Judgment Search

Downloads

Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 4 June 2020

Index by Dioceses of all judgments on this web site, as at 4 June 2020

Reordering

Display:

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* listed church, the details of which are too numerous to include in this brief note, but included the replacement of the vestry with a four storey extension to the church, to provide meeting rooms and offices; the removal of the pews and replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; the carpeting of the whole floor; and the creation of a kitchen. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items. One of the items he declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.

The proposal was to remove the last three remaining rows of 20th century pews from the nave of the Grade I church, to 'facilitate flexible use of the nave for worship and missional events'. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of removal far outweighed any disadvantages and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The proposal was to introduce two new glass screens, between the eastern end of the nave and the south transept and between the south transept and the lady chapel. The result will be to enable the south transept to be used as a separate room. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case and that there was "no evidence that this proposal would harm the character of this listed church – as opposed to merely changing it."

In 2009, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield refused to grant a faculty for the introduction a raised area at the east end of the nave and the moving of four pews from the south aisle to the north aisle to allow space for a ramp to the raised area. The appeal was allowed.

The proposals were for extensive reordering of the Grade II church and the building of an extension in the churchyard to accommodate toilets, a kitchen, a store room, a meeting room and refurbished choir vestry and vicar's vestry and toilet. The extension would be built over one known grave of a married couple, who died in 1975 and 1980 respectively. The Chancellor was satisfied that, because the church extension would be built on piles, the grave would not be disturbed. He was also satisfied that the petitiners had discharged the burden of proving that (quoting Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]) "the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before".

The proposals were for a major reordering, for most of which there were no objections. Amongst the amenity societies consulted, only the Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting principally to the proposed removal from the nave of "one of the most magnificent and extensive suites of Victorian church seating in the country". In weighing the benefits which the proposals would bring against any loss to the historical and architectural importance of the church, the Chancellor had to consider the evidence of the petitioners as to the financial viability of the church if the works were not carried out. On balance he determined in favour of the petitioners and granted a faculty.

Faculty granted for £1m re-ordering program of works, including removal of pews, creation of vestry and office in chapel, heating, lighting, drainage and other internal works.

The petition proposed various items of reordering, including the replacement of pews with chairs, audio-visual facilities and a frameless glass door. The Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting to the removal of pews from the nave. The Chancellor accepted the view of Counsel for the Society that the removal of the pews would result in serious harm to the significance of the church, and that therefore the need for change would have to be exceptional. However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had set out a convincing case for the changes, and he therefore directed the issue of a faculty including, inter alia, a condition that a scheme should be prepared for adjustment and reuse of some of the pews in the church transepts.

This was a determination of two faculty petitions in respect of the unlisted church building: (1) the replacement of the organ with a modern instrument, and (2) a major reordering scheme, to incorporate community facilities. The Parochial Church Council was proposing to partly fund the work from the sale of the adjoining dilapidated church hall. There were three parties opponent, including two employees of the Town Council. Faculty granted.

The petitioners proposed the removal of 15 unfixed and damaged Victorian pine pews with a view to providing more flexible use of the church for family services and community use, the pews to be replaced with 39 wooden chairs with upholstered seats. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a ‘robust justification’ for their proposals and granted a faculty.