Reordering

The petitioners sought permission to undertake some internal works to create toilets (including disabled), a kitchen area and a small vestry and office in the Grade II* listed church. The Victorian Society argued that the curved wall of the proposed vestry and office "pod" would be at odds with the design of the church. However, the Chancellor concluded that any harm caused by the construction would be minimal, and not intrusive. He granted a faculty, subject to a condition that, in order to make the curved wall less obtrusive, the architect should consider the feasibility of suitable panelling of a style and colour to match that in place under the adjacent organ pipes.

Petition for scheme for reordering involving the removal of some Victorian pews, the provision of WC and kitchenette facilities, improved disabled access, the replacement of the porch doors and the provision of a movable nave altar and communion rails. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered, the Chancellor concluding that "the limited harm which these proposals will cause to this church is clearly outweighed by the significant public benefit to be achieved." Faculty granted.

The petitioners sought permission "to remove (temporarily) the pews in the south aisle to create space for post-service fellowship and missional/social activities, and to provide a temporary kitchenette pending approval of a future major development project to reorder the church interior and construct an extension". The Victorian Society, Local Planning Authority and Historic England were basically satisfied with the proposals for temporary reordering, subject to them being time-limited. The Chancellor was satisfied with the petitioners' justification for the short term proposals and that the benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm. He granted a faculty for two years, after which the status quo should be restored, unless at the end of that period there was a petition before the court for more permanent reordering proposals.

The was a petition for internal reordering of the church. An interim faculty had been granted in 2021, authorisng certain works, conditional upon an application being made for a permanent faculty within 24 months. Notwithstanding the reservations of some statutory consultees, the Chancellor was satisfied that the works would improve liturgical use of the building and permit a range of community uses for concerts and events, and that the public benefit in implementing the proposals would outweigh the limited harm that would result.

The churchwardens sought a  faculty  for  the  relocation  of  the  font  from  its  existing position at the west end of the church to a new position at the east end of the south aisle adjacent to the Lady Chapel.  The rationale for the move was that the existing position of the font meant that the minister had to stand in a cramped and restricted space; the congregation had to turn in their pews to view a baptism; and the proposed new position would allow more space around the font. A former churchwarden objected to the proposal on the grounds that a font should be at the west end of the church, near the entrance, and the position next to the Lady Chapel would cause congestion. The Church Buildings Council also argued that Canon F1 required the font to be near the entrance at the west end of the church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposal and she granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for installation of a mezzanine floor in the north aisle of the church.

The petition sought permission for works to improve access at St Martin’s Church, Brampton, a Grade I listed church and the only church designed by Philip Webb, with stained glass by Burne-Jones and Morris. The proposed works included internal alterations and major external access works involving a ramp and lift at the principal entrance. The Victorian Society objected to the external proposals. The Chancellor accepted that there was a compelling and well-evidenced need to improve access, noting that the steep steps excluded many worshippers, visitors, and community users, and undermined the Church’s mission. However, applying the Duffield framework, he found that the external access proposals would cause a high degree of harm to the Church’s exceptional significance, particularly its unaltered integrity as a unique work by Webb. Although the public benefit of equal access was substantial, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not yet fully explored a potentially less harmful alternative entrance beneath the Paradise Window, partly due to a misunderstanding of rights over the adjoining car park. As serious harm to a Grade I building should be permitted only exceptionally, the external proposals were refused. The internal works, car park resurfacing, and minor ancillary works were approved.

There were proposals to reorder the vestry and serving area at the west end of the south aisle of the church (which works were approved by faculty in 2006), to include a lavatory. There was one objector. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the reordering, and that the proposals would not adversely harm the interior of the church. He accordingly granted a faculty. The Chancellor ordered the objector to pay the costs of the hearing.

The petitioners applied for permission to appeal against the Chancellor’s judgment of 12 October 2025 refusing a faculty for external access works at the church. Permission was sought under rule 23 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, requiring the proposed appeal to have a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason for it to be heard. The petitioners argued that the alternative access proposal identified in the judgment would result in inequality of access, would itself cause serious harm to the building’s significance, and that the lack of equal access was rendering the church increasingly unfit for use. The Chancellor refused permission to appeal. He held that the grounds advanced did not engage with the proper test. The petitioners had not identified any error of law, fact, or principle, nor any improper exercise of discretion. Instead, they relied on new evidence and a restatement of disagreement with the conclusions reached. The Chancellor explained that the judgment had expressly recognised the importance of equal access and had accepted the compelling need relied upon by the petitioners. The proposed grounds disclosed no realistic prospect of success and no other compelling reason to permit an appeal. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering spread over ten years. The proposed works included (inter alia): a new lavatory in the current vestry; a new vestry at the west end of the south aisle; the removal of the pews from the north and south aisles to allow for better circulation; a new kitchenette and hospitality area in the north chapel; the main entrance to the church to be through the north porch as it once was, with work being carried out within the porch to allow for disabled access. The amenity societies consulted had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.