Judgment Search


Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2022 judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022



The petitioners applied to remove and dispose of a bell which had been stored at the rear of the nave of the church for 41 years. The bell was cast by Humphrey Wilkinson, a Lincolnshire founder, in 1700. The Church Buildings Council objected. The Petitioners wished to remove the bell as it impeded the use of the rear of the Church. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the bell to be removed to the diocesan store for safekeeping.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a major re-ordering, being satisfied that the benefits of the proposed works would outweigh any the harm to the significance of the Grade I listed church as a building of architectural or historic interest. The proposed works included a new kitchen and two new toilets (to replace the existing kitchen and single toilet); the replacement of the pews with chairs; and new screening for chair storage at the tower.

The Team Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to replace one half of the existing benches in the church with chairs and to introduce of a new altar frontal and pulpit fall. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

An application was made for a Faculty to authorise the removal of a Victorian pipe organ, and its replacement with an electric organ. This would be part of a larger project of re-ordering, for which an application for a faculty had not yet been made. The reasons for removal of the organ were that the organ was rarely used, it did not suit the evangelical style of worship, and its removal would free up space to create two meeting rooms. The Victorian Society objected to the proposals. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* listed church, the details of which are too numerous to include in this brief note, but included the replacement of the vestry with a four storey extension to the church, to provide meeting rooms and offices; the removal of the pews and replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; the carpeting of the whole floor; and the creation of a kitchen. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items. One of the items he declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.

The proposal was to remove the last three remaining rows of 20th century pews from the nave of the Grade I church, to 'facilitate flexible use of the nave for worship and missional events'. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of removal far outweighed any disadvantages and he accordingly granted a faculty.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed for the Grade II* Georgian church, including replacing the existing extensions on the north and south sides of the church and the replacement of the nave pews with 'Theo M' stackable chairs. The justification put forward for the works was that the church had experienced significant growth and had been designated by the Bishop as a resourcing church, to promote Church growth, including resourcing other churches and planting new ones. The proposed works would provide great facilities to meet this objective. The Georgian Society ('GS') and the Victorian Society ('VS') objected to the removal of the pews and the VS objected to the two extensions. Neither the GS nor the VS became parties opponent. Whilst acknowledging the significance of the pews and existing architecture of the church, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that any harm to such significance would be outweighed by the public benefit. In his judgment, the Chancellor addressed the meaning of ‘serious’ in the fifth Duffield question.

The petitioners wished to replace the church's wooden chairs, upholstered in red and with many showing their age, with tubular metal chairs upholstered in 'graphite' grey. The wooden chairs could only be stacked five high when space was required for an event, whereas the metal chairs could be stacked 25 high and moved around on a trolley. The metal chairs were also lighter and therefore easier to move and stack. There were two letters of objection, the main objection being the aesthetic appearance of metal chairs. Another objection was that, unlike the wooden chairs, the metal ones would not have a shelf under the seat for Bibles and hymn books. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that, whilst the proposed grey colour was more sombre than the existing red upholstered chairs, this would be offset by the brightness of the white walls of the church's interior and the light carpeting.

The proposals included an accessible toilet within the west tower, removal of the pews, new stone flooring and a new heating system including underfloor heating and perimeter radiators heated by a replacement gas boiler. There was opposition from the statutory consultees. The Chancellor had to consider whether the petitioners, as required by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015, had given 'due regard' to the net zero guidance on reducing carbon emissions issued by the Church Buildings Council. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the petitioners, through their heating consultant, had considered all alternative sources of heating and that "at the present time, a replacement gas boiler is the only viable and affordable heating option which will meet all the relevant needs and aspirations of the church".

The proposal was to introduce two new glass screens, between the eastern end of the nave and the south transept and between the south transept and the lady chapel. The result will be to enable the south transept to be used as a separate room. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case and that there was "no evidence that this proposal would harm the character of this listed church – as opposed to merely changing it."