Judgment Search



Faculty granted for extensive re-ordering including, the provision of toilet facilities, the removal of the choir stalls on both the north and south sides of the church, repositioning of the font, and the use of chairs in the new baptistry area, the removal of three rows of pews at the rear of the church, the installation of a balcony with stair access at the west end of the church, the provision of a separate meeting area under the balcony and a refreshment bar, a wooden and glass screen to divide the worship area from the meeting area, the replacement of the wooden main entrance door with glass doors.

Faculty granted for re-ordering, including new central heating system and replacement of pews with chairs.

The petitioners requested a Faculty to install a glazed door in the 19th century porch on the south side of the church, which is the main entrance to the Grade I church, parts if which date from the 13th century. The church was largely rebuilt in 1874. The petitioners stated that when the wooden church doors were open, cold air passed through the porch into the church and also leaves tended to accumulate in the porch. The petitioners therefore felt that the answer was to place a non-reflective glazed door at the outside of the porch. English Heritage opposed the proposal.The Chancellor was not satisfied that the proposals satisfied the criteria in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2012]. Faculty refused.

The proposal was to remove from the unlisted mission church, built in 1907, two World War I war memorials and a soldier's grave marker and place them on display with other WWI material in the adjacent community room, where they would be more visible and accessible to the community. Two objectors felt that placing the items in a community room was inappropriate, and would detract from the respect and reverence with which they should be treated.

The vicar and churchwardens wished to carry out certain items of refurbishment to the church, including "install etched safety glass panels between the main entrance lobby and the church". It was intended that these glass panels should replace the existing wooden panels, in the interests of safety and security and allowing more light into the lobby. Two parishioners objected to the glass panels on the grounds that anyone who felt ill and wanted to sit outside the body of the church for a while during a service would not be able to enjoy some privacy in the lobby if there were glass panels. The petitioners pointed out that there were other areas in the church where people who were feeling ill could enjoy some privacy. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made out a proper case for the work and granted a faculty.

The area around the font of the Grade I church consisted of sandstone flags, which over time had become very worn and had been patched with slate and concrete. The proposal was to relay the area with stone to match the existing stone around it, and to re-locate the slate to the south side to complete the paving of the south aisle in slate, all but the west end of that aisle already being paved in slate. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected to the proposal, preferring to see further patch repairs. Having inspected the floor, the Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed work was necessary in the interests of safety from trip-hazards, and being satisfied also that the work would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought a faculty for a reordering of the interior of the Grade II listed church. The works included: the removal of some pews; a carpeted nave dais; removal of the riddel posts; upholstered chairs;and other items. The Chancellor, having considered the approach recommended in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, decided that " ... any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest is outweighed by the proven needs of the parish ... the determinative feature seems to be that all these proposals are wholly reversible."

The proposed works comprised the construction of an extension at the west end of the south elevation of the church, to provide a lobby, toilets and kitchen, and the relocation of the font. The Chancellor determined that the public benefit of the changes to the Grade II listed church building would outweigh such harm to its significance as might result from the works.

The proposed works included: glazed frameless inner doors; a new limestone floor with under-floor heating; the removal of a plywood ceiling, the oak reredos on the east wall, 1950s pews, a replacement organ, lighting and cables; the provision of new lighting and projection facilities; the introduction of chairs; and the construction of a freestanding ‘extension’ building in the churchyard. Five objectors did not wish to be parties opponent. The Deputy Commissary General deemed the changes wholly appropriate and granted a faculty.

A faculty was granted for the following works at the Grade I listed church: the creation of an extension to the north side of the church to provide for an accessible lavatory, a kitchen area and a vestry/office; the re-creation of the Knight's chapel (of late used as a vestry); and the creation of an historic display area within the south aisle.