Reordering

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, in order to promote community development and flexibility of worship. The Victorian Society was concerned about the replacement of all the nave pews with new moveable pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items in the petition, apart from the total replacement of all the nave pews. He was content (as was the Victorian Society) for replacement of pews at the front of the nave near the new proposed altar platform, but he invited the parish to consider whether some of the Victorian pews, particularly those with umbrella stands, could be retained towards the back of the nave, so that visitors to the church could be aware of what was in place before the re-ordering.

Approval was sought for: (1) the creation of an extension to the north side of the church, accommodating a vestry and two WCs; and (2) extensive works of repair, renovation and refurbishment to the main church building, together with associated external works. The church was built between 1956 and 1958 and was unlisted. Following the condemnation and demolition of the former church hall in 2017, the church had no accessible toilets or facilities for catering for small group activities, such as work with children. Notwithstanding the reservations of the Twentieth Century Society concerning the design of the extension, the Chancellor granted a faculty.

A faculty had been granted for some reordering work at the church. Subsequently, the team vicar had received a letter of objection within the period for objections, but it was not sent to the registry before the expiry of time for objections and issue of the faculty. To ensure justice to all concerned, the Chancellor therefore set aside his decision pending consideration of the objection. Having considered the letter of objection, the Chancellor determined that the likely harm to the church was minimal and that any such harm would be outweighed by the benefit to the community. He therefore directed the issue of a faculty.

Faculty granted for the construction of an extension to the north side of the church. This judgment follows on from the judgment in Re St. Mary Kenardington [2013] Morag Ellis Comm. Gen. (Canterbury).

The Faculty Petition sought authority to construct a toilet block in the churchyard and an extension to the north side of the church. When the Commissary General visited the site, building work had already begun without Faculty. Faculty granted for the construction of the toilet block. Work on the extension to be stopped until further order. An archaeological report to be filed.

The petition related to various items of reordering. The contentious item was the proposal to replace most of the pews of the Grade II* Victorian church with chairs, in order to provide more comfortable and more flexible seating for church and community use. Historic England objected to the removal of the pews. Although the Chancellor found that removal of the pews would cause ‘moderate’ harm to the building, he granted a faculty, being satisfied that a substantial benefit would be gained from having a flexible worship space and the opportunity for community use of the church.

Several items of repair and reordering were proposed. Letters were received from two people objecting to: replacement of the chancel pews with chairs; removal of two pews from each side of the west end of the church, in order to provide more circulation space; and the introduction of notice boards and leaflet stands at the west end of the church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought to remove the font from the west end of the church to the chancel and to remove one pew from the west end of the church. The judgment contains a discussion of liturgical tradition and the provisions of Canon Law regarding the siting of a font. Faculty granted.

The petition proposed a reordering of the chancel, to include extending the chancel floor level a short distance into the nave and to provide new altar rails. The Victorian Society objected to the proposed removal of the pulpit and the removal of the iron railings and alabaster-faced walls which separated the chancel from the nave. The Chancellor concluded that the removal of the features concerned would cause moderate harm to the significance of the building as a place of historical interest, but that the harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of providing a more open, unimpeded and flexible space to meet the worship, mission and community needs of the parish.

The petition proposed the following items of reordering in the church: removal of pews from the aisles and replacement of the pew platforms with flagstones; new heating system; renewal of the electrics; installation of new WCs; a new clergy vestry; a space for meetings and workshops; and an area for refreshments (later to become a full kitchen). The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society had reservations about the proposals, the latter being particularly concerned about the removal of Victorian tiles from the aisles. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that there was a clear justification for the proposals and that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be substantial.