Reordering

The petitioners wished to replace all the nave pews with chairs, level the floor and install underfloor heating and carpet the nave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposals were to replace the pews with metal-framed, upholstered chairs; removal of the clergy stalls; and alterations to floor levels and the heating installation. The Victorian Society indicated that it would not oppose the removal of the pews if appropriate wooden, unupholstered chairs were to be provided by way of replacement. A private objector objected to the removal of the clergy stalls and the pews. The Deputy Commissary General dismissed the petition. He determined that the removal of all of the Victorian pews would adversely affect the character of the Victorian church. He also did not consider that the replacement steel-framed, upholstered chairs would be likely to be an appropriate replacement for the pews in this particular church, if the pews were to be removed.

Faculty granted for major re-ordering of a Grade 1 listed church. Principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012] (Court of Arches) considered.

The proposals included: the replacement of the church pews with chairs; alteration of the dais in the chancel; the baptistry; new heating, lighting and and audio-visual system; redecoration; the building of an extension for offices; and a garden area. English Heritage, the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council all had concerns Chancellor determined that the extension was acceptable, and that the pews were of little merit and could be replaced. As regards the font, the Chancellor was satisfied that the batistry was effectively redundant and that the case for moving the font was made. He therefore granted a faculty. The judgment contains an extensive review of the law and practice relating to fonts.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for reordering within a 19th century proprietary chapel, which has only relatively recently become subject to faculty jurisdiction. The chapel was built to cater for the bargees and seamen who worked in or visited the dockland area of Gloucester. The works included a glass outer door; removal of pews; new lighting and heating; a kitchen unit/servery; a disabled toilet; and monitors and a sound system. Certain items were not approved.

A reordering scheme involved pews, platforms, the floor, the pulpit, a dais, a toilet, new heating and lighting, a kitchen, new chairs and storage facilities. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions.

The proposed works included: glazed frameless inner doors; a new limestone floor with under-floor heating; the removal of a plywood ceiling, the oak reredos on the east wall, 1950s pews, a replacement organ, lighting and cables; the provision of new lighting and projection facilities; the introduction of chairs; and the construction of a freestanding ‘extension’ building in the churchyard. Five objectors did not wish to be parties opponent. The Deputy Commissary General deemed the changes wholly appropriate and granted a faculty.

A proposed extensive reordering was proposed. The works included: removal of pews, new chairs, a "welcome counter", a WC, a prayer chapel, a glass screen, a kitchen, removal of a pipe organ, new heating, lighting, and a parking area. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was a need for the works and granted a faculty.

A reordering programme was proposed, including: installation of kitchen and toilets; installation of a ‘heritage display’ and meeting room; creation of ceramic tile heritage pavement; removal of pews; creation of a ringing gallery;  window repairs; clock repairs; restoration of a chest; installation of a sound system; installation of a heating system; repair to gates. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works. In particular, he excluded the tiled heritage pavement.

The petitioners sought a faculty to permit the replacement of the heating system in the Grade I listed church and the removal of the Victorian nave pews and their replacement with chairs. One parishioner and the Victorian Society objected, but neither wished to be a party opponent. The Chancellor decided that the public benefit resulting from the proposals outweighed the harm which would be caused and that therefore a faculty should issue.