Reordering

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed. There were several written objections, but only one party opponent. The Chancellor authorised in principle the majority of the proposals, subject to detailed designs, specifications and costings being approved by the Court or the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and subject to no work being undertaken until 90% of the cost of the works (including fees) had been raised or promised. The remaining items would have to be the subject of further petitions in the light of the current decision.

In 2015, the Chancellor had granted a faculty to authorise several items as part of an ambitious programme of reordering. The present petition sought approval of the four remaining items which the Chancellor did not approve in 2015, namely, installation of a new wooden floor with underfloor heating; the alteration of some pews and the disposal of others; the screening of the vestry; and the introduction of a kitchenette, WC and upper room in the north transept. The Chancellor approved the new flooring and underfloor heating. He did not authorise the new details of the proposed vestry screening, or the kitchenette, WC and upper room, as there needed to be consultation with the local planning authority, Historic England and the Victorian Society. As the proposal regarding the pews had changed, so as to request now permission to remove two-thirds of them, again the Chancellor required the matter to be the subject of a separate petition with further consultation.

In 2015 the parish had embarked on an extensive set of reordering proposals, which had been the subject of faculty petitions in 2015 and 2017.The present application requested an amendment to the 2017 faculty. The petitioners now wished to replace some of the pews with the Alpha SB2M chair, a metal-framed chair upholstered in a beige, wipeable, stain-resistant fabric, instead of the Theo (all wood) chair which had originally been proposed. The Victorian Society argued that a metal-framed upholstered chair would not fit in with the remaining pews. The Chancellor took the view that "no modern chair, however designed, will match a Victorian pew", and he could see "no particular basis for a general rule against upholstered chairs in listed churches." He granted permission for either chair to be installed.

Faculty granted for the removal of a single pew, to make room for an audio-visual control desk.

A faculty had been granted in 2022 for reordering in the church, including the introduction of stackable chairs for temporary use at the back of the nave. It had been a condition of the faculty that the design of the chairs should be approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee ("DAC"). The petitioners had chosen a Canterbury style chair from Alpha Furniture, but the DAC was not prepared to approve this design due to the chair having a curved back. The Chancellor had therefore been asked to settle the matter. The Chancellor decided that the overall impact of the chairs on the interior of the church would not be great, at the same time accepting the petitioners' view that the curved backs of the chairs would be more comfortable than flat backed ones. He accordingly granted a faculty.

A scheme of reordering was proposed for the church, including covering the whole floor with carpet. The Chancellor approved the works, incuding the carpet, as the church had "no architectural or aesthetic merit whatever", and he referred to Professor Pevsner's description of the church as "bad". Therefore the carpet would not adversley affect the character of the church. Also, the Chancellor accepted the arguments that the carpet would deaden the sound coming from the busy main road immediately next to the church.
(Note: This judgment also deals with a separate petition which included a proposal for carpeting, and is therefore separately listed as Re St. Michael the Archangel South Malling [1985] Quentin Edwards Ch. (Chichester)).

The faculty petition related to extensive internal reordering works, to enable more varied use of the church both in worship and for community events and to provide greater accessibility. The Chancellor was satisfied that, notwithstanding the loss of the remaining fixed seating,  the works would have little impact on the overall architectural character and appearance of the building, and she therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished the Chancellor to vary a faculty granted in 2018 in respect of the choice of chair to be used in the internal reordering of the church, by approving their suggested choice of the (upholstered) Alpha SB2M chair in substitution for the previously intended Trinity ‘Abbey’ (un-upholstered) chair. The Church Buildings Council, the Victorian Society and the Diocesan Advisory Committee were not in favour of upholstered seating. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed alternative seat had a good 'track record' and that it was acceptable for this particular church. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to separate the altar from the reredos, modify it, so that it would be free-standing, and move it away from the east end, to enable the priest to celebrate facing west; to relocate the reredos to the link between the church and the church hall ; and to renovate an old table to become a credence table. The Victorian Society objected to the separation of the reredos and altar and proposed re-siting of the reredos. The Church Buildings Council objected to the reredos being placed to the link to the hall. The Chancellor considered that there was a good case for moving the altar to allow west-facing celebration, and also safety benefits for the restricted space in the east end of this small church; also  the scheme would allow the retention, rather than disposal, of the reredos. There would also be the benefit of exposing the original stained glass window hidden by the reredos. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed a ramped access at the entrance to the church, a kitchenette at the west end of the church and the erection of a single storey extension to house a WC. Four individuals presented written objections, but the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic Buildings and Places and the Church Buildings Council approved of the proposals. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had presented a sufficiently good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.