Saving History vs Making the Future

I mentioned in a previous post that St Mary’s Reigate, the town’s Parish Church, is looking to reorder its buildings. Whilst the need to replace the Church Centre across Chart Lane from the Church is seemingly uncontroversial the plans for interior of the Church have received some strong objections.

Two key changes are proposed: the removal of the pews to be replaced with chairs and the repositioning of the rood screen that divides the nave from the chancel in the east wing.

The purposes of the changes, driven by the elected members of the Parochial Church Council, are threefold. One,to better facilitate the growing size of the congregation which has grown so much that Christmas services this year are being doubled. Two, remove what is essentially an unwanted historical method of dividing important members of the community and congregation from the common people (during services, for those sat in the chancel, there is a real sense of separation from the rest of the congregation). And three, provide a more flexible space for events other than Church services on a Sunday – I understand Leslie Olive of the Reigate Music Society is very supportive of having a space for musical performances especially as the 100 year old organ is also to be refurbished as part of the reordering project.

Whilst not everyone is in agreement with the removal of the pews, what has sparked some rigorous objection is the repositioning of the rood screen. Ironically, the objections have come from secular organisations such as The Victorian Society, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and English Heritage. Their argument is that the rood screen is of such historical significance that it must not be moved. The historical significance is that it is of medieval construction (possibly 15^th century) and, whilst there are other examples around the country, this is the only one in Surrey and any repositioning would inevitably damage it and be historically inappropriate.

The argument from the PCC is that theirs is a living faith that is growing in the town and the Church has always been altered, improved and added to to facilitate change. The building and its upkeep (a huge annual sum) are paid for by members of the Church and as such they should determine how the facilities are ordered to meet current needs.

The argument is perhaps a wider one than just this instance. Should organisations that provide no funding or practical input into the running of the building have any power to affect its future? We all have a responsibility for the upkeep of our property in a way that is appropriate to our environment but in this case the Church, as an ecclesiastical building is not subject to planning law.

My personal view is that the PCC are not proposing to materially change the structure of the Church but are looking for ways improve its functionality. The building (what most people including the organisations objecting see) remains the same whilst the fixtures and fittings are being updated. Isn’t this what we all do in our own homes? What do you think?

Morrisons Car Park Victim

Well I guess it had to happen. We have become victims of the Morrisons car park scam/outrage debacle. We received a “Parking Charge Notice” from a company called Parking Eye informing us that “Photographic evidence shows the vehicle entering the Morrisons Reigate car park at 18:24:33 and depart at 12:10:08 the next day”. Well, they were wrong. We did not, as their “photographic evidence” suggests leave our car overnight. We in fact left within the two hour limit. Their system/equipment failed.

Of course we will object and I will let you know what the outcome is. In the mean time let’s look at how Parking Eye, and by association, Morrisons communicate with their customers in regard to this alleged transgression.  In reality, what we received can only be called an attempt at intimidation. It has a black and which chequered border to imitate an official police document no doubt, boxes with various charges, a payment slip and large headlines all bout payment options.

We got angry but what if I was a vulnerable person living alone? Receiving this sort of thing through the post would be frightening and, in my view, wholly unjustified for a parking fine. And maybe I am naïve but whatever happened to our famed British politeness? I perhaps would have started the “letter” with something like “Unfortunately, our records indicate that whilst parking at Morrisons Reigate you exceeded the two hour parking limit and are liable to a fine, details of which etc etc. If you wish to discuss this matter with one of our advisors please call……….” Simple I would have thought. Polite, not threatening and a sense there is someone reasonable to talk to.

They obviously had my wife’s name and address because she received the letter but why couldn’t the letter start with Dear Mrs instead of:”On the specified date, you were the registered owner, conditions for parking, as wet down and clearly displayed in the car park are complied with. Therefore you are required to pay the following excess charge within 28 days from this notice.”

What really makes ones blood boil is not just the use of language like “What should I do if I cannot pay the debt in full” (my italics) but the fact that the only number is an 0845 number (which I assume is premium rate) call centre for payment of the fine, not someone from the Parking Eye that can help out if you have any questions. As I have said, such inflammatory language is threatening and reflects an arrogant assumption that they are right and you are a criminal.

Parking Eye proudly states that the BPA have given them approved operator status, whatever that means. If they are an official body surely their standards would make the type of communication we received unacceptable?

My wife asked the girl at the call centre if she could have the name of the MD to complain which was denied. They don’t give out names of people at Parking Eye. How ironic when they have our names and details of where we live. We did eventually get the name of the MD and will be writing to him. His name is Andrew McKerney by the way if any of you want to write to him as well.

And another thing (sounding more and more like Mr Angry from Tunbridge Wells), is a £70 fine really justified? Isn’t the basic fine for speeding £60? Admittedly if you pay within 14 days it costs £40 but isn’t this just scare tactics discouraging us from questioning the fine for fear of having to pay more? If you don’t pay with 28 days you pay an additional £20 for “admin”. For a parking fine!!

The whole thing smells of opportunism at the expense of customers. And I mean at the expense of customers because people will go elsewhere. Even before this incidence we had driven to Morrisons and unable to park left the car park only to realise that having been photographed entering and leaving the car park we couldn’t return within 3 hours. Of course we shopped elsewhere and have continued to do so. Do Morrisons actually want to lose customers?