Reordering

In 2017, the then Archdeacon of Bath had granted a licence for temporary reordering which allowed the removal of the church pews into storage, the removal of five radiators and the laying of a temporary carpet. The pews were placed in a storage facility with pews removed from Bath Abbey. The licence was limited to a period of 18 months. For various reasons, including a vacancy in the benefice and the Covid pandemic, nothing had been done about the return of the pews. In the interim, Bath Abbey arranged for the disposal of its pews from the storage facility, and by mistake the pews from St. Michael’s church were included in the disposal. The petitioners now requested a confirmatory faculty for the permanent removal of the pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the permanent removal of the pews, but not for their disposal, which remained unlawful. A condition was attached to the faulty that the petitioners should use their best endeavours to try to recover a sample number of the missing pews.

The petitioners wished to remove three light, moveable, twentieth century pews from the Grade II* church, together with 20 chapel chairs, and replace them with up to 25 new chairs of a light-coloured wood with burgundy red upholstery on the seats and backs. Historic England cautioned against the use of upholstered replacement chairs due to their likely impact on the church’s interior, which is predominantly furnished in timber. The Victorian Society and the Georgian Society also objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the three pews and the chapel chairs and the introduction of up to 25 new wooden chairs, provided (inter alia) that: the the new wooden chairs should be stained to match the surrounding woodwork; only the seats should be upholstered; and the colour of the upholstery should be a neutral colour to blend in with the colour of the wood.

The Petitioners from St Nicholas, High Bradfield, a Grade I listed medieval church, sought permission to install a new kitchen, servery, accessible toilets, and a shallow access ramp on the north side of the building. The works, planned over several years, aimed to replace inadequate and outdated facilities. The current kitchen was cramped and unsuitable, and the church had no internal lavatory; the only permanent toilet was down a steep and slippery cobbled lane and not owned by the church. A temporary Portaloo was in place, but was inappropriate for regular use, especially for elderly or those with disabilities. These shortcomings hindered worship, mission, and community events, including the well-attended annual music festival. Consultation with amenity societies raised no objections. The Church Buildings Council supported the scheme but insisted on replacing proposed vinyl flooring with engineered oak, a change the petitioners accepted. Planning permission and building regulations approval have been granted, and public notices produced no objections. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that any harm to the church’s significance was minimal, the need compelling, and the benefits substantial. A faculty was therefore granted, subject to a proviso in respect of the flooring.

The chancel of the church is only used for daily prayer and for fortnightly coffee mornings. The works proposed were the introduction of radiators and additional carpeting, to make the chancel more comfortable on the occasions when it is used. It was also proposed to create a new bell-ringing floor in the tower, in order to create a disabled toilet and kitchen at the base of the tower. There were letters of objection from two bell-ringers in respect of this item. The Chancellor decided that any impact on the bell-ringers should not outweigh the benefits of providing appropriate toilet and refreshment facilities. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petition sought permission for the following works in the Grade I listed church: the installation of toilets and the creation of a sound-proof meeting room with kitchen facilities in the north transept; the removal of the temporary kitchen at the east end of the south aisle; the creation of a reredos; the relocation of an altar in front of the reredos; and the creation of storage space behind the reredos. One matter of concern in this case was the proposal to level the floor of the Cowper Chapel in order to create an even floor for the proposed meeting room. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items as proposed.

In October 2014 the Chancellor had granted a faculty for certain works, including the replacement of pews with chairs. It was a condition of the faculty that "No order shall be placed for the new nave chairs/pews until their design has been either agreed with the DAC, English Heritage and the Victorian Society or approved by the Chancellor." In September 2016, the PCC, without approval, ordered 50 chairs which had matt gold coloured metal frames, with seats and backs of a rich brown faux leather. Upon hearing of this, Historic England and the Victorian Society objected to the choice of chair. The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty limited to ten years. Mindful of the huge cost the PCC had incurred in the reordering, and that the justification outweighed the harm in this case, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for 10 years, requiring the PCC before the end of such period to put forward proposals for some alternative chairs.

The reordering proposals for the Grade I church included: (a) removal and disposal of all pews, except five older 'pauper' pews to the west end of the north aisle; (b) introduction of upholstered chairs; (c) repairs to the nave floor; (d) replacement of existing carpet; (e) installation of an oak storage unit; and (f) replacement of the overhead heaters. The Victorian Society argued that the removal of all the pews would adversely affect the visual impact of the interior, and it had concerns about upholstered chairs. However, the evidence was that the pews were of poor quality wood and were riddled with worm and unrepairable. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the understanding that only the seats of the proposed chairs would be upholstered and in a neutral colour.

A faculty was sought for extensive reordering works. Part of the reason for the works was to allow the church to be used by the local Church of England school in particular and the community in general. The Victorian Society objected to the the laying of the proposed wooden floor, which would involve removing some Victorian floor tiles. The Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new position for the font. Both the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council objected to the proposed new pew benches being upholstered. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the new pew benches should not be upholstered, but may have separate cushions, subject to the material being approved by the court.

The proposal was to retain permanently a Hauptwerk digital organ (belonging to Wakefield Cathedral), which was introduced into the church under an Archdeacon’s Licence for temporary minor re-ordering. The church already had a faculty in place for the removal and disposal of the pipe organ, with the proviso of having a suitable replacement option. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal, the Chancellor granted a faculty: "I am satisfied that the petitioners have discharged the burden on them of displacing the presumption that the Harrison and Harrison organ should be replaced with a pipe-organ. I am satisfied that they have considered the merits and demerits of alternatives to their preferred Hauptwerk solution, particularly the relative costs, and that their proposal is in all the circumstances a reasonable one in terms of their wishes, needs and resources."

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the installation of a retractable screen to be placed over the chancel arch of the church, being satisfied that this would be preferable to the current arrangement of standing a portable screen on boxes at the front of the nave, and that the works were likely to bring benefits which outweighed the general presumption that change should not be permitted.