Reordering

The petition related to the south transept of the Grade I church and the installation of underfloor heating beneath a new stone floor; the provision of a discreet tea point; and the introduction of heritage boards. The historic memorial slabs laid into the floor would be left in situ, covered by the heating elements and the new floor. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings entered an objection and became a party opponent. The Chancellor dismissed the petition. He took the view that the proposals were unlikely to achieve what the parish seemed to want, namely, to heat the whole church which is ‘intolerably cold’ for several months of the year. The proposed underfloor heating in the south transept would only provide a partial solution, and one which would be largely compromised due to the inability to isolate the south transept as a sealed environment.

The proposal was to remove one pew and rearrange three pews at the western end of the church on the south side so as to form an enclosed space with pews on three sides, in order to provide more circulation space for people gathering for coffee after a service; a safe place for children during services; a space for notices and worship aids; and an area for small meetings. There were several letters of objection from people who were resident in the parish or on the electoral roll, but there were no formal parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the removal of the pews would not result in harm to the significance of the Grade II listed church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and that the Petitioners had shown a sufficiently good reason for the change.

The petitioners wished to replace all the nave pews with chairs, level the floor and install underfloor heating and carpet the nave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposals were to replace the pews with metal-framed, upholstered chairs; removal of the clergy stalls; and alterations to floor levels and the heating installation. The Victorian Society indicated that it would not oppose the removal of the pews if appropriate wooden, unupholstered chairs were to be provided by way of replacement. A private objector objected to the removal of the clergy stalls and the pews. The Deputy Commissary General dismissed the petition. He determined that the removal of all of the Victorian pews would adversely affect the character of the Victorian church. He also did not consider that the replacement steel-framed, upholstered chairs would be likely to be an appropriate replacement for the pews in this particular church, if the pews were to be removed.

The works proposed comprised a number of non-contentious repairs and a major reordering. The reordering included the creation of toilet facilities at the north-west porch and the creation of a two-storey 'pod' in the north transept, to accommodate two meeting rooms; an area for children and parents during services; a servery area for refreshments; a space for community use; a small enclosable room for counselling; and two offices for clergy use. Historic England and the Victorian Society had objections and reservations about these items, but did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant a faculty, stating that, "the need for these facilities, and the benefits respectively enuring to them, are sufficient to justify this intrusion on the character and significance of the building as a whole."

There were various re- ordering proposals for the unlisted church. The main objections were to the removal of ten pews and their replacement with folding chairs, and also to safety aspects of the proposed kitchen facilities. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out their case and directed the issue of a faculty.

This was an unopposed faculty petition for extensive internal reordering of the Grade II listed Victorian church, to create a flexible worship space and community hub. The proposals included removal of most nave pews, a new floor with underfloor heating, improved lighting and heating, relocation of the font, removal of later screens, and construction of a substantial west-end mezzanine accommodating a café, meeting rooms, office, toilets and storage, with glazed partitions separating social and worship spaces. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended approval. The Church Buildings Council and Historic England ultimately deferred to the DAC, although Historic England considered the proposals would cause a high level of harm to the interior. The Victorian Society objected in principle to the loss of pews, treatment of the floor and the design of the glazing, but did not become a party opponent. Applying the ‘Duffield’ framework, the Chancellor found that the proposals would cause harm to the significance of the church, but that the harm was outweighed by the substantial public and missional benefits, including improved worship, accessibility, community use and long-term sustainability. A faculty was granted, subject to conditions controlling materials, design details, retention of some pews, and protection of historic fabric.

Faculty granted for major re-ordering of a Grade 1 listed church. Principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012] (Court of Arches) considered.

The proposals included: the replacement of the church pews with chairs; alteration of the dais in the chancel; the baptistry; new heating, lighting and and audio-visual system; redecoration; the building of an extension for offices; and a garden area. English Heritage, the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council all had concerns Chancellor determined that the extension was acceptable, and that the pews were of little merit and could be replaced. As regards the font, the Chancellor was satisfied that the batistry was effectively redundant and that the case for moving the font was made. He therefore granted a faculty. The judgment contains an extensive review of the law and practice relating to fonts.

A judgment dealing with a matter outstanding from Re Holy Trinity Wandsworth [2012], namely, the repositioning of the font and the baptistry screen. Re Duffield discussed. Faculty granted.