Repairs

The petitioners wished to carry out works of repair to the parapet of the tower, by re-bedding masonry and laying new lead, and also repairs to the west window, which had suffered heavy erosion. There were no objections to the work on the parapet, but the Society for the Protection of Ancent Buiildings objected to the proposed work to the west window, saying that the amount of the proposed replacement stonework was excessive and without justification. The Chancellor took the view that the petitioners had established that far-reaching repairs were needed to the window and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for restoration work to the rood screen and reredos.

A faculty had been granted in 2014 to authorise the redecoration of the interior of the church with four coats of limewash. When the old emulsion was removed, the walls looked in poor condition and it was thought that four coats of limewash would not be sufficient to cover the walls, which were “patchy” and “deep green” in various areas. The architect favoured a product called Zinsser Grade 1 paint. He obtained the PCC's permission to use it and instructed the contractors to use the paint instead of limewash, which the contractors reluctantly did. Within a month of application, the paint was pealing off the walls. The Chancellor asked the Archdeacon to apply for a restoration order, which the Archdeacon did. The Chancellor granted an order, stating that the architect should not have directed the use of an alternative covering without obtaining first a variation of the faculty. And the Chancellor directed that the architect should meet the cost of the remedial work.

In 2014, the inspecting architect had recommended Zinsser Grade 1 paint for the redecoration of the interior of the church as authorised by faculty. The paint proved to be totally unsuitable. It was impermeable, and the migration of salts from the walls to the paint layer caused it to expand and flake. In 2017, the Chancellor ruled that the Zinsser paint should be removed and the walls repainted with limewash or an alternative paint approved as an amendment to the original faculty. Options put forward by a new architect were (a) to maintain scaffolding in the nave for 5 years to monitor the condition of the walls before further repainting, or (b) replastering and repainting, which would destroy fragments of old wall paintings. The Church Buildings Council, Historic England and the Society for the protection of Ancient Buildings rejected both (a) and (b), preferring overpainting, which the Parochial Church Council did not consider would solve the problem of the Zinsser paint flaking in future. The Chancellor granted a faculty to remove the Zinsser paint from the walls, and also the plaster beneath it and then to apply new render to the walls, followed by a suitable number of coats of limewash to the fresh wall surface. 

In 2021 one of the tower pinnacles had fallen in a storm, and in 2022 the remaining three pinnacles had been found to be unsafe and had been removed under an interim faculty. A confirmatory faculty was grated in 2023, with a condition that the pinnacles be restored within 3 years, though that condition had been omitted from the faculty. The Parochial Church Council objected to the condition. The Court decided to stay the condition, pending further discussion with the interested parties. Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Telford and Wrekin Council all objected to the permanent removal of the pinnacles from the Grade I listed building. The Chancellor decided to reinstate the condition that the pinnacles should be restored within a given period, but changed the period to 5 years. Whilst raising the necessary funds might be difficult, “Listing does not relate to practicality or utility, but to matters like historical and aesthetic value.  Listed buildings are typically expensive to maintain by reason of their antiquity and merit”.