The Grade II listed church had been subject to repeated lead thefts over a number of years. Much of the roof lead had now been replaced with alternative materials. The north aisle roof had had approximately two-thirds of its lead stolen. The vicar and churchwardens now sought a faculty to remove the remaining lead and replace it with Sarnafil. Steps were to be taken to ensure that the appearance of the Sarnafil would approximate that of lead as closely as possible. Sarnafil was said to have a life expectancy in excess of 25 years, but was not recommended as a roofing material in the Church Buildings Council Guidance Note on the issue. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the works, stating that the roof was not prominent in any key view. There had been no objections in response to publication of the proposals, save that English Heritage and the Amenity Societies, which preferred the use of terne-coated steel, were only prepared to countenance the use of Sarnafil on the basis that it was a temporary and reversible solution and urged that the faculty only be granted for a period of 10 years.
The chancellor refused to impose the time limit on the faculty on the basis that to require the removal of the Sarnafil before the expiry of its natural life span would be wasteful and an inappropriate stewarding of resources. He further chose not to impose any condition in relation to any future roofing material, stating that such questions were a matter for determination by the Consistory Court at that time, having regard to circumstances prevailing then. [RA]
