Judgment Search


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 20 January 2022

Index by Dioceses of 2021 judgments on this web site, as at 20 January 2022



The PCC decided to replace the late 19th century pipe organ with a digital organ. An application was made for an interim faculty to install the digital organ, but to leave the pipe organ in situ, pending the grant of a permanent faculty. An interim faculty was granted. One parishioner objected to the purchase of the digital organ, principally on the basis of the cost. Faculty granted.

Faculty granted for a new audio-visual system for a Grade I church, to include two monitor screens mounted on mobile trollies; two monitors screens mounted on poles; and three monitor screens mounted on the walls.

In 1959, a faculty had been granted to authorise the introduction into the church of a painting entitled 'Ecce, Homo', which was attributed to Murillo. The Chancellor was now asked to grant a confirmatory faculty for the loan of the painting to the Bristol Art Gallery in 2012, which had taken place without the authority of a faculty. The Church Buildings Council supported the loan in the interests of the care and security of the painting, subject to a good quality copy being placed in the church. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to that condition.

The proposals included: "to install an electronically operated retractable projector screen, to be installed behind the chancel arch; to install a projector which will be discreetly mounted in front of the screen on one of the roof beams; to install four monitors to be positioned so as to be clearly seen – two from the altar ...". English Heritage and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor considered the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, and determined to grant a Faculty: "I am persuaded both by their very limited visibility [the screens] and the reversibility of the project and the liturgical needs of the church that those needs significantly outweigh the modest harm which may be caused."

The Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty to authorise a substantial reordering of the church. This judgment deals with the first phase: replacement of pews with chairs, the levelling/replacement of the floor, the construction of a chancel dais, and the installation of two toilets, one of which will be accessible. Initial consultation with, and the views of, the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Victorian Society had been on the understanding that the proposed replacement chair would be an all wood 'Theo' chair, but when the petition came before the Chancellor the petitioners had chosen instead a metal-framed, upholstered 'SB2M' chair. The Chancellor approved in principle all the items, but was not prepared to approve the SB2M chair without further consultation taking place with the before-mentioned bodies and a further opportunity for the petitioners to consider an alternative chair or make a stronger case for the SB2M chair.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the removal and sale of the Vicar’s Stall, which had not been used since it was moved to its present position next to the north wall in 1991, following reconstruction work after a major fire. The church is unlisted and there were no objections, but the Victorian Society wrote to say that they did not support the proposal. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was not practical to use the stall where it was, and there was no other appropriate place to put it. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

There was a proposal to install a toilet and kitchen facilities at the western end of the church, with associated water supply and drainage. Some further pew removal was also proposed. Historic England did not support the kitchen proposals. The proposed insertion of an extractor fan into a glass panel of the door into the tower concerned the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Local Planning Authority. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new toilet and associated water and drainage (to be treated as Phase 1), and considered that the parish should reconsider the remaining items (Phase 2).

The Vicar and Churchwardens of the unlisted church sought a faculty to remove the chancel and sanctuary furniture (with the exception of the Holy Table); the removal of a row of pews at the east end of the nave; the creation of a new raised floor (to be carpeted); the installation of underfloor heating; the installation of additional lighting in the chancel; and the replacement of the electronic organ console with a new one in a different position. The Twentieth Century Society objected to the removal of the choir stalls and the Communion rail. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to the Communion rail being retained, but moved to a position further east.

The peitition proposed the rebuilding and reordering of the church following damage by an arson attack. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of some elements of fabric, an extension on the north side of the church, and the proposed new design for the roof. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions.

The proposals were: (1)    Repositioning of the font and removal of its plinth; and (2)    removal of eight pews from the north aisle to create a usable community space. The plinth was not original to the font and was regarded as a trip hazard. The church was the only community facility in the village. The Chancellor regarded the pine pews as having no intrinsic significance in themselves and he granted a faculty for all the works.