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 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 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 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 proposal was to add a single-storey extension at the north-west corner of the Grade I listed church, to provide a lobby, kitchen, servery, a Garden Room, a storeroom and toilets. Fourteen members of the congregation submitted letters of objection in response to the public notices. The main ground for objection was the potential impact of the extension on the Memorial Garden which it would overlook, that it would be a cause of upset to the family members of those whose ashes are interred there and prevent its use for quiet reflection and remembrance. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposed works and granted a faculty.

The petition related to the construction of a new two-storey extension on the north side of the church building and a car park to the west. The amenity societies approved the proposal, but two parishioners became parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was no reason why he should not follow the decision of the local planning authority to grant a planning consent, and he therefore granted a faculty for the works.

Faculty granted for the construction of an extension to the north side of the church. This judgment follows on from the judgment in Re St. Mary Kenardington [2013] Morag Ellis Comm. Gen. (Canterbury).

The Faculty Petition sought authority to construct a toilet block in the churchyard and an extension to the north side of the church. When the Commissary General visited the site, building work had already begun without Faculty. Faculty granted for the construction of the toilet block. Work on the extension to be stopped until further order. An archaeological report to be filed.

The petitioners wished to erect an octagonal extension with a link to the existing north door of the church to provide facilities for a clergy vestry, a meeting room with mezzanine, 2 WCs (including one for disabled), a kitchenette, choir robe store and general storage. This would involve building over graves and the moving of four upright stones and four kerb sets. Objections were received from six people whose family graves would be affected by the proposals. Faculty granted. Chancellor: "... in my judgment the petitioners have demonstrated a clear need for the proposed extension and I am satisfied from all the information available that the nature, design and location of the building are all entirely appropriate and fulfil the intended purpose. It is a matter of regret that established grave sites and markers will be affected by the erection of the new building, but I have reached the conclusion that the proposed extension is necessary if the mission and functioning of the church is to be maintained and developed and that the benefits for the church and for all who use it outweigh the adverse impact on the grave sites."