Judgment Search


Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 20 January 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2021 judgments on this web site.



The proposals included the building of an extension adjoining the north-west corner of the church; the reordering of the west end of the nave (including the erection of a meeting room; the moving of the font to the middle of the south aisle; and the removal of pews from the south aisle, in order to create a flexible space. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Faculty refused for a two-storey church extension on the grounds of size and appearance.

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* listed church, the details of which are too numerous to include in this brief note, but included the replacement of the vestry with a four storey extension to the church, to provide meeting rooms and offices; the removal of the pews and replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; the carpeting of the whole floor; and the creation of a kitchen. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items. One of the items he declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.

The proposals were for extensive reordering of the Grade II church and the building of an extension in the churchyard to accommodate toilets, a kitchen, a store room, a meeting room and refurbished choir vestry and vicar's vestry and toilet. The extension would be built over one known grave of a married couple, who died in 1975 and 1980 respectively. The Chancellor was satisfied that, because the church extension would be built on piles, the grave would not be disturbed. He was also satisfied that the petitiners had discharged the burden of proving that (quoting Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]) "the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before".

The petition proposed the construction of extensions to the south side of the Grade I church to house a new toilet block, a kitchen and a cafe with a grill-pattern design on the western elevation, opening on to the adjoining Trinity Square. The petition was unopposed. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) acted as the lead commentator for the amenity societies. They acceded to the principle of the extensions and concentrated their response on some technical and practical matters about which they offered observations and advice. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The rector and churchwardens  sought a faculty for the erection of a church centre by way of a substantial extension to the existing Grade I listed building. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposals were to extend the church tower to the south, to the depth of the existing exterior buttresses, to allow for the internal fitting of a WC and a tea point. An access for the disabled would also be created. There were eight objectors, none becoming parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals, and he granted a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) proposed adding a new porch with glazed doors to provide easier access, a more welcoming entrance, and to minimise draughts. The PCC amended its original design after comments from the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the unlisted church.

The proposal was to add a single-storey extension at the north-west corner of the Grade I listed church, to provide a lobby, kitchen, servery, a Garden Room, a storeroom and toilets. Fourteen members of the congregation submitted letters of objection in response to the public notices. The main ground for objection was the potential impact of the extension on the Memorial Garden which it would overlook, that it would be a cause of upset to the family members of those whose ashes are interred there and prevent its use for quiet reflection and remembrance. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposed works and granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought an amendment to the judgment in Re St. George Newcastle [2020] ECC New 2, which related to an extension to the north-east corner of the church and works in the churchyard. One of the conditions contained in that judgment was that no work should commence until all necessary funding was in place.  Restrictions imposed since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic in 2020 had restricted the ability of the petitioners to engage in fundraising activities. They therefore requested that the condition concerning funding should be relaxed. The Chancellor determined to allow the petitioners to proceed with the construction of a new boundary wall, and he extended the period for completion of the work for three years, but he declined a request to permit foundations for the extension to be laid and, being concerned that the church had only very limited funds in hand, he was not prepared to otherwise waive the main condition that no works should commence until all necessary funds were available.