Reordering

The proposal was to install four 50 inch LCD monitors on pillars in the nave of the church, plus a 24 inch monitor in the choir vestry and a 32 inch monitor on a wheeled trolley, plus associated electronics and wiring. There were several objections from parishioners. Historic England and the Council for the Care of Churches (though it did not formally object) considered that the monitors would be intrusive and harm the character of this historically significant Grade I church, which has associations with St. Cuthbert. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty so far as the four largest screens were concerned.

A number of reordering proposals included replacing 18 oak nave pews with Howe 40/4 chairs and the re-siting of the Victorian font. Neither Historic England nor the Victorian Society objected to the proposals. Two parishioners submitted letters of objection, but did not wish to be parties to the proceedings. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being "satisfied that the benefits which will flow from the removal of these pews are significant in that the removal of the pews will allow the space of the nave to be better appreciated and will allow the use of such space for a variety of activities. Even bearing in mind that this is a listed building, I am satisfied that there is a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews which outweighs such small degree of harm."

The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the installation of servery units in an 'L' shape in the south-west corner of the church. Historic England objected to the 'L' shape and felt that the two arms of the 'L' should be separated, leaving space in the corner. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the works as proposed: "I judge that if the units were moved apart leaving a gap in the corner the separation will lead to a spread of ‘kitchen activity’ over a wider area and leave a gap in the corner which will inevitably become filled with unattractive items."

Extensive reordering was proposed, mainly with a view to providing more flexible worship and community use of the church. The main items of concern were: the removal of the chancel stalls to provide additional space for contemporary musical accompaniment for services and for visiting choirs and musicians; the replacement of the nave pews with chairs and the carpeting of the nave. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a case for the works, with the exception of the carpeting, and he granted a faculty accordingly.

The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended that the restoration of two windows at the east end of the church should be carried out by a stained glass contractor accredited by ICON (Institute of Conservation). The Parochial Church Council wished to engage a contractor who had previously carried out work at the church but was not so accredited. The Deputy Chancellor: " ... it would be unjudicial of me blindly to apply a blanket requirement for the ICON accreditation of contractors ... [the chosen contractor] clearly has a significant number of years’ experience working on similar projects to the acclaim of well-respected professionals. He has considered and addressed concerns raised by the CBC and is clearly sympathetic to conservation concerns and the need to preserve originality where possible." Faculty granted.

A new lighting scheme had been prepared for the Grade I Georgian church. Historic England and the Local Planning Authority were concerned about the proposal to recess some spotlights into the ceiling. The petitioners were asked to consider alternative arrangements, and the favoured one involved four groups of five spotlights recessed into 'rafts' or slim panels suspended on wires close to the ceiling. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for reordering, including underfloor heating, replacement of pews with chairs, enclosure of Lady Chapel and vestry, kitchenette, toilet, glass doors and lighting and audio-visual system.

A major reordering of the Grade I church was proposed. Much of the work related to adjusting floor levels, improving access and installing underfloor heating. Notwithstanding concerns expressed by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Church Buildings Council and Historic England, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the public benefit of greater accessibility would assist the church as a local centre of worship and mission.

The petitioners wished to introduce two pods with curved wooden screens connected by a curved step to form a continuous arc across the west end of the church which would accommodate toilet and kitchen facilities. The statutory consultees did not consider it appropriate for the proposed new structures to be curved. The Victorian Society became a party opponent. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, for two reasons: (1) he was of the opinion that 'a curved design would be less visually intrusive, and would cause less harm to the significance of this church building, than a rectilinear design'; and (2) whilst both sides could not agree on a matter of aesthetics, and particularly where the Diocesan Advisory Committee has not objected to the proposals, 'I consider that considerable, if not decisive weight, should be accorded to the views of the PCC, as the democratically elected body entrusted with the task of making decisions for the parish.'

The following works of reordering were proposed: disposal of unwanted furniture; installation of an aumbry, with a lamp; and installation of a nave altar. There was one objector (who did not become a party opponent), whose main objection was to the introduction of the aumbry. The Chancellor determined that the objector's arguments on procedural or doctrinal grounds were wrong and he therefore granted a faculty.