Roofing

This judgment relates to five churches: St Michael and All Angels, Bexhill; All Saints, Danehill; St Matthew, St Leonards-on-Sea; St Mary, Balcombe;  and St John the Evangelist, Upper St Leonard. Each church had suffered lead theft. Four churches applied for faculties, and one for dispensation from faculty, to replace the roofing. The proposed replacement roofing in each case was Decothene (liquid plastic) or GRP. The Chancellor granted faculties and the requested dispensation from faculty.

In August 2013 there were two instances of the theft of lead from the roof of the south aisle of the church and a further attempt to steal the remaining lead. The removal of the lead caused rain damage to the organ. On 16th August 2013, at the request of the Parochial Church Council, the Chancellor authorised the removal of the remaining lead from the roof and its replacement by a substantial temporary covering. The Parochial Church Council chose to cover the roof with Dryseal GRP. The Petitioners sought a Faculty to authorise the retention of the GRP covering on a permanent basis, rather than replace the stolen lead with lead or terne-coated stainless steel. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings all considered that GRP was not appropriate as a permanent solution and favoured terne-coated steel. One of the PCC's arguments against steel (or indeed lead) was that, if the covering were again stolen, the insurers would limit a claim (including consequential damage) to £5,000 (or £10,000 if an alarm was fitted). The Chancellor decided that the insurance considerations should not be determinative of what was appropriate for the building. He decided that the GRP could remain for ten years, but must then be replaced by terne-coated steel or 'an equivalent metallic material'.

There was an application for a confirmatory faculty to approve the covering of the north-aisle roof of a Grade I listed church with a non-metallic roofing membrane called Sarnafil, which had been carried out without faculty consent. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee had been consulted, one of the churchwardens ordered the work to be done (with the approval of the Parochial Church Council) without faculty. Instead of directing that the unauthorised work be undone, the Chancellor granted a faculty with the proviso that the Sarnafil roofing should be inspected and maintained regularly and that, when it needed to be replaced, the church should apply for permission for a replacement form of roofing, "which should be decided by myself or my successor, and there should be no presumption that because Sarnafil is already there, then Sarnafil should be used in the future." The Chancellor directed that the churchwarden should personally pay the costs of the proceedings.

Faculty granted for the recovering of the north aisle roof of the church with Sarnafil. Refusal by the Chancellor to accede to a request by English Heritage that the Faculty be limited to a period of 10 years.

As part of its policy on climate change, to reduce its carbon footprint, the College wished to place solar panels on both the north and south sides of the Chapel roof. The main arguments of the consultees against the proposal were that the panels would be partially visible through the parapet tracery from a few viewpoints. The Church Building Council also questioned whether panels on the north side of the roof could generate enough energy to justify them. The Chancellor was satisfied that the scheme would benefit the College and would help it towards reaching its net zero target. He determined that he would grant a faculty for solar panels on both sides of the roof, or on the south side only, dependent upon an updated assessment of the potential carbon payback for the north roof and calculations and observations as to the effect on the structure without an identical weight on the north roof, were the eventual decision to allow for solar panels on the south roof only.  The assessment should be produced within 28 days and provided to the DAC and other bodies who had been involved in the process, such assessment to be produced within 28 days and then submitted to the consultees for comment within a further 21 days.

In 2009 the lead rainwater goods on the north side of the church were stolen and were replaced with like materials, which in turn were stolen in 2011. In 2012, in view of water ingress and damage to internal walls, the church sought approval for the immediate installation of GRP rainwater goods. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and English Heritage were unhappy about the use of GRP on a Grade I church. In July 2012 the Deputy Chancellor granted a temporary licence for GRP rainwater goods, subject to conditions. GRP rainwater goods were installed and the Church subsequently applied for a confirmatory faculty.The planning authority, SPAB and the Church Buildings Council objected to GRP. The Chancellor granted an interim faculty, allowing the GRP rainwater goods to remain for a further 5 years, after which they should be replaced with metal, if the general advice of the heritage bodies has not changed by the end of that period.

Faculty granted for the installation of solar panels on the south side of the roof of an unlisted church built in 1940 in the Arts & Crafts style.

The petitioners wished to re-tile the church roof reusing 70% of the old tiles, and also take the opportunity to fit insulation into the roof. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions that (1)  in accordance with the recommendation of the Diocesan Advisory Committee, the works should be subject to a monitoring process both before and after the works take place, and (2) in accordance with the advice of Historic England, the insulation should be installed without causing harm to the roof timbers; the gable apex crosses should be retained and, if necessary, restored; and any mortar to be used should match the existing historic mortar.

Following lead thefts, a faculty was sought to authorise the re-roofing of the north and south side aisles and the south porch of the church with Dryseal® glass reinforced plastic (“GRP”) at a considerably lower cost than the cost of lead. English Heritage made a formal objection, preferring to see terne-coated stainless steel used. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Given the nature and location of the roofs concerned, which could not be seen from ground level, due to the parapets, the higher cost of lead, and the increased likelihood of theft, he could see no reason to insist on the use of lead.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the replacement of five cast iron downpipes and associated hoppers with high density polyethylene (HDPE) replacements on a Grade II* listed church.