Display:

A faculty was granted for the installation of wireless broadband equipment at the parish church. The judgment deals with the questions of whether relatives of a person living within the parish who do not themselves live within the parish have a sufficient interest to enable their representations to be considered; whether the Consistory Court has jurisdiction over matters which affect not only the church or churchyard but also potentially a wider area; whether the role of the Diocesan Board of Finance as, indirectly, a shareholder in the company proposing to erect wireless broadband equipment on the church had a bearing on the case; and whether the electromagnetic radiation emanating from the proposed wireless broadband equipment would be harmful to health.

The Chancellor authorised the removal of a block of pews from the north-west corner on the Grade II* Victorian church, in order to allow the installation of a disabled toilet and a servery.

The was a petition for reordering, including the replacement of pews with chairs and benches and the laying of new York Stone flooring. The Chancellor gave  directions that (inter alia) the petitioners should make further representations in writing before a final decision by the Chancellor.

Faculty refused for memorial inscription including the words “Finally fell off his perch” and “It’s only rock and roll”.

The petitioner wished to disinter the remains of his great-great-grandparents, who died in 1879 and 1910, because an extension of the church was to be built and the grave would be against the wall of the extension and have paths on the remaining three sides. Also, it was likely that people would take a short cut over the grave to the entrance to the extension. It was proposed to reinter the remains elsewhere in the same churchyard. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

Faculty sought for the conversion of the existing vestry into a toilet and tea-point, together with the provision of vestry facilities within the base of the tower. Objections to conversion of the vestry received. Faculty granted.

There were two petitions seeking to carry out substantial reordering in the church. The Georgian Group and the Victorian Society had objections, but did not become parties opponent. There were no other objections. The proposals included: clearing the existing furniture from the chancel and placing a new altar in the middle of the chancel, with new furniture around it; removal of a number of rows of pews; replacing the organ; creating a narthex/hall area. The Chancellor was satisfied that the need for the scheme outweighed any harm it would cause to the building, and he therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals were for a reordering of the north aisle by removing the pews and lowering the Victorian softwood timber pew platforms to the same level as the ceramic tiled gangways, to create a large area for multi-functional use. Provision was to be made for the installation of a servery and cupboards, and for the area to be rewired and a new lighting system installed. The petition contained no proposals for replacing the removed pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a case for the reordering, but declined to grant a faculty until the design, make and number of replacement chairs for the north aisle had been approved by the court.

The petitioners wished to remove the front four rows of pews from the nave of the Grade II* church, in order to provide a more flexible space, particularly for services and events involving children. It was also proposed to replace the pews with upholstered chairs. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the upholstered chairs, and Historic England and the Georgian Group held similar views. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made out for the removal of the front four rows of pews, but refused to approve replacement chairs with upholstered backs, which, in the red colour proposed, would create an adverse visual impact in front of the remaining pews.

Unbeknown to the incumbent of the church, some cremated remains were buried very close to a sewer running through the churchyard. This fact came to light when repair work needed to be carried out on the sewer, which might cause damage to the memorial and disturb the remains. The deceased's widow requested a faculty to exhume the remains and reinter them in the same churchyard about 30 feet from their current position. The Chancellor was satisfied that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and reinterment.