as it would appear that the council, therefore you and I ,are being asked to fund for works outside the remit of what is known as the chancel.
Before we all get upset and on our high horses about this, all I am simply doing is what I consider to be due diligence in my role as a Borough Councillor, in a council that is struggling to make the numbers add up, it in no way implies that I do not support our local landmark.
You have no further to go than the current incumbents to see how little they wish to support the stump, when asked to fund the lighting of stumpy at a measly cost of £4000 per year, and they flatly refused!
Now, If it transpires that WE, the council and YOU the taxpayer,have the legal obligation to maintain the whole church, I am asking the Borough Council to protect the local taxpayers from what could be a potentially Hugh liability in future years ( because stumpy ain't getting any younger) and take out some kind of insurance, because this years request is more than £141,000, in five years time it could be £250,000, £500,000 or more, who really knows!
