Reordering

The proposal was to remove the worn Victorian tiles at the west end of the nave, apart from those around the font, and to replace them with Cadeby limestone paving to match the paving laid to replace the Victorian tiles in the remainder of the nave 20 years previously, when the Parochial Church Council was unable to replace all the tiles in the nave. Heritage England and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be serious, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

Extensive works to the inside and the outside of the church were proposed. The only item in contention was the proposed erection of a new thatched pavilion building in the south-west corner of the churchyard. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected that thatch would be an incongruous material to use in an urban environment; it would be a fire risk; and thatching material might be difficult to source now or for replacement in the future. Given that the Planning Authority was satisfied that the single-storey new building would not have any deleterious effect on the churchyard and the church, the Chancellor saw no reason for refusing to grant a faculty.

The main proposals for the Grade II Victorian church were for new glazed porch doors, a new inner glazed door (whilst retaining the historic timber doors), and improved access arrangements. The Victorian Society objected informally to the proposals relating to the doors, on the grounds that glazed doors would introduce an inappropriate element to a Victorian church and constitute harm to the significance of the listed building. Per contra, the petitioners argued that the glazed doors would provide openness and welcome. Moreover, similar glazed doors had been installed in the nearby Grade I church of Holy Trinity Kendal. The Chancellor considered that the justification for the works outweighed the low degree of potential harm to the church. He therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals included an extension to provide an accessible WC and external door lobby and adaptations to the existing meeting area (formerly a vestry) to include a kitchen, separated off by glazed screens from the rest of the church.  A water supply and sewerage system were required. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposals were desirable and appropriate for the church and granted a faculty.

Proposals for re-ordering of the unlisted Victorian church comprised three items, only one of which was contentious, namely, removal of the existing altar dais and raised flooring in the sanctuary, mounting the altar on castors, and laying a new level floor with a parquet surface throughout the chancel. The intention was to create a more flexible area in the chancel for worship and for musical performances. Faculty granted.

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.