Reordering

The petitioners sought permission to reorder St Mary’s, a Grade II* listed church, by removing the nave pews and other Victorian furnishings and replacing them with chairs. Although the DAC supported the proposals, objections from the Victorian Society and a parishioner were considered by the Chancellor. The pews had been removed under an Archdeacon’s Licence for Temporary Minor Reordering to allow floor repairs, but were not reinstated after the licence expired. The Chancellor held that the pews should have been replaced and questioned whether their removal qualified as “temporary” or “minor.” She emphasized that Archdeacon’s Licences must be used with care and within prescribed time limits. Nevertheless, applying the Duffield test, she granted a Faculty for most of the proposed changes, including the permanent removal of the pews, subject to conditions. The Chancellor concluded that although some harm would be caused to the church’s historic character, this was justified by the benefits and the needs addressed by the reordering.

The Parochial Church Council proposed a reordering of the church interior, including: modifications to the west end of the church to provide improved access, WC facilities, baby changing, staircase to balcony, meeting room and kitchen; relocation and modification of the west end doors and Georgian balcony, screen and balustrade; provision of 70 chairs to be used on the reinforced balcony; the removal of all the nave pews and their replacement with 130 chairs. This judgment is limited to the replacement of the nave pews with chairs. The Church Buildings Council and English Heritage were parties opponent. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the replacement of the pews and granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the replacement of the pews was not to be carried out until the petitioners had obtained a faculty for the other  proposed items of reordering.

Proposed redevelopment of undercroft to provide community room with supporting facilities; insertion of a lift and stairs between levels, reordering nave to restore original eighteenth century design, reinstatement of original paint scheme to chancel and ceiling; shortening of pews to facilitate usage of the area with insertion of a tea point at the west end; provision of step-free access to nave and undercroft levels including new ramps and terrace; Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158 principles considered; Grade 1 listed building; extensive consultations, including CBC, HE, Georgian Group (GG), Victorian Society (VS) and local community; no formal objections; some harm arising from undercroft proposals but not serious when set against prospective benefits; air source heat pump system; reinstatement of C18th design and décor; VS concerns as to loss of ‘Withers’ floor considered, but alteration to ‘Gibbs’ design approved; visual impact of external ramps considered, comments of HE, GG and CBC considered; ramps considered to offer accessibility benefits outweighing prospective harm; Faculty granted subject to conditions requiring review and approval by DAC of detailed matters and proof of financial viability; regard to be had to NCZ and planning conditions.

A substantial internal reordering was proposed for a Grade II* listed church, as well as extensive external works. There were objections from the Victorian Society and several individuals, none of whom sought to be parties opponent. The principal objection of all the objectors was to the removal of the pews (to be replaced with upholstered chairs). The pews were installed in 1952, to replace the former pews destroyed by bomb damage to the church during the Second World War. The Chancellor was "satisfied that the benefits that are potentially available significantly outweigh [the] detriment and that the interests of this church in terms of its remaining a living entity for generations to come requires change rather than no change." Faculty granted.

The proposed reordering included re-plastering and redecoration; reordering of the west end of the nave by the creation of an enclosed, separately heated, community area and associated kitchen facilities; re-location of the font; relocation of a memorial; removal of the rear row of nave pews; and the addition of glass doors at the main entrance of the Church. The most controversial element was the proposed new meeting room at the west end of the church. The Victorian Society maintained that it would not harmonise with the rest of the church building. However, the Deputy Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a clear and convincing justification for the proposed works. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The contentious items of a major proposed reordering were: remodelling of the porch; replacement of the pews with upholstered chairs; a dais and ramp; relocation of the font; and removal of the stalls in the chancel. In fact some of the pews had been sold and removed before the petition came before the Chancellor, who directed that steps be taken to recover the pew benches until he had made a decision. However, having considered the evidence at a hearing, the Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for the changes, and he granted a faculty, provided that the type of replacement chair and the disposal of the chancel stalls should be reserved matters, not to be proceeded with in advance of further advice from the DAC and approval of the court.

The petition comprised two proposals for the Grade II Victorian church: firstly, "a relatively modest re-ordering of the north aisle and related works" and, secondly, the formation of a car park. There was one objector, who chose not to become a party opponent. Applying the approach of the Court of Arches in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor was satisfied that the works, if implemented, would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

Proposals for reordering related principally to the south aisle of the church, which is wider than the nave. The church has a Grade I listing, and is described as "heavily pewed". The main proposal was to remove the pews from the south aisle and replace them with stackable, chrome-framed, upholstered chairs, in order to provide greater and more flexible use of the south aisle, the church not having a church hall. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits to the church of replacing the pews outweighed any harm caused by their, and therefore granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews. However, he did not grant permission for chrome-framed chairs, but approved stackable Howe 40/4 chairs in oak frames, which had been considered as an alternative, but were more expensive. Appended to the judgment are further directions regarding the approval of Theo oak stacking chairs made by Chorus.

The faculty petition proposed the disposal of a wooden lectern. The petitioning churchwarden stated that the lectern was not being used, was unlikely to be used again, and was merely taking up space. The lectern bore an inscription to say that it had been given by a significant benefactor of the church in memory of her brother, who was a priest, but who had spent no part of his ministry in the parish. He had died in 1925. The Church Buildings Council recommended that, ‘as a good furnishing that has a long association with the church, this should be retained. The Council recognised it was redundant in terms of use but deemed it to be a high quality item and of interest as a memorial.’ The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioners applied for a Faculty to permit the early nineteenth century reredos, which had been temporarily removed, to be permanently removed from its original position in front of the East window and relocated to hang above the doorway in the centre of the West wall. In addition permission was sought to replaster the East wall of the Chancel in such a way as to preserve the medieval wall painting that has been uncovered by the removal of the reredos. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and heritage bodies did not support the proposals. The parishioners did not wish the reredos to be returned to the east end of the chancel, as its removal had resulted in considerably more light in the chancel. A report by historic building consultants supported the proposal. The Chancellor determined in principle that the reredos should not be returned to the chancel, subject to a feasible proposal being put forward and approved for its mounting on the west wall.