Reordering

The petition contained proposals for extensive reordering of the 13th century Grade I listed church. The Parochial Church Council wished to expand the use of the church by providing, inter alia, kitchen and toilet facilities, meeting rooms, a gallery, new seating (for more flexible worship and meetings) and new heating, thus providing a more useful community resource. There were ten parties opponent, as well as opposition from the amenity societies. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the proposed works.

The incumbent, the associate vicar and the churchwarden applied for a faculty for the introduction of an audio-visual system into the Grade II* church. There was one letter of objection, from the assistant organist, who did not wish to be a party opponent. His concern was that the evangelical style of worship of the present vicar and associate priest would result in excessive use of the audio-visual equipment, which "does not fit with the very middle of the road Anglican choral tradition that we have here." The Chancellor found no merit in the assistant organist's arguments, and did not feel that they were representative of the views of the members of the church as a whole, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The rector and churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise improvements to the Lady Chapel, in order to create more space and light. This involved removing the large altar, riddle posts and canopy, which took up a quarter of the floor space, and replacing them with a smaller altar; reducing the panelling which was blocking light from the windows; and reinstating the original stained glass window. The Chancellor was satisfied that the works would improve the appearance of the Chapel, and make it lighter and more welcoming, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for a major re-ordering project.

The reordering works approved by a faculty granted in 2015 had not been completed within the time allowed. A new petition was presented, requesting authority to carry out the remaining items of work. Historic England and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had concerns about certain aspects of the proposals (including the pews, the heating system, raising the floors, carpeting, the screens and the glazing). However, the Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty.

Reordering proposals included: tiling; redecoration; creation of a coffee area by removing five pews; modification to the font; removal of choir stalls; accessible lavatory; a galley kitchen; removal of further pews to create a new vestry; some new stackable, upholstered chairs; and renewal of the heating and electrical systems. The small aging congregation of the church wished to increase the flexibility of use of the church and thus increase the numbers of those who attend church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposals, if implemented, would result in little if any significant harm to the church as a building of special architectural or historical interest, and accordingly granted a faculty.

The church wished to repair and reassemble a screen which was formerly under the tower arch before the organ was moved there. They then wished to repair the Lady Chapel steps, shorten two pews, reassemble the screen at the bottom of the steps and dedicate the chapel to St. Edmund. The Archdeacon gave List B consent for the restoration of the screen and the repair of the steps only. She did not allow for the re-erection of the screen or alteration of the pews.  When an application was made for a faculty for the works in the chapel, a parishioner objected on the grounds of insufficient local consultation and wished to be a party to the proceedings. The faculty was put on hold pending discussions with the objector, but the parish installed the screen anyway. They then applied for permission for the screen and shortened pews to remain. The objector withdrew her objection, as she felt 'vilified' by the petitioners. The Chancellor granted a faculty, ordering the petitioners to pay the costs of the Registry and any costs incurred by the objector.

There was no suitable place within the church to construct a toilet, which would provide disabled access. It was therefore proposed to construct a free-standing disabled toilet adjacent to the east side of the north porch of the church, with associated water, drainage and electrical connections. There were letters of objection from five parishioners. The main objection related to the location of the proposed structure. The Chancellor was satisfied that the provision of a disabled toilet was appropriate and that the location to the east of the north porch would be the least problematic within the site. He therefore granted a faculty.

The Rector and Churchwardens wished to create an educational area in the east end of the south aisle of the church dedicated to the life and work of the Reverend John Newton (1725-1807) and to introduce into the church an informative display. (John Newton was a reformed slave ship captain, who was the curate-in-charge of the church from 1764 to 1780 and the author of the hymn 'Amazing Grace'.) The work would involve the removal of four pews, and the seat from a fifth pew.  Notwithstanding the current sensitivity relating to the display in public places of things relating to the slave trade, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the display would "recognise the vital contributions made to the abolition of the vile trade in human flesh by African and other global majority heritage writers and abolitionists, women and working class reformers, rather than simply focusing upon the work of prominent, white, upper and middle class male abolitionists ..."

A faculty had been granted in 2014 to authorise the redecoration of the interior of the church with four coats of limewash. When the old emulsion was removed, the walls looked in poor condition and it was thought that four coats of limewash would not be sufficient to cover the walls, which were “patchy” and “deep green” in various areas. The architect favoured a product called Zinsser Grade 1 paint. He obtained the PCC's permission to use it and instructed the contractors to use the paint instead of limewash, which the contractors reluctantly did. Within a month of application, the paint was pealing off the walls. The Chancellor asked the Archdeacon to apply for a restoration order, which the Archdeacon did. The Chancellor granted an order, stating that the architect should not have directed the use of an alternative covering without obtaining first a variation of the faculty. And the Chancellor directed that the architect should meet the cost of the remedial work.