Reordering

The hearing in this case was supplemental to a faculty application determined by a hearing in January 2015 (see Re St. James the Apostle Islington [2015]), when the Chancellor granted a faculty for works to (inter alia) the chancel of the church. The present application also contained matters relating to the chancel. Two objectors in this case raised objections to the lighting only. The Chancellor ruled that the objections related only to procedural irregularities and not to the merits of the proposals. He therefore granted a faculty for all the additional works.

The Chancellor granted a faculty, firstly, to give retrospective approval to the internal redecoration of the church already carried out and, secondly, to permit the disposal of miscellaneous artefacts from the church, including a bier, a 'spare' reredos, a number of redundant pews and a side altar. The Chancellor dealt with the matter by written representations, rather than by a hearing, as he considered that none of the items could be described as a 'church treasure'.

A quinquennial report in 1986 recorded a serious state of deterioration of the stonework of the church. The church raised £30,000 and spent it on repairs. However, the tower was in a serious condition and an estimate of £140,000 was given for repairs to the tower alone. The Parochial Church Council of the small parish was unable to find the money for the urgent repairs and sought to sell two silver flagons, valued at £25,000, to help them to deal with the emergency. The Chancellor decided that, in order to meet the emergency, the sale of the flagons should be allowed, and he therefore granted a faculty for the sale of the silver.

The petitioners wished to remove all the pews from the Victorian Grade II church and replace them with Treske chairs. There were two local letters of objection, it being alleged that the removal of the dark pews would strip the church of its individuality and the contrast in its interior. After considering the questions raised in Re St. Alkmund Duffield (2013) Fam 146, the Chancellor concluded that, whilst the removal of the pews would cause moderate harm to the church, the resulting public benefits justified the grant of a faculty.

There was an unopposed petition for re-ordering, including removing an existing extension on the north side of the church and constructing a spacious hallway, welcome area, toilets and store connected to the church through a new doorway into the narthex. Applying the criteria laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor determined that any harm to the Grade II listed building would be slight, and accordingly granted a Faculty.

Several items of reordering were proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the front row of choir pews on each side of the chancel. The Ancient Monuments Society objected likewise and also to the moving of the chancel screen to the west end of the church. It also had reservations about the ramp leading up to the dais. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners' justification for the proposals was persuasive and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that the frontals of the choir stalls should be relocated after the front rows of stalls on either side had been removed.

The petition proposed the disposal of all the pews in the unlisted Church dedicated in 1911 and their replacement with two sets of upholstered chairs in two different colours, some orange and some blue. The chairs were being donated by a local Methodist church. The Victorian Society did not object to the removal of the pews, but objected to the proposed chairs, which "would cause undue harm to the building’s special interest, character and charm". Notwithstanding this view, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty.

Re St. John Hoveton [2024] ECC Nor 2

The petitioners wished to replace all the oak pews, which were installed in 1890, with stackable, upholstered chairs and also replace the under pew heaters with an infrared system. All the statutory consultees criticised the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the removal of all the pews from the Grade II* church and also that the proposed type of chair was unsuitable. He therefore refused to grant a faculty for those items. With regard to the proposed heaters, the Chancellor decided to adjourn the petition, in order to give the petitioners time to decide whether they wished to proceed with that part of their petition and, if so, to obtain an independent expert report as to whether the proposed heaters were likely to affect the fabric of the church.

This was an application for a faculty to install a stained glass window in the Grade II church in memory of the late husband of the church organist. The deceased had been a farmer, and the design (recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee) included "two doves and an owl, a small figure in silhouette, possibly sowing in a broadcast fashion, and a donkey and rabbit, with a tree in leaf and on the branches the words: ‘Lord make me an instrument of your peace, where there is hatred let me sow love’". The Church Buildings Council was of the opinion that this design would not sit well with the other stained glass windows, depicting single figures in a more traditional design. However, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty. There was a memorial inscription on the proposed window. The Chancellor did not consider that he had to treat an application for a memorial window in the same way as an application for a memorial in church (i.e., the deceased had made some outstanding contribution to the life of the church, the community or the nation).

The petition proposed various reordering works to the Grade II church, including work on galleries and staircases and the provision of a lift and meeting rooms; and the sale of a painting from around 1600. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for reordering works, and that the public benefit would outweigh such harm as would be occasioned to the building. He granted a faculty or the items of reordering, but reserved judgment on the sale of the painting pending further representations, including as to whether there should be an open court hearing.