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: "to install an electronically operated retractable projector screen, to be installed behind the chancel arch; to install a projector which will be discreetly mounted in front of the screen on one of the roof beams; to install four monitors to be positioned so as to be clearly seen – two from the altar ...". English Heritage and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor considered the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, and determined to grant a Faculty: "I am persuaded both by their very limited visibility [the screens] and the reversibility of the project and the liturgical needs of the church that those needs significantly outweigh the modest harm which may be caused."

The Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty to authorise a substantial reordering of the church. This judgment deals with the first phase: replacement of pews with chairs, the levelling/replacement of the floor, the construction of a chancel dais, and the installation of two toilets, one of which will be accessible. Initial consultation with, and the views of, the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Victorian Society had been on the understanding that the proposed replacement chair would be an all wood 'Theo' chair, but when the petition came before the Chancellor the petitioners had chosen instead a metal-framed, upholstered 'SB2M' chair. The Chancellor approved in principle all the items, but was not prepared to approve the SB2M chair without further consultation taking place with the before-mentioned bodies and a further opportunity for the petitioners to consider an alternative chair or make a stronger case for the SB2M chair.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the removal and sale of the Vicar’s Stall, which had not been used since it was moved to its present position next to the north wall in 1991, following reconstruction work after a major fire. The church is unlisted and there were no objections, but the Victorian Society wrote to say that they did not support the proposal. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was not practical to use the stall where it was, and there was no other appropriate place to put it. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

There was a proposal to install a toilet and kitchen facilities at the western end of the church, with associated water supply and drainage. Some further pew removal was also proposed. Historic England did not support the kitchen proposals. The proposed insertion of an extractor fan into a glass panel of the door into the tower concerned the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Local Planning Authority. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new toilet and associated water and drainage (to be treated as Phase 1), and considered that the parish should reconsider the remaining items (Phase 2).

The Vicar and Churchwardens of the unlisted church sought a faculty to remove the chancel and sanctuary furniture (with the exception of the Holy Table); the removal of a row of pews at the east end of the nave; the creation of a new raised floor (to be carpeted); the installation of underfloor heating; the installation of additional lighting in the chancel; and the replacement of the electronic organ console with a new one in a different position. The Twentieth Century Society objected to the removal of the choir stalls and the Communion rail. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to the Communion rail being retained, but moved to a position further east.

The peitition proposed the rebuilding and reordering of the church following damage by an arson attack. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of some elements of fabric, an extension on the north side of the church, and the proposed new design for the roof. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions.

The proposals were: (1)    Repositioning of the font and removal of its plinth; and (2)    removal of eight pews from the north aisle to create a usable community space. The plinth was not original to the font and was regarded as a trip hazard. The church was the only community facility in the village. The Chancellor regarded the pine pews as having no intrinsic significance in themselves and he granted a faculty for all the works.

The church's reredos comprises three painted panels. The central panel features ears of corn and a vine and grapes, and those to either side feature St Andrew and St Cecilia. The panel was originally placed under the east window in 1920, but during the intervening period had at various times been moved to other parts of the church. The petition proposed the conservation of the reredos and its reinstallation in its original position, but slightly higher on the east wall of the chancel, which would partly obscure the east window. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the conservation of the panels, but was not prepared to authorise the return of the reredos to the east wall until satisfied that there was a scheme for its location that worked in detail both when the altar table as up against the east wall and when it was brought forward.

Faculty granted for the installation of a projector and screen in a Grade I listed Georgian church, the screen to be housed in a box across the sanctuary arch.

The churchwardens had made arrangements with the church architect and a contractor to install kitchenette facilities in a passage bounded on one side by the main wall of the church and on the other side by the remaining wall of a neighbouring cottage, long since demolished. When the work was almost completed, it was drawn to the attention of the Chancellor, who directed that an application should be made for a confirmatory faculty. In granting a faculty, subject to conditions, the Chancellor made it clear that these new works did not come within the list of works which could be carried out without faculty and that what had already been done had been carried out unlawfully. He directed that the costs of the application should be shared between the churchwardens, the architect and the contractor.