Judgment Search

Reordering

Display:

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.

A proposed extensive reordering was proposed. The works included: removal of pews, new chairs, a "welcome counter", a WC, a prayer chapel, a glass screen, a kitchen, removal of a pipe organ, new heating, lighting, and a parking area. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was a need for the works and granted a faculty.

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, which would cost over £500,000. There were seven parties opponent. The proposed works included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; replacement of the Victorian tiles in the nave with sandstone flooring; the replacement of the existing vestry and boiler room with a new extension to house a parish room, toilet and kitchen; the provision of a servery; and other items to which there were no objections. Notwithstanding the objections, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the harm to the building would be modest, that the justification for the works was strong, and that the public benefit would outweigh any harm caused to the building.

The proposed works for the Grade II church included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; the creation of a kitchen and Community Cafe; the installation of a disabled toilet; the creation of storage facilities; and new porch doors. Upon consideration of the guidelines laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012], the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty: " ...this seems to me to be a clear case where significant public benefit (including benefit to the listed building considered as such) outweighs modest harm so that I give a positive answer to the fifth of the Duffield questions."

The Vicar and Churchwardens of the unlisted Victorian church petitioned to remove the existing stone font (installed in 1975), situated at the north-east end of the nave, near the pulpit, and to replace it with a new portable solid-oak font, retaining the original font's bowl and cover. There was one letter of objection. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that, when not in use, the font should be positioned at the west end of the church. The Chancellor also authorised the disposal of the stone font, provided that if it could not be used in another church or appropriate setting, it should be buried in the churchyard.