Reordering

This judgment  relates to an appeal to the Court of Arches against the decision of the Deputy Chancellor of Chichester Diocese in Re St. Michael & All Angels Berwick [2021] ECC Chi 7. The seating in the church comprised pews and rush-seated chairs. The Deputy Chancellor had refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the pews and their replacement with stackable chairs made by Treske. The Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the conduct of the proceedings in the Consistory Court had been flawed, in that the Deputy Chancellor had erroneously assumed that the proposal was to remove all the seating in the church, including the rush-seated chairs, which was not the case.

This judgment relates to the reordering proposals considered in Re St. Michael & All Angels Berwick [2021] ECC Chi 7, when the Deputy Chancellor refused a faculty for the removal of the pews. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Arches on the grounds that the Deputy Chancellor based his decision on the erroneous assumption that the proposal was to remove all the seating in the church, including the rush-seated chairs, which was not the case. The Court of Arches granted the appeal (Re St. Michael & All Angels Berwick [2022] EACC 1) and directed that the case be remitted to the Consistory Court of Chichester to re-determine the petition. This judgement deals with matters preliminary to a re-hearing, including a challenge to the Consistory Court's power to direct a further oral hearing, questions as to costs, and directions for a new hearing.

The proposals were for a major re-ordering. The local authority objected to one aspect of the scheme, namely the removal and burial of the existing font. Historic England expressed a reservation about the proposals for the new font. Neither objector wished to be a party opponent. The Chancellor came to the conclusion that the better course in this particular case would be to place the old font into storage, and a faculty for the re-ordering scheme was granted on this basis. The judgment contains a review of recent decisions relating to the disposal of fonts.

The petition proposed several items of reordering. The only contentious item was the removal of the Victorian font, which had not been used for many years. A Georgian font in the church is normally used for baptisms, owing to lack of sufficient space for families around the Victorian font. Following the removal of the font it was proposed to use the space as an area for children. The Victorian font would be placed either outside the church, or alternatively an offer could be accepted for it to be stored in Maxstoke Castle. Historic England and the Victorian Society did not favour placing the font in the churchyard, but they did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but required evidence to be obtained as to whether the placing of the font in the churchyard would result in severe damage due to weathering, in which case the Chancellor would direct that the font be stored in Maxstoke Castle.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a single storey extension to the 14th century Grade II* church to house a lavatory, a vestry for the clergy and choir and storage for robes; the provision of a kitchenette at the base of the west tower; the repositioning of a screen; and the re-siting of a memorial stone.

Faculty granted for WC and buffet bar in the north-west corner of the church, even though the work would result in a restricted view of a stained glass window.

The Rector and churchwardens of this Grade II listed, New Town church (mostly rebuilt in 1866-7 by J. W. Hugall in the Early English style) applied for a faculty for the installation of wall-mounted television screens on either side of the chancel arch. The local planning authority, as statutory consultee, supported the proposal. The DAC did not recommend the proposal for approval by the court because (1) the proposals were felt to cause harm to the appearance of the listed church building, which was not outweighed by the purported benefits of the scheme; and (2) the applicants had not undertaken a professional options appraisal to properly investigate alternative options for audiovisual provision which might reduce the harm to the appearance of the building. Historic Buildings and Places (with the support of the Victorian Society) supported the DAC in pressing for a comprehensive exploration of all kinder options than the proposed solid television screens, and wished to press for retractable, rather than solid, screens.  No-one elected to become a party opponent,1189 so the faculty application was formally unopposed. The Chancellor held that any harm to the significance of the church was outweighed by the benefits of TV screens, which were more suitable in the context of this particular church than a retractable projector screen. He granted a faculty for a trial period of five years in the first instance.

The petition contained two proposals: (1) upgrading of the heating system, including demolishing a disused chimney stack; and (2) replacement of the pews with chairs. The rear portion of pews had been replaced with chairs in 2007. It was proposed that the heavier existing chairs would be brought to the front of the nave and any new stackable seating (the type proposed being the 'Alpha' chair) would be deployed behind. The Chancellor determined that the pews were not of major historic significance and that the needs of the worshipping congregation would be better served by modern, flexible seating, that would also allow wider use of the building by other groups and organisations. He therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed extensive reordering works, both inside and outside the church, in order to adapt the church for use as a multi-purpose building with a dedicated worship space, an outdoor activity and play area and a Youth Hub extension. The Victorian Society, whilst not wishing to be a party to the proceedings, objected to the length of the proposed extension and its wood cladding. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the missional advantages of the proposed works outweighed the harm alleged.

The petition proposed an extensive re-ordering of the church, including an extension to the north side of the church, to house WCs and a room for boilers; glazed doors for the porch; a new floor with underfloor heating; replacement of pews with chairs; re-siting of the rood screen and font; replacing the organ; new lighting; and creating a new kitchen with meeting room over it. The acting Deputy Chancellor approved the proposals, except for outer glazed doors to the porch (whilst allowing inner glazed doors), the creation of a meeting room above the new kitchen, and the introduction of steel framed chairs with wooden seats and backs, but indicating that he would approve all-wood stacking chairs.