Extensions

The proposals included the building of an extension adjoining the north-west corner of the church; the reordering of the west end of the nave (including the erection of a meeting room; the moving of the font to the middle of the south aisle; and the removal of pews from the south aisle, in order to create a flexible space. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Faculty refused for a two-storey church extension on the grounds of size and appearance.

The rector and churchwardens had presented two faculty petitions, whereby they wished to carry out an extensive programme of repairs and reordering of the church interior, build an extension to the church on the north side, and carry out other works in the churchyard. The works included adjusting floor levels, removing some pews and demolishing a building in the churchyard used for storage. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals outweighed any limited harm that they might cause and he therefore granted a faculty for each phase of the proposed works.

The judgment concerns a faculty petition for alterations to the Grade I listed Church of the Holy Cross, Binsted, to improve accessibility, facilities and community use. The proposals included a new lavatory extension, servery, flexible seating through partial pew removal, underfloor heating, stone flooring, storage, audio-visual equipment, drainage works, and relocation of the font. The court accepted that the church had demonstrated a long-standing and compelling need for these improvements, particularly to provide accessible toilets, catering facilities, disabled access and adaptable space for worship and community activities. Applying the ‘Duffield’ test, the Chancellor found that some elements—particularly the loss of a small section of medieval fabric, partial removal of Victorian pews, and repositioning of the font—would cause limited harm to the church’s significance. However, that harm was outweighed by the substantial public benefits of improved mission, accessibility and long-term viability. The faculty was therefore granted, including permission for chairs omitted from the original petition, subject to conditions requiring further approval of archaeological measures, drainage, chair design, font detailing, servery design, flooring, and the mechanism for movable pews before relevant works commence.

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.

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 proposals were for extensive reordering of the Grade II church and the building of an extension in the churchyard to accommodate toilets, a kitchen, a store room, a meeting room and refurbished choir vestry and vicar's vestry and toilet. The extension would be built over one known grave of a married couple, who died in 1975 and 1980 respectively. The Chancellor was satisfied that, because the church extension would be built on piles, the grave would not be disturbed. He was also satisfied that the petitiners had discharged the burden of proving that (quoting Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]) "the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before".

The petition proposed the construction of extensions to the south side of the Grade I church to house a new toilet block, a kitchen and a cafe with a grill-pattern design on the western elevation, opening on to the adjoining Trinity Square. The petition was unopposed. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) acted as the lead commentator for the amenity societies. They acceded to the principle of the extensions and concentrated their response on some technical and practical matters about which they offered observations and advice. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The rector and churchwardens  sought a faculty for the erection of a church centre by way of a substantial extension to the existing Grade I listed building. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petition proposed works to St. Andrew Bishopstone, a Grade I listed Saxon-origin church. The proposals involved a north aisle extension to provide a vestry, accessible lavatory, flower area, and a tea point. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and key heritage bodies (including Historic England) supported or did not object, and planning permission had been granted. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) raised concerns about the extension’s location, preferring a detached structure, but acknowledged no ideal alternative existed. Applying the ‘Duffield’ framework, the Chancellor accepted the proposal would cause some harm to the church’s historic fabric, but found this harm limited and justified by strong pastoral and practical needs. Alternatives had been thoroughly explored and reasonably rejected. The SPAB’s objections were given weight but treated as an outlier among consultees. Accordingly, a faculty was granted. The court also noted concerns about fossil-fuel heating and required the parish to pursue its commitment toward net zero.