Display:

The petition sought the removal of a row of conifers from the southern boundary of the churchyard and the planting of a hedge of the same kind as that along the eastern boundary. A neighbour objected, principally, on the grounds that the removal of the conifers would affect the privacy of his garden on the opposite side of the driveway between the conifers and his property. The Chancellor was satisfied that there would be little invasion of privacy, in view of the hedge separating the objector's garden from the driveway. The Chancellor accepted the reasons given by the petitioners for the works and granted a faculty.

The proposal was for the construction of a new extension to the north of the west end of the church, containing an accessible toilet, a store, a kitchen and a meeting room. The Church Buildings Council was concerned about the impact of the proposed extension on an adjacent 700+ years old yew tree, insofar as the proposed extension would affect about 25% of the 'root protection area'. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the new facilities, but with great reluctance he decided that he was unwilling to grant a faculty for the work as proposed, due to the risk of harm to the 'veteran' yew, but he hoped that with the assistance of the Diocesan Advisory Committee the parish would be able to come up with a viable alternative scheme.

The original stone floor of the church was on a slope and the pew bases were at different heights. The proposal was to remove the pews and pew bases and install a new floor ‘floating’ above the original floor, to create a smooth, flat surface. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to the condition that the choice of chairs to replace the pews was to be overseen by the acting Archdeacon.

A proposed memorial comprised an upright stone with a 'cover slab' supported on kerbs. The parish priest did not support the proposal, because (a) no similar type of memorial had been approved for very many years, (b) the memorial did not comply with the diocesan guidelines, and (c) the memorial would inhibit maintenance. The PCC objected on the grounds that (a) the memorial would create maintenance problems and (b) it might set a precedent that others might wish to follow. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty as requested, but said that he would approve the upright memorial element of the proposal.

The petition proposed the reordering of the north aisle of the Grade II* Victorian church by the removal of 10 pews and the introduction of 30 new stacking chairs and 5 new stacking tables, in order to provide space for meetings for adults or children, the serving of food, musicians, parking of push-chairs and chair seating for services. The Victorian Society and Historic England submitted objections, but were not parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the public benefits that would arise from the proposals would outweigh the harm they would cause to the significance of the  building.

The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the cremated remains of his wife from the churchyard at Up Hatherley, in order that the remains might be reinterred in Australia, where the couple had lived since emigrating there in 1980 and had brought up their family. Following his wife's death, the petitioner, against the wishes of his family, including his wife (an atheist), who had made it known to the rest of her family that she had no wish to be buried in a Christian churchyard in England, arranged to have his wife's ashes interred in the churchyard at Up Hatherley. After recovering from an illness after the interment in England, the petitioner realised that he had made a mistake in having his wife's ashes interred in an English churchyard against her wishes and wished to have her ashes moved to Australia. The Deputy Chancellor decided that the mistake constituted an exceptional ground for allowing exhumation.

The incumbent and churchwardens wished to grant a licence to a company to use part of the churchyard for temporary site offices and car parking, and to allow the fitting of electronically-controlled access gates. They also wished to dispose of some items of church furniture, which had been in storage for 10 years. The Victorian Society did not support the disposal of the lectern, a chair and some prayer desks. Historic England had reservations about the proposed new gates. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had reservations about the gates and also archaeological concerns. The Chancellor was satisfied with the proposals and granted a faculty.

A proposed reordering of the church included: removal of all the pews from the nave and side aisles; creation of a raised level floor throughout with underfloor heating; creation of 'pods' within the south and north aisles to house an office, kitchen and meeting room space above and chair storage; four WCs; relocation of the font; glazing in of the south transept chapel; glazed draught lobby. There were local objections and objections from some of the amenity societies. The Victorian Society made a formal objection. They objected to the pods, the removal of the pews, the raising of the floor, the impact loss of the removal of the chancel step, the underfloor heating above the columbarium , the glazing of the memorial chapel. The Chancellor granted a faculty: ‘I have, of course, considered the St Alkmund, Duffield test.  Are these “exceptional circumstances” where the public benefit outweighs the level of harm … It is with a somewhat heavy heart that I have to find that the needs of the parish and its current congregation are such that that test is made out.’

The petition proposed a major reordering, the controversial items of which were the removal of the pews and their replacement with upholstered chairs on a carpeted floor, and the removal of the choir stalls. The Chancellor was satisfied that a sufficient case had been made for the proposed works and granted a faculty.

The proposal was to replace the main block of nave pews with chairs. The petitioners wished to create a more flexible space for church and community use. The pews were part of a refurbishment by the architect George Gilbert Scott in the mid-nineteenth century.  The Victorian Society and Historic England submitted written objections to removal of the pews. Bearing in mind that access to "The Hub" (which was installed under faculty in 2004, to provide a servery, a lavatory, a vestry and a meeting room in the north-west corner of the church) was difficult, and moving The Hub was not viable, the Chancellor considered that the removal of the pews appeared to be a realistic way of freeing up space, in order to promote worship and mission; and the harm to the church by the loss of the pews would be outweighed by the benefits. He accordingly granted a faculty.