Reordering

The Parochial Church Council proposed a reordering of the church interior, including: modifications to the west end of the church to provide improved access, WC facilities, baby changing, staircase to balcony, meeting room and kitchen; relocation and modification of the west end doors and Georgian balcony, screen and balustrade; provision of 70 chairs to be used on the reinforced balcony; the removal of all the nave pews and their replacement with 130 chairs. This judgment is limited to the replacement of the nave pews with chairs. The Church Buildings Council and English Heritage were parties opponent. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the replacement of the pews and granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the replacement of the pews was not to be carried out until the petitioners had obtained a faculty for the other  proposed items of reordering.

A substantial internal reordering was proposed for a Grade II* listed church, as well as extensive external works. There were objections from the Victorian Society and several individuals, none of whom sought to be parties opponent. The principal objection of all the objectors was to the removal of the pews (to be replaced with upholstered chairs). The pews were installed in 1952, to replace the former pews destroyed by bomb damage to the church during the Second World War. The Chancellor was "satisfied that the benefits that are potentially available significantly outweigh [the] detriment and that the interests of this church in terms of its remaining a living entity for generations to come requires change rather than no change." Faculty granted.

The proposed reordering included re-plastering and redecoration; reordering of the west end of the nave by the creation of an enclosed, separately heated, community area and associated kitchen facilities; re-location of the font; relocation of a memorial; removal of the rear row of nave pews; and the addition of glass doors at the main entrance of the Church. The most controversial element was the proposed new meeting room at the west end of the church. The Victorian Society maintained that it would not harmonise with the rest of the church building. However, the Deputy Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a clear and convincing justification for the proposed works. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The contentious items of a major proposed reordering were: remodelling of the porch; replacement of the pews with upholstered chairs; a dais and ramp; relocation of the font; and removal of the stalls in the chancel. In fact some of the pews had been sold and removed before the petition came before the Chancellor, who directed that steps be taken to recover the pew benches until he had made a decision. However, having considered the evidence at a hearing, the Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for the changes, and he granted a faculty, provided that the type of replacement chair and the disposal of the chancel stalls should be reserved matters, not to be proceeded with in advance of further advice from the DAC and approval of the court.

The petition comprised two proposals for the Grade II Victorian church: firstly, "a relatively modest re-ordering of the north aisle and related works" and, secondly, the formation of a car park. There was one objector, who chose not to become a party opponent. Applying the approach of the Court of Arches in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor was satisfied that the works, if implemented, would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

Proposals for reordering related principally to the south aisle of the church, which is wider than the nave. The church has a Grade I listing, and is described as "heavily pewed". The main proposal was to remove the pews from the south aisle and replace them with stackable, chrome-framed, upholstered chairs, in order to provide greater and more flexible use of the south aisle, the church not having a church hall. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits to the church of replacing the pews outweighed any harm caused by their, and therefore granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews. However, he did not grant permission for chrome-framed chairs, but approved stackable Howe 40/4 chairs in oak frames, which had been considered as an alternative, but were more expensive. Appended to the judgment are further directions regarding the approval of Theo oak stacking chairs made by Chorus.

The faculty petition proposed the disposal of a wooden lectern. The petitioning churchwarden stated that the lectern was not being used, was unlikely to be used again, and was merely taking up space. The lectern bore an inscription to say that it had been given by a significant benefactor of the church in memory of her brother, who was a priest, but who had spent no part of his ministry in the parish. He had died in 1925. The Church Buildings Council recommended that, ‘as a good furnishing that has a long association with the church, this should be retained. The Council recognised it was redundant in terms of use but deemed it to be a high quality item and of interest as a memorial.’ The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioners applied for a Faculty to permit the early nineteenth century reredos, which had been temporarily removed, to be permanently removed from its original position in front of the East window and relocated to hang above the doorway in the centre of the West wall. In addition permission was sought to replaster the East wall of the Chancel in such a way as to preserve the medieval wall painting that has been uncovered by the removal of the reredos. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and heritage bodies did not support the proposals. The parishioners did not wish the reredos to be returned to the east end of the chancel, as its removal had resulted in considerably more light in the chancel. A report by historic building consultants supported the proposal. The Chancellor determined in principle that the reredos should not be returned to the chancel, subject to a feasible proposal being put forward and approved for its mounting on the west wall.

There were extensive proposals for restoration of and improvements to the Grade I listed church. There were five objectors, but none were parties opponent. The church contains a scheme of paintings on plaster panels, lining the nave and chancel walls, executed in 1941-42 by Duncan Grant and Quentin and Vanessa Bell. One of the concerns was as to the conservation of the paintings. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied however that adequate expert advice was being sought about the conservation work. Another item of contention was the retention of the front pipework of the old organ, which was being replaced by a digital organ. The petitioners argued that this would provide a sense of continuity with the previous organ arrangements. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied with all the proposals and granted a faculty.

The Chancellor had issued a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of a determination by the Dean of Arches of an appeal against a decision of the Deputy Chancellor. An application was made for the stay to be lifted in respect of one item in the current petition, namely additional lavatory facilities. This item was not contentious, there was potential difficulty in rescheduling the builders, and there was a risk of losing Lottery funding. The Chancellor decided that the stay should be lifted and the matter determined via the Online Faculty System.