On one hand, he probably does have a point if he's assigned to live there.

On the other hand, it's the Church of England who stuck him there, not the choralists. You'd think that it'd be appropriate to complain at them, not at some random people singing.

Given the speed of modern transportation, even if historically it was the norm to stick a bishop at the cathedral itself, maybe it'd be a good idea to move on-site bishops to off-site housing. I mean, it's awfully expensive to use the thing as housing rather than as a public building where an incompatibility exists. The great majority of people manage to commute from their houses to their office.

EDIT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Castle

Auckland Castle, also known as Auckland Palace, is a former bishop's palace located in the town of Bishop Auckland in County Durham, England. The castle was a residence of the bishops of Durham from approximately 1183 and was their primary residence between 1832 and 2012, when the castle and its contents were sold to the Auckland Castle Trust (now the Auckland Project).[1] It is now a tourist attraction, but still houses the bishop's offices.

It sounds like separating the bishop's place of residence and office worked out there.