Judgment Search

Downloads

Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2022 judgments on this web site as at 1 October 2022

Reordering

Display:

Confirmatory Faculty to carry out significant modifications in the execution of works previously permitted under faculty. The variations are: 1. to re-site the font further north, 2. to re-grade the pathway to the new platform in front of the west doors, 3. to modify the roof on the new inner west lobby, 4. to paint the salvaged pew ends incorporated into the new WC and kitchen screens, 5. to replace the proposed carpet tiles with a pattern of Amtico tiles in three colours, and 6. to introduce various new lighting fittings.

The installation of a digital organ and a moveable font in the church of St. Nicholas Radford Semele, a reconstructed church severely damaged by fire in 2008

Faculty granted for Air Source Heat Pumps, to replace an old electric boiler heating system.

The petitioners wished to remove four rows of pews from the west end of the nave, in order to allow greater community use of the church. The church had a mixture of medieval and Victorian pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the removal of the pews as requested, with the exception of one medieval pew and frontal.

The unlisted church had been built in 1966. A font constructed from brick, and clad in marble, had been removed from the church and broken up without the authority of a faculty. The stainless steel bowl, which had been part of the font, had been incorporated into a wooden, moveable font. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty for the disposal of the old font and the incorporation of the stainless steel bowl in the new font. The judgment contains a discussion of the law relating to the disposal of redundant fonts.

Faculty granted for extensive re-ordering including, the provision of toilet facilities, the removal of the choir stalls on both the north and south sides of the church, repositioning of the font, and the use of chairs in the new baptistry area, the removal of three rows of pews at the rear of the church, the installation of a balcony with stair access at the west end of the church, the provision of a separate meeting area under the balcony and a refreshment bar, a wooden and glass screen to divide the worship area from the meeting area, the replacement of the wooden main entrance door with glass doors.

Faculty granted for re-ordering, including new central heating system and replacement of pews with chairs.

The petitioners requested a Faculty to install a glazed door in the 19th century porch on the south side of the church, which is the main entrance to the Grade I church, parts if which date from the 13th century. The church was largely rebuilt in 1874. The petitioners stated that when the wooden church doors were open, cold air passed through the porch into the church and also leaves tended to accumulate in the porch. The petitioners therefore felt that the answer was to place a non-reflective glazed door at the outside of the porch. English Heritage opposed the proposal.The Chancellor was not satisfied that the proposals satisfied the criteria in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2012]. Faculty refused.

The proposal was to remove from the unlisted mission church, built in 1907, two World War I war memorials and a soldier's grave marker and place them on display with other WWI material in the adjacent community room, where they would be more visible and accessible to the community. Two objectors felt that placing the items in a community room was inappropriate, and would detract from the respect and reverence with which they should be treated.

The vicar and churchwardens wished to carry out certain items of refurbishment to the church, including "install etched safety glass panels between the main entrance lobby and the church". It was intended that these glass panels should replace the existing wooden panels, in the interests of safety and security and allowing more light into the lobby. Two parishioners objected to the glass panels on the grounds that anyone who felt ill and wanted to sit outside the body of the church for a while during a service would not be able to enjoy some privacy in the lobby if there were glass panels. The petitioners pointed out that there were other areas in the church where people who were feeling ill could enjoy some privacy. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made out a proper case for the work and granted a faculty.