Reordering

A faculty was sought to allow the introduction into the Abbey of a diptych, one part of which portrays St. Ethelflaeda, one of the patron saints of the Abbey; the other part of the diptych depicts a candlestick. The Statement of Significance submitted by the Petitioners said that the painting was designed “to be challenging and controversial”, and to encourage “members of the congregation and visitors alike to contemplate the serenity of the abbess’s face and reflect on our own faith and spirituality”. There were 15 objectors, who did not become parties opponent. Objections included: the painting lacks artistic merit; it does not “enhance or beautify the Abbey in any way” and is “ugly”; “The ‘Saint’ is sinister and anatomically impossible and the candlestick, as often commented… looks like a giraffe neck”; the painting is not edifying/spiritually beneficial; it is “dark and disturbing”, “grotesque” ... and “raises nothing but horror”; it detracts from the architecture of the Abbey. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty: "those who find the painting beautiful, helpful and spiritually uplifting can continue to benefit from its presence, and it can continue to play a part in the Abbey’s outreach and mission. Those who are disturbed or displeased by it need not dwell on its presence.  It seems to me that the Abbey is a large enough space, physically and spiritually, to accommodate both camps."

The proposal was to create a doorway in the north wall of the mediaeval tower of the Grade I listed church, for the purpose of providing access to kitchen and lavatory facilities to be created against the external tower wall. The precise design of the facilities would be the subject of a subsequent faculty petition and dependent on the outcome of the present application. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings considered intervention in the mediaeval fabric to be unjustified. The Chancellor determined that, of the six alternative schemes considered by the petitioners, the chosen one, on balance, would be the correct one to adopt, and he accordingly granted a faculty, subject to the work not being carried out until a further faculty for the construction of the associated extension had been granted.

Faculty granted for the removal of a pew platform and four pews from the west end of the church, the Chancellor being satisfied that there were "compelling justifications on the basis of liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being and putting the church to other viable uses consistent with its sacred character."

A major re-ordering was proposed for Sherborne Abbey, a Grade I listed church, including: conversion of the existing north-east vestry into toilet facilities; creation of a new vestry beneath the organ loft in the north transept and Wykeham Chapel; relocation of the Horsey Monument to the north quire aisle; introduction of a discreet hospitality unit in the Lady Chapel; accessibility improvements; and confirmation of a Madonna statue in the Lady Chapel. Extensive consultation had taken place over several years. While objections were raised—particularly regarding cost, alternative locations, and impact on the Victorian organ loft—amended proposals led to the withdrawal of objections from the Victorian Society. Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor found that most elements caused no harm or only very slight harm. The new vestry would cause low to moderate harm, mainly through loss of a spiral staircase and partial enclosure of the transept, but this had been carefully mitigated by design revisions. The Chancellor held that the clear and convincing justification—improved facilities, accessibility, hospitality and operational effectiveness—produced substantial public benefit outweighing the harm. A faculty was therefore granted, subject to conditions.

Appeal allowed against the refusal by the Chancellor of the Diocese to grant a Faculty to authorise the relocation of the chancel screen.

The judgment relates to two faculty petitions, both relating to re-ordering. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the chancel screen. The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the theological and doctrinal arguments put forward at the hearing.

To meet the increased needs of the church and the community, the proposal was for the creation of a meeting room between the vestry and the servery at the west end of the church. The proposed room would have bi-fold doors, which could be opened up to make the room part of the nave when needed. The work would involve re-siting the font. Contentious parts of the proposals were the depth and height of the meeting room and the fact that two pillars at the west end of the church would be obscured. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the justification for carrying out the proposals outweighed any potential harm. 

Faculty granted for re-ordering, including the creation of a complex of buildings for youth related activities, and removal and disposal of pews from the south aisle.

The petitioners wished, amongst other proposals for re-ordering, to remove the choir stalls from the chancel and level the floor, and also remove the Victorian chancel screen, in order to make the church more adaptable for worship, concerts and other uses. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the chancel screen. Faculty granted.

An appeal by the Victorian Society against the decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Rochester to allow the removal from the church of a Victorian eight bay screen by Bodley & Garner and its reinstallation in a church in Leicestershire, which would necessitate the reduction of the screen by two bays. Appeal dismissed.