Display:

The petition proposed the removal and disposal by sale of the existing 25 pews and their replacement with 125 Howe 40/4 chairs. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposal was to introduce a ramp and steps just inside the north door, which is the main entrance to the Grade I church in regular use. English Heritage opposed the proposal. However, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty subject to an amendment to the design suggested by English Heritage.

The works proposed by the petitioners included the removal of pews from the north and south aisles and the augmentation of toilet and kitchen facilities within the church. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of pews. Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] considered. Faculty granted.

There had originally been a proposal to sell the organ located in the church tower, and to use the space presently occupied by the organ to provide for kitchen and toilet facilities. The organ had not been used for many years, but had been installed shortly after the church had been built in the 19th century. However, the current petition was limited to the sale and removal of the organ. The Chancellor was satisfied in principal that the removal of the organ and installation of the kitchen and toilet facilities would benefit the church and the community, and he granted a faculty for the sale of the organ, provided that the sale would take place within two years, and provided also that the organ should remain as it is until the petitioners have permission from the Court to install the proposed kitchen and toilet facilities.

The Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for a memorial introduced into the churchyard without authority, the memorial being in contravention of the Churchyard Rules

There were five applications to exhume human remains. The graves had been undermined by the collapse of a badger sett following heavy rains. The Chancellor granted faculties for the remains to be exhumed and reinterred in a part of the churchyard away from the badger sett.

The petitioners sought a faculty to allow a temporary reordering, authorised by the Archdeacon, to remain permanently. This included a children's area at the west end of the church, the removal of a large painting from the west wall, the permanent removal of six pews, and an information 'Hub'. There were four objectors, of whom one became a party opponent. The Chancellor concluded that the impact of the proposed changes on the appearance of the church would be modest, and that the proposals for providing information about the church to a growing population were appropriate. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a grave space for the petitioner's mother (not a parishioner), there being only four or five empty grave spaces left in the churchyard.

The proposal was to install a new stained glass window in an existing three-light window in the south wall of the unlisted 20th century church in memory of a former parishioner. The Church Buildings Council did not favour the design for several reasons. The Deputy Chancellor himself did not favour the design, but nevertheless granted a faculty. The church was unlisted, the design had been unanimously approved by the Parochial Church Council, and there had been no objections. On the question as to the circumstances in which a memorial should be allowed in church, the Deputy Chancellor quoted Re St. Mary Longstock [2006] 1 W.L.R. 259 and Re St John, Out Rawcliffe [2017] ECC Bla 11 as "authority for the proposition that the ... test of exceptionality, which applies to the introduction of a memorial into a church, does not apply where what is sought to be introduced into a church is an object, such as a stained glass window, which should adorn and beautify the church, and comprise part of its fabric, even though it may also commemorate a particular individual."

The proposals were to re-order the west end of the church, including (1) replacement of the outer west doors;  (2) relocation of the inner west screen doors to the bay of an arch between the chancel and the Lady Chapel; (3) creation of an entrance foyer at the west end with inner and outer screens and mezzanine floor above; and  (4) relocation of the font and its cover from the west end to the north aisle. Faculty granted, subject to the base of the font (designed by G.E. Street, architect of the Royal Courts of Justice) being retained, rather than replaced with a larger base, as proposed in the petition.