The proposal was to rebuild the organ as a hybrid pipe/electronic instrument, involving its pipework being turned to face the nave, with associated structural alterations. There were two parties opponent, plus other objectors. The objections included allegations of irregularity in the tendering process, and questions as to whether the extent and cost of the project was excessive. The Chancellor concluded that the PCC was entitled to choose the proposal it had selected to resolve the longstanding problems with the organ, and he granted a faculty.

This was an interim judgment confined to a preliminary issue of security for costs. The petitioners proposed the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church. There was one objector, who considered that the use of the equipment would be harmful to her health and that of other people. In Re Emmanuel Church, Bentley, the Court of Arches made it clear that it would not normally be appropriate to refuse the grant of a faculty for telecommunications equipment if it met the standards for such equipment laid down in Government guidance, though the Court of Arches envisaged that in a particular case a party opponent might be able to demonstrate by reference to scientific evidence that it would not be appropriate to grant a faculty. The petitioners sought security for costs. It was clear to the Chancellor that if he made an order, the objector might have difficulty in raising the security, as a result of which she would effectively be deprived of her right to be heard. He therefore declined to make an order for security for costs.

There was an application to install telecoms equipment in the tower of the Grade II listed church. The party opponent claimed that the transmission of electronic data by telecoms aerials was generally a threat to health. She also said that she was personally hypersensitive to existing electro-magnetic fields. The Chancellor reiterated the basis of the Court of Arches decision in Re Bentley Emmanuel, Bentley [2006] that in the absence of compelling evidence of a real risk to human health as a result of transmitting radio waves up to the levels set by the United Kingdom Government in their adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines, it would be wrong for the consistory court to adopt more rigorous guidelines than those recommended by the government for application in a secular context.

This decision should be read in conjunction with Re St. James Kidbrooke [2016] ECC Swk 13  and Re St. James Kidbrooke [2016] ECC Swk 16. The petitioners proposed the installation of telecommunications equipment in the church. There were seven objectors, of whom one became a opponent. She objected on the grounds that radio waves and electrical fields would be harmful to human health. The Chancellor gave directions inviting the objector to consider Government guidance on telecommunications systems and the Court of Arches decision in In re Emmanuel Church Bentley (2006), as a result of which he could not refuse a faculty on the grounds of danger to health, if equipment complied with international standards, unless there was some compelling expert evidence to the contrary. He also alerted the objector that she might be putting herself at risk of an application for costs being made against her by the Petitioners. The Chancellor directed that within 14 days the objector should notify the Registry whether (i) she intended to call an expert witness or witnesses, and (ii) she required there to be a hearing.

In Re St. James Kidbrooke [2016] ECC 16 the Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwark granted a faculty to permit the installation of twelve antennae and two dishes behind GRP replacement louvres in the tower of the church and gave authority for the Rector to enter a licence agreement for a term of 20 years with the telecommunications company. The sole party opponent applied to the Court of Arches for leave to appeal on six grounds. The Dean of Arches refused to grant leave to appeal.

This is a decision on costs given by the Dean of Arches in respect of his refusal to grant leave to appeal (Re St. James Kidbrooke [2017] EACC 1).

The proposal was to remove the worn Victorian tiles at the west end of the nave, apart from those around the font, and to replace them with Cadeby limestone paving to match the paving laid to replace the Victorian tiles in the remainder of the nave 20 years previously, when the Parochial Church Council was unable to replace all the tiles in the nave. Heritage England and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be serious, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The proposal was to remove the worn Victorian tiles at the west end of the nave, apart from those around the font, and to replace them with Cadeby limestone paving to match the paving laid to replace the Victorian tiles in the remainder of the nave 20 years previously, when the Parochial Church Council was unable to replace all the tiles in the nave. Heritage England and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be serious, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to place a memorial to her late brother on the family grave in which his cremated remains had been interred. The proposal was for a wedge shaped polished black granite memorial, 18" by 12", with gold lettering. At the head of the grave was an upright polished black granite memorial with gold lettering, bearing the names of the other members of the family whose remains had been interred in the grave. Two family members objected that the proposed memorial would dominate the grave. There were said to be other black granite memorials with gold lettering in the churchyard. The Chancellor refused to allow a wedge shaped stone, but said that in the circumstances he would permit "a 12” cube in polished black granite and bearing the proposed words in gold lettering".

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents. She proposed two alternative designs. One design showed the head and arms of an angel with wings down each outer edge of the memorial. The alternative design replaced the angel with a small image of a dove, but also had wings running the height of the memorial. The Chancellor decided that the memorial designs were outside the range of what was appropriate to the location, by reason of the angel and its wings. He refused to grant a faculty for either design but, if the petitioner wished, a faculty would be granted for the memorial without the angel and the wings.