We are hoping to be told what future plans are for the village

IN recent editions of Loughborough Echo there has been a curious juxtaposition of articles. First, we saw a well-deserved tribute to the Rev David Bowler on his retirement as Vicar of Quorn, a post he has held for 33 years. He is respected throughout the village by the church congregation, villagers and staff and students of both church schools.

Members of the church were well aware that times have changed, and we would not have our own vicar again. We had anticipated that a benefice might be created, with a vicar shared between a number of local churches.

In May this year churches in the Diocese of Leicestershire were sent a request to consider and comment on three models for the future reorganisation of the church structure. We responded to this and are awaiting feedback from the Diocese.

So now David Bowler is in his last month in post. Our future is far from clear; I had assumed that a representative from the Diocese would visit St Bartholomew’s Church and explain their future plans for us, but nothing has happened. The vicar has produced a service plan to the end of 2021 and has the important church committees in place.

As a United Church we do have support from the Loughborough Methodist Circuit, but as a congregation we have had no direct contact from the Diocese. I am sure other Leicestershire parishes will be in a similar position. This treatment is incredibly disrespectful to the many church members who have not only supported their own churches but have made significant contributions to the running of the Diocese and cathedral.

We are well aware that Leicester Diocese, like many others, has major financial problems which are preventing the employment of new clergy. This brings me to the second Echo article, published last week, and headed “Cathedral seeking extra £2.4m for revamp costs.” Plans to “build new leisure centre to help handle the increasing numbers of visitors that have been coming after the interment of Richard III” are discussed. The project is supported by civic dignitaries excited about attracting more visitors to Leicester.

Presumably this is why senior clergy do not have the time, funds or inclination to support local parishes. I find these priorities very questionable.

Marianne Gilbert, Quorn