Display:

The Petitioner sought permission to move the font to a position in an area immediately to the west side of the main entrance to the church in the north wall and to remove three pews and install a redundant choir stall frontal in order to create a Baptistery area around the repositioned font. (This was a different proposal to the one contained in the 2010 petition for reordering.) The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, as the proposal would fit in with and complement the changes for which permission had already been given.

In 2011 the petitioners applied for approval (which was granted) for the remodelling of the pulpit steps, having been refused in 2010 a faculty for the removal of the pulpit. They now applied for permission to permanently remove the pulpit from the church. The pulpit had in fact already been removed from the church in 2012 without authority. Reminding the petitioners of the rule of law, and that the removal of the pulpit was unlawful, the Chancellor determined that the arguments for removing the pulpit had not changed since 2010, when he refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the pulpit, and accordingly he now refused again to grant a faculty for its removal.

The Team Rector, a churchwarden and a deputy churchwarden applied for a confirmatory faculty for “retrospective approval for a prayer walk in the wooded area of the churchyard, including the introduction of a path, carved mushrooms inscribed with prayers and artwork designed following a study day.” The Public Notice resulted in two letters of objection, but there were no parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that the works were appropriate and directed the issue of a confirmatory faculty.

The petitioners wished to obtain permission to remove from the churchyard all items that were not allowed under the churchyards regulations, such as "figurine gnomes, garden gnomes, figurine angels, cupids, balloons, and solar lamps, etc." together with rose bushes and other shrubs planted on graves. There were several letters of objection, but no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty: "As a matter of logic and common sense, since there are regulations in force, it would be manifestly absurd to have them broken as each person deems fit ... In my judgment it is not proper for a person to take the law into his own hands, and then cry 'foul' when action is taken against him."

In 2011, the Archdeacon granted a licence for temporary re-ordering, which included removal of the nave and choir pews to storage. In 2012 a faculty petition sought authority for this arrangement to be made permanent. The Chancellor authorised the permanent removal of the nave pews, but decided that, to give further time for experimentation, consideration of the permanent removal of the choir pews should be deferred and be the subject of a petition at a later date, if the petitioners still wished the choir pews not to be restored to the choir.

In 2011, the Archdeacon granted a licence for temporary re-ordering, which included removal of the nave and choir pews to storage. In 2012 a faculty petition sought authority for this arrangement to be made permanent. The Chancellor authorised the permanent removal of the nave pews, but decided that, to give further time for experimentation, consideration of the permanent removal of the choir pews should be deferred and be the subject of a petition at a later date, if the petitioners still wished the choir pews not to be restored to the choir. In 2015 a petition proposed returning the choir pews, but to the Lady Chapel, instead of to the choir. Faculty granted. 

The Chancellor decided that the proposed new wall-to-wall carpet and the 'bland', black chairs were inappropriate for a Grade II* and important Victorian church in the centre of Brighton, but he granted a limited licence for five years, requiring the petitioners at the end of such period to produce more appropriate long-term proposals.

The petition proposed the formation of a new meeting room/children’s area, enclosed by timber and glass; removal of some pews in the nave, the nave aisle and the south aisle, and their replacement with chairs; lowering the raised pew platforms in these areas; disposal of a timber screen to the St. John’s Chapel; and alterations to heating and electrical systems, including the replacement of the existing boiler with a new oil fired boiler. There was one party opponent, objecting to the removal of some of the pews and to the meeting room. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had provided sufficient justification for the works and granted a faculty. As regards costs, the Deputy Chancellor determined that the party opponent had behaved unreasonably in certain aspects of the proceedings and directed that the party opponent should reimburse the petitioners 50% of the court costs attributable to the progression of the case to an oral hearing and 50% of the petitioners' inter partes costs, namely their counsel's fees.

The petitioner requested permission for a memorial in the form of a small York Stone boulder with a slate plaque on its front face, in memory of her late husband. The memorial was ostensibly outside the churchyard regulations and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve it. After considering the principles to be applied when deciding whether to allow a memorial outside the regulations, the Chancellor decided that this was an appropriate case in which he should grant a faculty.

The Rector and Churchwardens wished to replace the lead on the south aisle and vestry roofs with terne-coated stainless steel. The Church had suffered from lead thefts in the past and already had a terne-coated steel roof over the north porch. The remaining lead had been repaired a number of times in recent years and was regarded as having reached the end of its serviceable life after 100 years. Historic England objected to terne-coated steel, and took the view that the lead should be replaced with lead. Historic England's own advice in its booklet ‘Metal Thefts from Historic Buildings’ suggested that stainless steel was a suitable alternative to lead, where there had been lead theft and repeated attacks. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the Petitioners have shown good reason for the replacement of lead with terne-coated stainless steel, and he granted a faculty.