Reordering

The Chancellor granted an interim faculty for the removal of furnishings for cleaning following damage to the church by fire. He also authorised the removal of the pews into storage, the removal of a dais, and cleaning and redecoration.

The vicar and churchwardens wished to replace the church pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the replacement of the pews with chairs was appropriate in the church and granted a faculty.

Reordering proposals included: a glazed entrance lobby; a welcome area; a room for a crèche during services; a meeting room; a kitchen; and toilets. The works involved moving the rood screen and the font. The main area of contention was the moving of the rood screen, which was a war memorial. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposals included the removal of two pews from the west end of the Grade II church and four from the north aisle, and the reduction in width of a further pew. The reasons for the proposals were to create: (a) a more useable space for a growing number of young families; (b) an area where some of the congregation can sit and enjoy refreshments after a service; (c) an area close to the main entrance which can accommodate noticeboards on which to communicate information; and (d) an area where a wheelchair can be positioned which is not at the rear of the church. Faculty granted.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to remove the existing damaged stone font from the front of the church and replace it with a new portable font incorporating the stainless steel bowl and cover from the old font. The reasons for the proposal were, firstly, to be able to place the font in a better position than the old font for baptism services, where there would be better sight-lines, and secondly to be able to move the font out of the way when the space at the front of the church was required for large services, concerts and other events. A small number of parishioners objected to the proposals, but did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the old font, on condition that the new font should stand in the same position as the old font, except when it needed to be moved for special services and events.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the disposal of the existing pipe organ and its replacement with an electronic organ. Although there were some written objections, the Chancellor took into account (inter alia): reports of the Diocesan Organs Advisor and an independent advisor that the pipe organ was of no great merit; the DAC recommending the proposal; the petitioners and PCC supporting the proposals; and the fact that the church is unlisted.

The proposals were for a major reordering. The controversial items were: replacement of the pews and pew platforms with chairs; creation of a flexible space within the nave to allow the building to be used as a
place of worship and church hall; and replacement of the existing organ with an electronic organ. The main intention of the proposals was to allow more flexible use of the church for community use. The Chancellor concluded that the petitioners had proved a necessity for the re-ordering, and he therefore granted a faculty.

The Chancellor had to consider the question as to whether, in the absence of a bishop during a vacancy in see, he could authorise the installation of an aumbry in the church. After considering the law and current practice, he determined that he could. Accordingly, a faculty was granted.

The proposals were to install a drop-down screen behind the chancel arch, and also install a digital projector in a Grade I listed church. There were four objectors, but none wished to be a party to the proceedings. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.

The petition contained proposals for extensive reordering of the 13th century Grade I listed church. The Parochial Church Council wished to expand the use of the church by providing, inter alia, kitchen and toilet facilities, meeting rooms, a gallery, new seating (for more flexible worship and meetings) and new heating, thus providing a more useful community resource. There were ten parties opponent, as well as opposition from the amenity societies. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the proposed works.