Extensions

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.

The proposal was to erect a temporary classroom building within the churchyard (which was closed for burials), pending the completion of an extension to the Church of England school. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions which included the removal of the temporary building within two years. The Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 prohibits the erection of a building on a closed churchyard, unless for the purpose of enlarging a church, chapel, meeting house or other place or worship. In the present case, the temporary building would be linked to the church and would be available for use by the church on Sundays.

The proposals included an extension to the south tower of the church, to include toilets, a plant room and storage; reordering, including glazed porch doors, removal of a kitchenette and a redundant organ, new heating, the carpeting of the nave and replacement of the pews with chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Whilst he would normally be disinclined to approve carpet, in the present case it would cover the existing mixed floor finishes and provide 'a uniform homogenous flooring where currently it is patchy'.

The petition proposed a ramped access at the entrance to the church, a kitchenette at the west end of the church and the erection of a single storey extension to house a WC. Four individuals presented written objections, but the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic Buildings and Places and the Church Buildings Council approved of the proposals. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had presented a sufficiently good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petition related to the construction of a new two-storey extension on the north side of the church building and a car park to the west. The amenity societies approved the proposal, but two parishioners became parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was no reason why he should not follow the decision of the local planning authority to grant a planning consent, and he therefore granted a faculty for the works.

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extension to be added to the north side of the church and for internal re-ordering, including replacement of the pews with partially upholstered chairs, some new furniture, disposal of the pulpit and lectern, the relocation of a chest tomb, and the introduction of a nave plinth. The Victorian Society argued that the loss of all the pews would rob the church of its character, and the removal of the pulpit could not be justified. Also, it did not consider upholstered seating appropriate. A number of parishioners also raised objections. Taking the proposals as a whole, the Chancellor was satisfied that they would provide a better environment for the varied worshipping needs of the church, community events and provision for children's activities. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals were to alter the floor levels inside and outside the south porch and adjust the doors, to improve access for those with disabilities; to create a new doorway in the north wall, as a fire escape, and to remove and dispose of the pipe organ from the place where the new fire door would be inserted, with the intention of later installing an electronic organ. There were six letters of objection, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend of the disposal of the organ. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the works to the porch and the new fire exit door, but he was not satisfied that it was appropriate to authorise the removal of the pipe organ at this stage, as possible relocation of the organ within the church had not been fully explored, nor the alternative of replacing the organ with a smaller pipe organ, and the petition did not request authority for the installation of a particular electronic organ.

The petitioners proposed the creation of an extension and new entrance linked to the west door of the church, including kitchen and WC facilities, and also pew removal and extensive reordering of the main part of the church building. The proposals were opposed by a number of amenity societies and the Local Planning Authority, though only the Victorian Society became a party opponent. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Whilst he saw a clear justification for some parts of the proposals, he did not consider that, overall, the justification outweighed the potential harm to the Grade II* church.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the extension of the church (which was built in 1966 and is unlisted) and internal reordering, in order to provide more worship space and space for meetings; to provide a café/drop-in style meeting place; and to alter the appearance of the exterior to create a more attractive and welcoming entrance.