Reordering

A faculty was granted for the replacement of the church light fittings installed in 1970 with a combination of 'wall washer' lights and fixed lights.

Faculty granted for the installation of a handrail to the wall of the spiral staircase leading to the ringing chamber of the church tower, the handrail to be made of polypropylene with an outer rope covering. A similar handrail had previously been fitted without authority and had been removed by direction of the Commissary General on health and safety grounds, on an application of the Archdeacon, due to poor fixings.

The Rector and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the installation of a WC in the north-west corner of the church, the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic organ, the re-siting of some pews, and the rearrangement of some windows. The only contentious item was the removal of the pipe organ to accommodate the WC facilities. The pipe organ had been installed in the 1950s and was of doubtful provenance. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the erection of an extension to the church to provide toilets and storage space. Access to the new facilities would be via the existing north door to the church and thus there would be no impact on the existing interior of the Grade I listed church.

The Vicar and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to permit the creation of a new servery, the removal of a timber narthex screen from the rear of the church and improvements to the toilet facilities. Objections were received from English Heritage and the Church Buildings Council in relation to the removal of the narthex screen. The guidelines contained in the Court of Arches judgment in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] were considered by the Deputy Chancellor. Faculty granted.

The Chancellor granted a Faculty to authorise the replacement of the existing wet gas-fired central heating system with a new gas-fired system with new pipework and radiators. There was one party opponent, a member of the PCC, who had argued, inter alia, that the proposed system, unlike an electrical system, would not meet carbon emission reduction targets. But the Diocesan Advisory Committee had considered alternative proposals and recommended the gas-fired wet system as the most appropriate.

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 proposed works included the installation of four toilets and a foldaway servery at the east end of the north aisle of the Grade I listed church. The works required the removal of 18 pews with associated pew platforms, together with the removal of central heating and pipework from the pews. The floor would be excavated and a new floor laid with underfloor heating installed. Two memorial features would need to be relocated. The Victorian Society, whilst accepting that some pews needed to be removed, regarded 18 as too many. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals, which would provide some much-needed basic facilities, and granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for repairs to tower louvres. One objector with reservations about the operation of the faculty system and as to the quality of works commissioned by the Parochial Church Council. Chancellor satisfied that the works were needed and that the proposed manner of performing them was appropriate

A faculty petition relating to a proposed reordering was dismissed on the basis that the petitioners had failed to comply with the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, in particular with regard to not giving proper notice of the proposals.