The first reactions to the proposals were reported by the website as follows:

"Villagers have been surprised, and not a little aggrieved, that full (that is, not outline) planning permission has been applied for for the demolition of Nordelph church and the construction of no less than five private dwellings with garages fronting onto High Street. They are in part aggrieved because at the regular meetings with the diocese to discuss the future of the church, they were assured that the authorities would share their thinking and consult the village before taking any steps. Instead, the village learns only when a planning application is put before the Parish Council.

There is some concern over the accuracy and robustness of the submitted plans. As far as services are concerned, the application assumes the existence of sewerage and adequate soakaways, whereas nearby houses are relegated to cesspits, and the field behind the proposed development has only recently and with a lot of effort been drained. Each of the five properties has four bedrooms and garage, and individual access to the High Street at its narrowest point -- drivers will have to drive in and reverse out. The plans are deficient in that they indicate pavements on either side of the High Street at this point, whereas the reality is that the property facing the church opens directly onto the highway.

An accompanying document contradicts both itself and the plans. It is recognised that houses to the West of the church have 'linear frontages' opening directly onto the street, whereas those to the East have front gardens. The document suggests that the most harmonious solution is to continue the line of linear frontages, and then goes on to say that the 'look and feel' of the development will be similar to the newly-built (and not yet completed) houses opposite across Well Creek. The plans also show a front parking space with the houses set back.

This is of course within the Nordelph Conservation Area, but apparently demolition of the church does not contravene the provisions, and the previous bar to the development (the presence of bats in the church) has been circumvented by the provision of a bat roost.

There seems to be an overriding issue that is being missed. Although presently not functional, as a church this land is a village amenity. There might have been some sympathy for a proposal that created a more modest place of worship for the parish, perhaps as part of a sympathetic housing development, but the submission at present before us is simply commercial development and benefits the village not at all. Those with memories only as far back as this website's inception will recall proposals -- researched and thoughtful proposals -- for ways in which the church land could have contributed to village life, rather than making it just a bit more crowded. When the owners of the (now closed) Chequers pub applied unsuccessfully for planning permission for a change of use to a domestic dwelling, the Borough Council clearly stated that they were opposed in principle to any application that removed the last of any amenity from a community. We need to remind them strongly of that!"

An emergency Parish Council meeting was called, and the following issues were reported:

"The Village Meeting on July 25th, to discuss the plans for the church, was exceptionally well attended: some 23 people were present for the open part of the gathering (after everyone had their say, the meeting continued as a Parish Council meeting). As expected, the Council recommended the rejection of the planning application, and we summarise their reasoning below.

.
Much more comment was forthcoming at the meeting -- one astute resident had measured the driveways from the plans and observed that they were shorter than many larger contemporary cars! The inevitable loss of the trees on the site was something else that people felt strongly about. No one spoke in favour of the plans, although the meeting was split between those who didn't want to lose the church at all, and those who recognised that the funds for restoring it were unlikely to materialise, and that the main concern was to ensure that the site was developed as an amenity, and not simply a grubby little commercial development.

The church lies in the Nordelph Conservation Area, which is illustrated above. To see a full-size version of this, simply click on the map. The report establishing this recognised that the church was an iconic building, visible from miles away across the Fens. The purpose of the Conservation Area is not to ban all devlopment, but to ensure that it is carried out in a manner sympathetic to the neighbourhood. The present proposal is neither sympathetic to the memory of the church, nor the buildings nearby -- some of which have been forced by the conservation regulations to make their own developments expensively conform to the area.

Another concern was the effect of building housing at the narrowest part of High Street. The possible effect is illustrated in the left hand photo, taken during routine tree maintenance operations last year.

But perhaps the most startling revelation came from a correspondent writing after the meeting. A closer inspection of the plans revealed that they were drawn up before the Diocese began discussions with the village over the future of the church!

The Diocese appeared to be as surprised as the village that the application had been lodged. In almost identical correspondence to a number of residents, Archdeacon Hugh McCurdy has said:

"I was not aware that such an application had been issued to the Planning Department.
This matter has been dealt with by Joliffe's (the Diocese Land Agents) on behalf of the Diocese and
next week, I have a meeting with them when I assumed I would get an update on the progress they had made on a number of  "projects" including Nordelph.
By the sound of things, they have taken action before our meeting and no doubt they will brief me about that."

At the Parish Council meeting immediately following the open meeting, the Council recommended rejection of the application, citing the following reasons:
The application appeared to assume that permission had been given for the demolition of the Church. The application for this had been withdrawn in January 2001 and no further application had been made.
As this is in the village Conservation area it was felt that it was too intensive a development and not in keeping with the surrounding existing buildings in the High Street.
There are several trees around the site, which should be preserved.
The present church wall, which is an important feature of the village street scene, would be destroyed if this development were to be allowed.
The proposal to make 3 new entrances on to the High Street in addition to the two already there at this very narrow part is not practical particularly as no provision for turning appears to be possible on the very narrow frontages proposed for the new dwellings.
The plans make no provision for sewage disposal and there is no main sewerage system in the village.
There does not appear to have been any flood risk survey carried out on the proposed site."

