Reordering

The church is situated in an area which floods regularly. In 2014, severe flooding had damaged the wood block flooring of the Grade I listed church. It was proposed to replace the wood block flooring with stone laid over insulation and with underfloor heating. The architects on the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not favour the type of insulation ("Celotex") proposed by the church architect. After considering the advice of the architects and advice from a Chartered Civil Engineer, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the works as proposed by the church architect.

The petitioners wished to install two closed circuit television ("CCTV") cameras in the church and a recorder in the vestry, to enable the church to be left open during the day. The Commissary General granted a faculty (subject to conditions) and set out in her judgment the principles and guidelines to be followed in respect of future applications for the installation of CCTV equipment.

The petition proposed the removal and disposal of three pews from the back of the church, replacing them with moveable tables and chairs; removal and disposal of the wooden pulpit; and moving the stone font from the back to the front of the church. The church building dates from 1907. It was formerly a church hall. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty. 

The Chancellor granted a faculty for (a) the removal of six rows of pews and (b) new flooring, as Phase 1 of proposals to create some consistency in floor levels and provide more circulation space at the west end of the church.

The proposal was for an extension to the church. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council had reservations about the use of space for the various facilities proposed for the extension. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed arrangement of the facilities in the extension offered an appropriate solution to meeting the needs of the parish.

The Grade I church stands close to the University of East Anglia. It has what the Chancellor described as a "depressing" interior and a "a tiny congregation that is unlikely to grow". The proposal was for a major reordering with a view to attracting usage of the church by University students. A large donation was available to meet the cost of the proposed works. Historic England had concerns about (inter alia) the proposals for the flooring and the pews. The Victorian Society objected, principally, to the levelling of the floors and the replacement of the pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty.

The proposal was to create a prayer chapel in the north transept of the church by moving to the centre a stored medieval stone mensa resting on a stone base. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not affect the church as a building of special historical or architectural significance. 

The petitioners wished to replace 75 wooden upholstered chairs with 75 lightweight metal and upholstered Alpha SB2M chairs, which are more easily moveable and stackable. The Church Buildings Council objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He took the view that, as upholstered chairs had been used in the church for upwards of 12 years, their replacement with the proposed new upholstered chairs would meet a need and result in minimal change in the overall appearance of the church.

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, in order to promote community development and flexibility of worship. The Victorian Society was concerned about the replacement of all the nave pews with new moveable pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items in the petition, apart from the total replacement of all the nave pews. He was content (as was the Victorian Society) for replacement of pews at the front of the nave near the new proposed altar platform, but he invited the parish to consider whether some of the Victorian pews, particularly those with umbrella stands, could be retained towards the back of the nave, so that visitors to the church could be aware of what was in place before the re-ordering.

A faculty had been granted for some reordering work at the church. Subsequently, the team vicar had received a letter of objection within the period for objections, but it was not sent to the registry before the expiry of time for objections and issue of the faculty. To ensure justice to all concerned, the Chancellor therefore set aside his decision pending consideration of the objection. Having considered the letter of objection, the Chancellor determined that the likely harm to the church was minimal and that any such harm would be outweighed by the benefit to the community. He therefore directed the issue of a faculty.