Reordering

The priest in charge and churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to permit reordering works, including the provision of kitchen servery and toilet facilities, a renewed heating system and the removal of some pews to create a more flexible space in the church, in order to advance the church's worship and mission. Notwithstanding concerns of the Victorian Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty, being satisfied that any harm to the significance of the church was likely to be outweighed by the public benefits to be generated as a result of the proposals.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for an extension to the church to provide a Church Room, Historic England and the Victorian Society having indicated that they had no objections to the proposal.

Reordering proposals included replacing the church pews with chairs, new audio-visual equipment, moving the font, an accessible WC, a kitchenette, storage and blue carpet runners. The petitioners' objective was to make the church more suitable for church and community events, to try and increase the church's income, in order to raise money for repairs to the roof. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals. There were no objections in response to public notices, but all the amenity societies consulted (though none became parties opponent) objected to metal framed upholstered chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the works and granted a faculty for all the works, subject to the replacement chairs being made of wood, in accordance with the guidelines of the Church Buildings Council.

The Rector and fellow petitioners applied for the Victorian church organ to be declared redundant and removed, whilst retaining the decorative front row of pipes between the chancel and the vestry behind. The description of works in the Statement of Needs decribed the works slightly differently by saying that the organ should be placed on the Redundant Organ List of the Institute of British Organ Builders ("IBO"). A report from the Church Buildings Council recommended that the organ was of sufficient quality to merit its relocation as a complete instrument and that it should be placed on the IBO list. The Deputy Chancellor declared that the organ was redundant and that the complete organ shall be put on the IBO list for a minimum of six months. He also directed that amended plans be prepared for the division of the chancel from the vestry using oak panelling.

The petition sought permission for the introduction into the church of 150 new upholstered chairs of mixed colours - 65 white, 65 light blue, 10 pink and 10 lavender. The chairs had in fact already been installed, the petitioners having felt under pressure to install them before a visit by the Bishop to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the consecration of the church, and replying on a recommendation of the Diocesan Advisory Committee. The Church Buildings Council did not favour upholstered chairs, nor multiple colours, if upholstery were allowed. The Chancellor determined that there was no convincing need for more than one colour, but bearing in mind that the majority of the chairs were in the two muted colours of white and light blue, and had been purchased at considerable expense, he granted a faculty for the white and blue chairs to remain, but directed that the brighter-coloured chairs (10 pink and 10 lavender) should be removed from the church.

The petition proposed: 'Conversion of the altar table in the Lady Chapel to serve also as a chest of drawers suitable for storage of vestments.  Four oak faced panels applied from behind the existing table frames and stretchers will cover the front and ends of the table to ensure that the drawers will not be visible on the infrequent occasions when the altar is stripped'. The Chancellor determined that the conversion of the altar into a chest of drawers would be in breach of Canon F2, which requires that 'The table, as becomes the table of the Lord, shall be kept in a sufficient and seemly manner ...' He therefore refused to grant a faculty.

Faculty granted for the sale to the National Maritime Museum of two flags taken from the Battle of Trafalgar, one a Union Flag from HMS Minotaur, the other an Austrian ensign believed to have been taken from the Spanish ship Neptuno.

The petitioners wished to erect an octagonal extension with a link to the existing north door of the church to provide facilities for a clergy vestry, a meeting room with mezzanine, 2 WCs (including one for disabled), a kitchenette, choir robe store and general storage. This would involve building over graves and the moving of four upright stones and four kerb sets. Objections were received from six people whose family graves would be affected by the proposals. Faculty granted. Chancellor: "... in my judgment the petitioners have demonstrated a clear need for the proposed extension and I am satisfied from all the information available that the nature, design and location of the building are all entirely appropriate and fulfil the intended purpose. It is a matter of regret that established grave sites and markers will be affected by the erection of the new building, but I have reached the conclusion that the proposed extension is necessary if the mission and functioning of the church is to be maintained and developed and that the benefits for the church and for all who use it outweigh the adverse impact on the grave sites."

The petitioners proposed the creation of a social space, including a kitchen hub, at the west end of the south aisle of the church. Which is the most modern part of the Grade I Norman church. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not impact the historical and architectural significance of the church building.

Various items of reordering of the church were proposed. Several concerns and objections had been expressed by the statutory consultees, and revisions to the plans had been made. The Chancellor granted a faculty based on the revised proposals. The judgment contains some advice to petitioners in general concerning adequate consultation with the statutory consultees and the preparation of clear plans and specifications, particularly where plans and specifications have been amended.