Reordering

The proposed reordering works included the installation of a kitchenette and an accessible WC, with associated water supply and drainage works; installation of a new ceiling; relocation of the existing font to a redundant church in the benefice, from which it originally came, and the introduction of a new moveable font. The Chancellor considered that the proposed copper bowl to be used as a font did not 'fulfil either the letter or the spirit of Canon F1'. She therefore decline to grant a faculty in respect of the old and new fonts, but granted a faculty for the remaining items.

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.

The petition requested a confirmatory Faculty to regularize the unlawful installation of 6 combination light and heating chandeliers to replace the previous chandeliers and the current oil-fired heating system. The new chandeliers had been installed after the proposals had been recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, but before the petition had been referred to the Chancellor. There was one party opponent. The Chancellor considered that the new chandeliers were not quite as attractive as the ones they replaced, but were efficient and cheap to run. He was, however, concerned that the new wiring was “deplorable”. He granted a faculty, subject to conditions that steps should be taken to mitigate the damage cause by the wiring; photographs of the original chandeliers should be archived, and the original chandeliers should then be sold.

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."

A re-ordering project included the removal of all of the nave pews and their replacement with chairs; the installation of a new kitchenette and chair store at the west end of the building; the relocation of the font; and replacement of the dangerous wooden pew platforms with a simple engineered timber floor. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: "... the circumstances and needs of the parish relied upon at present do not justify the changes sought because those needs can be met with a less harmful scheme."

The petition proposed significant internal reordering of the Grade II* listed church. The proposals included extending the kitchen, creating a breakout room, improving disabled access, and refurbishing the entrance and toilets to enable wider community use. Heritage bodies — Historic England, the Victorian Society, and the Church Buildings Council — supported the project in principle but raised concerns about enclosing the church’s distinctive Italianate columns, removing internal doors, and relocating the historic font. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that the works would cause moderate harm to the building’s historic character but that the missional and community benefits outweighed this. The faculty was granted, subject to conditions: retention of the timber doors, careful relocation of the font under expert supervision, DAC approval of methods, confirmation of adequate funding before commencement, and completion within 12 months. The judgment emphasised balancing heritage protection with the church’s role in serving a deprived community.