The petitioners (the incumbent and churchwardens) sought a faculty for a major re-ordering of the grade II* listed parish church. The proposals included the relocation of the central section of the rood screen and the removal and disposal of pews. English Heritage raised no objection to the proposals. The DAC recommended the works, having consulted the (then) Council for the Care of Churches. A number of letters of objection were received from individuals. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected to the relocation of the central section of the rood screen. The Victorian Society, in addition to objecting to that aspect of the proposals, objected to the removal of the nave pews. The local authority also objected on those two grounds. SPAB and the Victorian Society became parties opponent. The petition was determined on consideration of written representations under rule 26(1) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000. In a judgment extending to 79 pages the chancellor carried out a thorough survey of government policy and guidance in respect of the historic environment, including in particular Planning Policy Statement 5 (2010) and what it said about to the need to recognise both that ‘heritage assets’ were a ‘non-renewable resource’ and that ‘intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary’. The chancellor also considered the principles that lay behind the ecclesiastical exemption and, in particular, the principle that it would be operated on a basis that was ‘no less strict’ than the secular system of listed building control. He concluded that the principles enunciated by the ecclesiastical courts do not lead to authorisations that would not properly be available in the secular sphere. In particular, the balancing exercise enjoined by the third of the Bishopsgate questions involved giving greater weight to the heritage asset the more significant it was. The chancellor held that on the evidence the rood screen – although it had been subject to restoration in the nineteenth century – did retain a majority of original, mediaeval work and that it was ‘still evidently very significant’. Applying the Bishopsgate questions, the chancellor held that a faculty should not be granted to permit the removal and relocation within the church of the central section of the rood screen. Having been installed in its current location in the fifteenth century, it was a ‘remarkable survival’ and unique within Surrey. It contributed substantially to the character of the church building and relocating its central section would destroy its integrity. The need for change that had been shown – the improvement of sight lines and the removal of a physical separation between worshippers in a large and growing church – did not outweigh the severe harm that the proposals relating to the screen would involve. The pews, by contrast, were not ‘particularly special’ and they could, in principle, be removed. The chancellor was not satisfied about the detail of the proposals for the chairs that would replace them. Accordingly, the chancellor made his judgment an interim judgment so that further material could be submitted to the court concerning the seating, following a meeting of interested parties. [Alexander McGregor]
No CrossRef data available.