The issue rumbled on over the Summer, but beyond encouraging letters of objection we had little to report until October.

"The planning application to demolish Nordelph church and erect five four-bedroomed houses on the site was formally rejected last month. You can download the eight-page Planning Officer Report

that gives the reasons for the rejection from this Nordelph website. There were four principal reasons for the rejection: the lack of harmony of the proposed development which would "detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area"; the loss of "an historical and attractive church building without clear evidence of irresistible structural defectiveness"; insufficient evidence that the bats would not be harmed, and the lack of consideration for the existing trees.

The report also covers the responses from 12 official bodies, including Nordelph Parish Council: five of these bodies registered objections. The report also notes and summarises the 17 letters of objection, probably exclusively from residents of Nordelph.

Regular readers of the website will know that we invited the church, in the shape of the Diocese of Ely, to put their point of view to villagers via this website. We have received the following from Archdeacon Hugh McCurdy in response:

Nordelph Church site

"On returning from holiday I discovered that I had been contacted by a number of people from Nordelph.

As the comments were of a similar nature I thought I would write a general statement rather than reply individually to each person. By doing this I hope to clarify matters fully and avoid any further misunderstanding.

While as Archdeacon it is my duty by law to protect the assets of the Church of England, I do, of course, want to consult fully and reflect the wishes of the local community as far as I possibly can.

Therefore, when [two named residents of Nordelph] asked whether I would be prepared to hold a public meeting to discuss the future for the church at Nordelph I readily agreed. I asked the land agent who has responsibility for Nordelph to stop all work until after my meeting(s) with the community.

As you will recall, the decision to close Nordelph church had already been taken by the time I became Archdeacon of Huntingdon and Wisbech in February 2005, and indeed the contractors who were demolishing the church had started work and subsequently reported finding evidence of bats.

The purpose of the open meeting on 30 th October 2006 was to meet the community and to hear their concerns. I also felt that once I had met with the community I could reflect on what was said, review the paperwork, and hold a further meeting.

At the second meeting on 19 th February 2007 I produced a report based upon my own reflection and the paperwork passed on to me by my predecessors.

This report contained a number of options which were then discussed at the 19 th February meeting, namely:-

• Church closure
• Can a new church be built?
• Can money from the sale of the site return to Nordelph?

I left that meeting with the clear impression that the best way forward for all concerned was to try and find a way of releasing money from the sale of the existing site so that the church could work in partnership with the parish council and improve the existing community facilities. The worshipping community would then continue to meet in the Village Hall.

The land agents were told the outcome of those meetings and instructed to re-commence the work of developing the church site.

At the end of July they submitted an application for planning permission. I do not have a copy of those drawings but have been told that they are dated before the public meeting. I do not know when the plans were drawn up but during the time of the public meetings and the report writing I came to the process with an open mind.

If the review and public meeting had taken me in a different direction to the final outcome I would have accordingly taken the case to the relevant diocesan committees and to our land agent. As the outcome of the second meeting was to seek to sell the site and invest some of the money raised by the sale of the property, I am assuming the land agents felt they had the go-ahead to start work again from where they left off. It would appear to me that they have submitted the drawings already prepared for planning permission.

As you may appreciate, under charity law the Church of England has to try and maximise its return on property it sells. As a result the land agents have submitted an application for five houses to be built on the Church Site. This is the next stage of consultation with the community and is part of the formal process of planning application.

I hope that this statement clarifies events as I have seen them since coming into office in February 2005. If you have any other queries about Nordelph please do not hesitate to contact me."

This statement arrived in September, but holiday absence meant that we couldn't update the website until October. We did however circulate the statement to some of those known to us as being most affected by the development, and received the following comment:

Sadly he has got his facts wrong again! No contractors ever started demolishing the church as
no Conservation Area consent was granted. An application to demolish was submitted and withdrawn. 
A contractor was appointed, but it was villagers who told them about the bats.

Throughout the months of this saga, we have urged caution and vigilance. We put to Archdeacon McCurdy the widely-held belief that the application was so obviously flawed that it was intended to fail, but he has not responded to this question. The fear is that the energies of the parishoners will have been spent in the Summer of 2007, so that when a more modest and realistic application is submitted (or an appeal is mounted), there will be no appetite among the villagers to resist for a second time.

We think that this is a serious possibility.

"

We cannot believe that this saga is complete. We expect a further, modified application some time in the future. When it comes, this page may help you to remind yourself of why you objected in 2007. Because despite the repeated offer of space to those in favour, not one single villager would speak up FOR the proposals.