Reordering

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.

In 2017 and 2018, two items of work had been carried out at the unlisted late Victorian church without the authority of a faculty, namely, the removal of a porch and the replacement of the wooden entrance doors with a pair of glass panelled doors. The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty. Though disappointed at the parish’s initial failure to co-operate with his enquiries as to how and why the works had been carried out without faculty, which was rectified by the appointment of new churchwardens, the Chancellor accepted the apologies of the new petitioners and granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to remove a stone font introduced in the early part of the 20th century to the Grade II* listed church, which dates from around 1300. The proposal was to replace the stone font with a new font of modern design. The new font was to be moveable, so as to permit the freeing up of space at the west end of the church, when required for activities other than baptism. Despite reservations as to the design, and the fact that the new font had been made and used before the matter got to a hearing, the Chancellor granted the 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 Chancellor granted a faculty for reordering in the Grade I listed church, in order to provide toilet and kitchen facilities, screening off of the north transept and the provision of storage. The Chancellor was satisfied that the degree of harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be substantial and the public benefit of the works would outweigh any harm. Also, the changes would be entirely reversible, with negligible impact on the fabric.

The petition requested a confirmatory Faculty to regularize the unlawful installation of 6 combination light and heating chandeliers to replace the previous chandeliers and the current oil-fired heating system. The new chandeliers had been installed after the proposals had been recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, but before the petition had been referred to the Chancellor. There was one party opponent. The Chancellor considered that the new chandeliers were not quite as attractive as the ones they replaced, but were efficient and cheap to run. He was, however, concerned that the new wiring was “deplorable”. He granted a faculty, subject to conditions that steps should be taken to mitigate the damage cause by the wiring; photographs of the original chandeliers should be archived, and the original chandeliers should then be sold.

Extensive reordering works were proposed for the Grade I church. There were several written objections, but none of the objectors wished to be a party opponent. There were no objections from the amenity societies consulted. The Chancellor, being satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works (" ... the proposed changes will result in greater liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, involvement of the congregation, opportunities for mission and use of the church generally"), granted a faculty.

Extensive reordering works were proposed for the Grade I church. There were several written objections, but none of the objectors wished to be a party opponent. There were no objections from the amenity societies consulted. The Chancellor, being satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works (" ... the proposed changes will result in greater liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, involvement of the congregation, opportunities for mission and use of the church generally"), granted a faculty.

The proposal was for two new glass porches, at the north and south entrances of the Grade I church. There was an issue about the north porch. Historic England felt that the new woodwork should reflect the woodwork in the rest of the church, whereas the petitioners favoured a design to match the woodwork of the adjacent shop and servery in the north-west corner of the church. The Chancellor considered that the wordwork of the new north porch should relate to the modern design of the adjacent servery, and he granted a faculty accordingly.

The Dean of Arches granted to the Victoria Society leave to appeal on restricted grounds in respect of a judgment by the Chancellor of the Diocese of Peterborough relating to reordering proposals for the church of St. Botolph Longthorpe.