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 20 January 2022

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

Reordering

Display:

The church's reredos comprises three painted panels. The central panel features ears of corn and a vine and grapes, and those to either side feature St Andrew and St Cecilia. The panel was originally placed under the east window in 1920, but during the intervening period had at various times been moved to other parts of the church. The petition proposed the conservation of the reredos and its reinstallation in its original position, but slightly higher on the east wall of the chancel, which would partly obscure the east window. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the conservation of the panels, but was not prepared to authorise the return of the reredos to the east wall until satisfied that there was a scheme for its location that worked in detail both when the altar table as up against the east wall and when it was brought forward.

Faculty granted for the installation of a projector and screen in a Grade I listed Georgian church, the screen to be housed in a box across the sanctuary arch.

The churchwardens had made arrangements with the church architect and a contractor to install kitchenette facilities in a passage bounded on one side by the main wall of the church and on the other side by the remaining wall of a neighbouring cottage, long since demolished. When the work was almost completed, it was drawn to the attention of the Chancellor, who directed that an application should be made for a confirmatory faculty. In granting a faculty, subject to conditions, the Chancellor made it clear that these new works did not come within the list of works which could be carried out without faculty and that what had already been done had been carried out unlawfully. He directed that the costs of the application should be shared between the churchwardens, the architect and the contractor.

The petitioners wished to remove a stone font introduced in the early part of the 20th century to the Grade II* listed church, which dates from around 1300. The proposal was to replace the stone font with a new font of modern design. The new font was to be moveable, so as to permit the freeing up of space at the west end of the church, when required for activities other than baptism. Despite reservations as to the design, and the fact that the new font had been made and used before the matter got to a hearing, the Chancellor granted the faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for reordering in the Grade I listed church, in order to provide toilet and kitchen facilities, screening off of the north transept and the provision of storage. The Chancellor was satisfied that the degree of harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would not be substantial and the public benefit of the works would outweigh any harm. Also, the changes would be entirely reversible, with negligible impact on the fabric.

Extensive reordering works were proposed for the Grade I church. There were several written objections, but none of the objectors wished to be a party opponent. There were no objections from the amenity societies consulted. The Chancellor, being satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works (" ... the proposed changes will result in greater liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, involvement of the congregation, opportunities for mission and use of the church generally"), granted a faculty.

Extensive reordering works were proposed for the Grade I church. There were several written objections, but none of the objectors wished to be a party opponent. There were no objections from the amenity societies consulted. The Chancellor, being satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the works (" ... the proposed changes will result in greater liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, involvement of the congregation, opportunities for mission and use of the church generally"), granted a faculty.

The proposal was for two new glass porches, at the north and south entrances of the Grade I church. There was an issue about the north porch. Historic England felt that the new woodwork should reflect the woodwork in the rest of the church, whereas the petitioners favoured a design to match the woodwork of the adjacent shop and servery in the north-west corner of the church. The Chancellor considered that the wordwork of the new north porch should relate to the modern design of the adjacent servery, and he granted a faculty accordingly.

The Dean of Arches granted to the Victoria Society leave to appeal on restricted grounds in respect of a judgment by the Chancellor of the Diocese of Peterborough relating to reordering proposals for the church of St. Botolph Longthorpe.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise a major scheme of reordering, which included the removal of pews and their replacement with hardwood chairs and benches; moving the font and the organ; replacing the altar against the east wall and installing a free-standing altar at the west end of the chancel; and removing the rood screen. Notwithstanding the objections of ChurchCare, Historic England, and the Victorian and Twentieth Century Societies, the Chancellor was "satisfied that the reordering is part of an overall holistic scheme for a thriving church community, which will be a major public benefit outweighing any harm."