Reordering

The petitioner applied for a restoration order in respect of a portable altar which had been used on the chancel steps at the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. Shortly after the application, the newly arrived priest-in-charge approached the archdeacon, seeking a Temporary Minor Reordering Licence, to allow the altar to be used occasionally for a trial period, after which the Parochial Church Council could decide whether it wished to apply for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent. The archdeacon granted a licence. The petitioner claimed that the granting of the licence was an 'abuse' of legal process to defeat his application. The Commissary General disagreed and dismissed the petitioner's application. If the church council applied for a faculty to make the arrangement permanent, the petitioner would then have an opportunity to object.

The petitioners proposed the creation of an extension and new entrance linked to the west door of the church, including kitchen and WC facilities, and also pew removal and extensive reordering of the main part of the church building. The proposals were opposed by a number of amenity societies and the Local Planning Authority, though only the Victorian Society became a party opponent. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Whilst he saw a clear justification for some parts of the proposals, he did not consider that, overall, the justification outweighed the potential harm to the Grade II* church.

The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty to permit various items of reordering in order to provide facilities in the church for a wide range of church and community events in what is a fairly isolated village. The proposals included 2 WCs, a "kitchen pod", a new staircase and ringing floor, new cupboards, replacement of the pews with wooden unupholstered chairs, moving of the font, new underfloor heating, new flooring, new lighting, solar panels, an air source heat pump, and new water and sewage services. A local objector claimed that no detailed costings had been carried out, and he challenged the assumptions about community use. The amenity societies involved had reservations about the kitchen facilities being enclosed, because of the impact of the walls on the surrounding church fabric. The Chancellor granted a faculty, to enable the petitioners to move forward with obtaining funding, but he reserved a decision as to whether the kitchen facilities should be enclosed or not until he had visited the church and made a final decision.

The proposals were to increase the size of the stage upon which the altar was situated; to install a new screen for the projector; and to move the Cross from its present position to the left side of the church, as it would otherwise be partially blocked by the new screen. There was one objection to the proposed repositioning of the Cross. The objector suggested an alternative position, which was agreed by the Parish, and a facutlty was granted for the Cross to be moved along the wall towards the stage opposite the entrance door, so that it would be viewed clearly when entering the worship area.

In 2021 a Faculty had been granted for extensive reordering of the unlisted 19th century church, following its relaunch as a youth resourcing church. The faculty contained a condition that "None of the existing historic fittings in the church building are to be altered and the chancel is to remain as existing." In 2023, a faculty application sought 'retrospective permission for the removal of the pulpit and disposal of church furnishings including credence tables, lecterns and small tables’. The items had been sold to an architectural salvage company at short notice to facilitate completion of the works authorised in 2021 in time for the reopening of the church in October 2023. Notwithstanding objections from the Victorian Society regarding the removal of the pulpit, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the style of worship in the church had changed fundamentally and that the pulpit and other items were no longer needed for worship in the church. 

The proposals included removal of the choir stalls and pulpit; introduction of a nave dais to allow a forward altar; the addition of a second screen to the wall behind the present pulpit to match the existing screen on the south side of the church; two flat screen monitors to the chancel; two loudspeakers in the chancel; and relocation of the AV control desk to the rear of the church. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the pulpit and choir stalls. Faculty granted by the Chancellor, being satisfied that "in order to provide a living church, meeting the pastoral and liturgical needs of the current population, this reordering needs to take place."

The faculty petition proposed several items of reordering. The Victorian Society (which did not become a party opponent) was concerned about the effect of the removal of both the front and rear choir stalls and desks from the chancel. The Chancellor was concerned that no firm proposals had been put forward regarding what would replace the choir stalls and desks and how the walls behind them would be treated. He granted a faculty for all the items of reordering, apart from the removal of all the choir pews and desks. But he gave permission for the removal of the front rows of choir pews and desks, to give time for the petitioners to review the effect of the partial removal of the pews and desks. If they wished to remove the rear pews and desks, then they would have to make a further application to the Chancellor, with detailed proposals for replacement furniture.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the extension of the church (which was built in 1966 and is unlisted) and internal reordering, in order to provide more worship space and space for meetings; to provide a café/drop-in style meeting place; and to alter the appearance of the exterior to create a more attractive and welcoming entrance.

Notwithstanding his concerns that there had not been adequate consultation during the faculty process, the Chancellor granted a faculty for reordering, which included the creation of a new vicar’s vestry in the Parish Centre; rearrangement of the west end of the church, including the removal of 6 pews, to provide additional storage, the serving of refreshments after services, and a larger meeting space.

The petitioners were the priest in charge and a churchwarden of an unlisted church built in 1974. Their proposal was to remove 18 pews and introduce 100 wooden chairs with red upholstery. The DAC did not recommend the proposal, stating that the chairs were heavy and would be difficult to move, and the dark red upholstered chairs would be detrimental to the light levels and appearance of the church interior. At a visit to the church and to a neighbouring church, which already had the same type of chair as that proposed, the Chancellor was satisfied that the chairs were not too heavy or difficult to stack. Moreover, the existing pews (acquired from another church) were painted with a yellowish colour and were looking chipped and tired, and they easily slid on the parquet floor, if leaned on. The Chancellor was satisfied that the chairs were a better and more comfortable alternative to the pews and he therefore granted a faculty.