Reordering

The Team Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for substantial internal reordering, to create a major transformation of the church's interior, in order to further its mission and community use. Almost half of the judgment deals with the proposal to remove the existing pews and replace them with wooden chairs with padded seats and backs. Other major items considered in detail are the removal of the pulpit, the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic organ, and the re-siting of the font. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for all the proposals and granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to reorder the interior of the church to provide toilets, a kitchen, storage and improved heating. The church was built in 1869 by the architect W. H. Crossland and is Grade II listed. The Parochial Church Council's objective was to ensure that the church stayed open for church and community use and thereby avoided closure. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Notwithstanding the general aspirations of the petitioners,  he considered that the works would result in harm to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and the petitioners had not produced sufficient substantive evidence of the prospective benefits of the works which might outweigh any harm that might be caused to the historic integrity of the church. 

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise the removal of all of the pews from the chancel and nave of the Grade II church and replace them with 120 wooden upholstered chairs. There were objections to removal of the pews and to replacement chairs being upholstered. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of all the pews and suggested that the existing carpet should be removed. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the removal of the pews from the nave and for replacement chairs with upholstered seats, but not for the removal of the pews from the chancel. The retention of the pews in the chancel would maintain a discrete formal area, which would not affect the main objective of allowing for much greater flexibility of worship and other events in the nave.

The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for the installation of a new audio-visual system in the church. Historic England suggested that a more adaptable and less permanent solution should be adopted, given that "the ever improving nature of audio-visual technology will also mean that these proposed screens will likely need to be replaced in a relatively short period of time". The Chancellor saw no reason to make the petitioners delay the installation of a new system pending new technology and he granted a faculty.

There were two proposals: (1) to replace the existing 20th century brick extension to the north of the church with a new church community hall and (2) various items of reordering inside the church. The Victorian Society  objected to a number of details of the both proposals.The Chancellor granted a faculty the extension and the internal reordering, with the exception of the removal of two pews and the removal and reuse of the stone from the pulpit, for which he did not consider that an adequate case had been made.

This judgment deals with two outstanding matters following the judgment in Re St. John the Evangelist Manthorpe [2019] ECC Lin 4, namely, dismantling of the pulpit and repositioning of the chancel pews. The reason for the repositioning of the chancel pews follows on from the altar rail being moved westwards to allow more ease in administering communion. The Chancellor approved the proposal. However, he did not give permission for the 're-imagining' of the pulpit into two separate tiems, but suggested that the petitioners should take advice about moving the pulpit within the church.

To improve the accessibility, openness, visibility and welcome to visitors to the church, the petitioners wished to create a glazed outer porch to the main entrance of the church; a ramp within the existing porch space; improved entrance lighting; and adjustments to the current doors. The church was built between 1955 and 1957 and is Grade II listed. The Twentieth Century Society had concerns about the structure of the outer porch. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty. 

The proposal was to replace an existing plain glass window with a stained glass design depicting St. John the Evangelist in the left hand light and St. George in the right hand light. The window would be a gift to the church from the Rt. Hon. Lord Waddington GCVO, and an inscription at the base of one of the lights would state that it was a  gift to the church from him. The Church Buildings Council raised various concerns, one of which was that there was a general principle that living donors should not be commemorated in stained glass or other church artworks. Whilst recognising such a generally accepted principle, the Deputy Chancellor stated that it was possible to allow exceptions. In the present case the donor was a 'son of the village', and had held office as Home Secretary and as Governor of Bermuda. A Faculty was granted.

The Vicar and Churchwarden petitioned for a faculty permitting the replacement of their existing upholstered timber framed chairs (installed under faculty as part of a significant reordering in 1985) with new  chrome-framed SB2M chairs, upholstered with a cleanable suede-like ‘Nappa’ fabric , which would be more stackable than the existing chairs. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal. Whilst being satisfied that a case had been made for replacing upholstered chairs with new upholstered chairs, the Chancellor considered that chrome-framed chairs would create too stark a contrast in the Grade II* church. She therefore declined to approve the proposed chrome-framed chairs, but approved the alternative wooden framed upholstered chairs which the petitioners had offered as a compromise choice.

The Dean of Arches gave leave to appeal on only two of five grounds set out in the application. He also gave directions as to costs. (The petition contained proposals for reordering works in the church. See Re St. John Waterloo [2017] ECC Swk 1)