Bath and Wells – Some Supplementary Suggestions

Question MarkDear members of General Synod,

If any of you were going to ask supplementary questions about the moving of the Bishop of Bath and Wells from the Palace, can I suggest the following?

  • Is it true that when Church Commissioners visited the Diocese of Bath and Wells they bought the new house for the Bishop without consulting anyone in the Diocese first?
  • Is it true that the house purchased was previously sold by the Diocese of Bath and Wells as unfit for purpose under Parsonage Standards?

Let the reader understand (with thanks to one of my many “friends” in the Anglican food chain).

3 Comments on “Bath and Wells – Some Supplementary Suggestions

  1. A further thought. Is it true that the purchase of new housing is being done with money restricted to the purpose of clergy housing, while money accruing from a property sale and or lease is unrestricted, thereby effecting a transfer from restricted to unrestricted funds?

    (In other businesses this is called money-laundering. Gloucester Diocese have form on that score)

  2. if I may answers to your questions:
    1. No
    2. I understand the House wasn’t in a great state when it was sold to a private buyer some years ago. The purchaser spent monies making considerable repairs and improvements to the house. The commissioners then purchased this improved property which will serve both as an investment and a temporary home for the new Bishop of bath and Wells.

    • Well Arun, your answer to #1 is very interesting. Will the Commissioners be happy to tell us who they spoke to in the Diocese about the specific purchase and at what point? Before or after they put in an offer on the house?

Leave a Reply to jamesmbmclaren Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.