Reordering

The churchwardens sought a  faculty  for  the  relocation  of  the  font  from  its  existing position at the west end of the church to a new position at the east end of the south aisle adjacent to the Lady Chapel.  The rationale for the move was that the existing position of the font meant that the minister had to stand in a cramped and restricted space; the congregation had to turn in their pews to view a baptism; and the proposed new position would allow more space around the font. A former churchwarden objected to the proposal on the grounds that a font should be at the west end of the church, near the entrance, and the position next to the Lady Chapel would cause congestion. The Church Buildings Council also argued that Canon F1 required the font to be near the entrance at the west end of the church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposal and she granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for installation of a mezzanine floor in the north aisle of the church.

There were proposals to reorder the vestry and serving area at the west end of the south aisle of the church (which works were approved by faculty in 2006), to include a lavatory. There was one objector. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the reordering, and that the proposals would not adversely harm the interior of the church. He accordingly granted a faculty. The Chancellor ordered the objector to pay the costs of the hearing.

The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering spread over ten years. The proposed works included (inter alia): a new lavatory in the current vestry; a new vestry at the west end of the south aisle; the removal of the pews from the north and south aisles to allow for better circulation; a new kitchenette and hospitality area in the north chapel; the main entrance to the church to be through the north porch as it once was, with work being carried out within the porch to allow for disabled access. The amenity societies consulted had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioners proposed several items of reordering. One of the items was a proposal to move the font from near the south door to the eastern end of the north aisle. The reason given for moving the font was that its current position was not convenient for social or recreational occasions in church. The Chancellor reminded the petitioners of Canon F1, which requires the font to be sited near the main entrance to the church. As he decided that he could find no exceptional liturgical or other reason for moving the font, he declined to grant a faculty and said that the whole project should be looked at again and a new petition presented so that the proposals could be reconsidered as a whole.

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.