Reordering

The Vicar and churchwardens sought permission to re-order the chancel area of the Grade II Victorian church by removing and disposing of the rear choir stalls and replacing them with the front stalls, carrying out some modifications to enlarge the leg-room available, making good any exposed tiles and laying carpet across the widened chancel aisle to match the nave aisle carpet. The object of the proposals was to make the use of the church by the children of the village school more convenient and effective and also increase the possibilities of using the building for concerts and community events. The Victorian Society objected to the covering of the Minton tiles with carpet. The Chancellor approved the proposals and granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extension to be added to the north side of the church and for internal re-ordering, including replacement of the pews with partially upholstered chairs, some new furniture, disposal of the pulpit and lectern, the relocation of a chest tomb, and the introduction of a nave plinth. The Victorian Society argued that the loss of all the pews would rob the church of its character, and the removal of the pulpit could not be justified. Also, it did not consider upholstered seating appropriate. A number of parishioners also raised objections. Taking the proposals as a whole, the Chancellor was satisfied that they would provide a better environment for the varied worshipping needs of the church, community events and provision for children's activities. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the installation of a projector screen in a housing over the chancel arch of the church and a fixed projector, to replace the existing arrangement of erecting a portable screen and placing a portable projector on a flower stand in the pews. He based his decision on the grounds of visibility and safety. The Chancellor was satisfied that, "The impact on the appearance of the church will be modest and the benefits to be obtained by the proposed works are sufficient to overcome the presumption against change."

The proposals were to alter the floor levels inside and outside the south porch and adjust the doors, to improve access for those with disabilities; to create a new doorway in the north wall, as a fire escape, and to remove and dispose of the pipe organ from the place where the new fire door would be inserted, with the intention of later installing an electronic organ. There were six letters of objection, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend of the disposal of the organ. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the works to the porch and the new fire exit door, but he was not satisfied that it was appropriate to authorise the removal of the pipe organ at this stage, as possible relocation of the organ within the church had not been fully explored, nor the alternative of replacing the organ with a smaller pipe organ, and the petition did not request authority for the installation of a particular electronic organ.

The petitioners wished to remove two rows of pews from the west end of the nave of the church, in order to create space for church and community activities. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant a faculty. The church would remain predominantly pewed and any harm to the special significance of the Grade I church would be modest and would be outweighed by the potential benefits.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed, including raising the nave floor and introducing new limestone flagstones; underfloor heating; air source heat pumps in the churchyard; replacing the nave pews with chairs, introduction of a west end gallery with two toilets underneath; and other items too numerous to be listed in a short summary. The main object of the proposals was ‘putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission.’ Approximately 40 letters of objection were received, but no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works.

The petition contained proposals for extensive reordering works at the Grade II* listed medieval church, including underfloor heating, a new stone floor, kitchen and lavatory facilities, removal of most pews, new screens and storage, roof insulation, lighting upgrades, external plant and storage buildings, lowering of the pulpit, relocation of the font and ledger stones and replacement of the organ. Amenity bodies raised significant objections, particularly about underfloor heating, relocation of historic features, removal of seating, the scale and impact of external building, and potential harm to the church’s historic and rural character. The PCC revised aspects of the scheme and demonstrated strong community support and anticipated demand, especially in light of local housing growth. The DAC supported the proposals and commended the PCC’s consultation process. Following a site visit, the Chancellor applied the Duffield test and concluded that, overall, the benefits for mission and community use outweighed the heritage harm. A faculty was granted for all the items, with the exception of the proposed lowering of the pulpit.

The petition from the Grade II* listed church sought approval for the disposal of 35 deteriorating plastic chairs and the purchase 35 additional upholstered stacking chairs matching 25 already in use. Applying the Duffield guidelines, the Chancellor assessed harm to the church’s significance and whether it was justified by public benefit. He found that while removing the plastic chairs was clearly beneficial and caused no harm, introducing more upholstered chairs would cause low to moderate harm to the church’s character and would conflict with Church Buildings Council (CBC) guidance favouring unupholstered wooden seating. The parish’s arguments (cost, flexibility, lightness, and suitability for mission) were insufficient to justify departing from that guidance, especially as similar benefits could be achieved with compliant alternatives. The existing upholstered chairs, which had been introduced unlawfully, could not set a precedent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for disposal of the plastic chairs, but refused to allow the proposed replacements, unless redesigned in accordance with CBC guidance. The court indicated willingness to approve compliant alternatives and stressed vigilance by archdeacons over unauthorized changes in churches.

An application had been made by a private individual for a restitution order against the Archdeacon, requiring him to replace the pews which had been removed from the church in the summer of 2020, on the grounds that their removal was not permitted by a licence for temporary minor reordering, and was therefore unlawful. The Archdeacon had not actually given permission for the pews to be removed. They had been removed by the Churchwardens and Parochial Church Council (PCC), who subsequently undertook to return the pews to the church in October 2021, but did not do so until December 2021. The Commissary General gave directions for the Archdeacon to be removed as the respondent and replaced by the Churchwardens and PCC. The Commissary General also considered it appropriate, in the interests of certainty, to issue a restitution order, and he directed that the new respondents should pay the costs of the application and of the hearing.

In Re St. Leonard Hythe [2023] ECC Can 2, the petitioner had applied for a restoration order in respect of an altar which had been moved to the head of the nave, on the basis that no lawful authority had been granted for such use. The Commissary General had dismissed the petitioner's application. The petitioner applied for leave to appeal. The Dean of the Arches refused to grant leave to appeal. The main ground of appeal was that it was unlawful to move an altar in a church without the authority of a faculty. The Dean referred to Canon F2, which states that, if there is any dispute as to where an altar is to be positioned, it should be determined by the Ordinary. In relation to another ground of appeal, that the altar had been installed without authority, the Dean pointed out that, as the altar had been installed more than six years ago, the court had no jurisdiction to make a restoration order (Section 72, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018).