Reordering

The Chancellor granted an interim faculty for the removal of furnishings for cleaning following damage to the church by fire. He also authorised the removal of the pews into storage, the removal of a dais, and cleaning and redecoration.

The vicar and churchwardens wished to replace the church pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the replacement of the pews with chairs was appropriate in the church and granted a faculty.

The petition proposed replacing the existing pew benches with new moveable pew benches by the ecclesiastical furniture designer Luke Hughes, and retaining the best examples of the current pews by their removal to the gallery. Historic England and the Victorian Society submitted objections, but did not become parties opponent.  The Chancellor granted a faculty. The pews introduced following the rebuilding of the church (known as "the Actors' Church") in 1795-6 had been adapted in a reordering in 1871-2, and were now in a very poor state of repair. The Chancellor considered that any harm to the architectural interest of the church would be low and the harm to the historical interest would be moderate. He found that the petitioners had made a convincing case for the proposals. The church would benefit from the introduction of moveable pew benches, which would provide improved seating and allow greater use of the church for services, events, concerts and commercial hiring.

The petition contained a number of reordering proposals designed to allow the church and parish room to work together or to be used independently of each other and to provide better facilities and a more flexible and attractive space within the church for use by the congregation and the wider community. There was an objection to the moving of the war memorial, in order to unblock the original north porchway and create a better access to the parish room. The Chancellor determined that there was a strong justification for the proposals and he granted a faculty.

Reordering proposals included: a glazed entrance lobby; a welcome area; a room for a crèche during services; a meeting room; a kitchen; and toilets. The works involved moving the rood screen and the font. The main area of contention was the moving of the rood screen, which was a war memorial. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Following a major extension and radical reordering of the church in 1973, a “bold stainless steel font … surmounted by a dove” was introduced into the church. The nineteenth century font was placed outside the church and used as a plant holder. In recent years its condition had seriously deteriorated and in 2022 it had been brought back into the church and its parts had been stored on wooden pallets behind a pew. Having considered various options for the font, the petitioners had decided that burial of the font in the churchyard was the best option. The Church Building Council, Historic England and the Victorian Society did not support the proposal. The Chancellor considered that the redesigned interior of the church had made the retention of the older font no longer practical or desirable, and after considering all other options she concluded that there was no viable alternative other than to allow the burial of the font in the churchyard.

The proposals included the removal of two pews from the west end of the Grade II church and four from the north aisle, and the reduction in width of a further pew. The reasons for the proposals were to create: (a) a more useable space for a growing number of young families; (b) an area where some of the congregation can sit and enjoy refreshments after a service; (c) an area close to the main entrance which can accommodate noticeboards on which to communicate information; and (d) an area where a wheelchair can be positioned which is not at the rear of the church. Faculty granted.

The church, formerly a church hall built in 1898, became a parish church after the original church was demolished in about 1992. The proposal was to convert the existing gentlemen’s toilet block, to the north of the altar, into an office and to rebuild the ladies’ toilets, on the south side of the altar and adjoining a private house, as four unisex toilets, including one with wheelchair access. The neighbours at the adjoining house wrote a letter of objection, their main objection being noise disturbance. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but imposed a condition that the petitioners should reverse the locations of the ladies’ toilets and the new office, if possible, but, if this was not practicable, they should use their reasonable endeavours to introduce acoustic insulation to the party wall between the church building and the objectors’ home.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to remove the existing damaged stone font from the front of the church and replace it with a new portable font incorporating the stainless steel bowl and cover from the old font. The reasons for the proposal were, firstly, to be able to place the font in a better position than the old font for baptism services, where there would be better sight-lines, and secondly to be able to move the font out of the way when the space at the front of the church was required for large services, concerts and other events. A small number of parishioners objected to the proposals, but did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the old font, on condition that the new font should stand in the same position as the old font, except when it needed to be moved for special services and events.

The proposals were for a major reordering. The controversial items were: replacement of the pews and pew platforms with chairs; creation of a flexible space within the nave to allow the building to be used as a
place of worship and church hall; and replacement of the existing organ with an electronic organ. The main intention of the proposals was to allow more flexible use of the church for community use. The Chancellor concluded that the petitioners had proved a necessity for the re-ordering, and he therefore granted a faculty.