The incumbent and churchwardens sought a faculty for the construction of an extension to a Grade II* listed church for a children's chapel, meeting room, kitchen facilities and toilet. Planning permission had been obtained. After a significant process of consultation the petitioners secured the support of English Heritage, the Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council. At the consultation stage, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) had expressed objections in writing, which had not been met in the final proposal. After a significant delay in presentation of the petition, the parish wrote to the registry seeking a swift determination. The chancellor was not prepared to adjudicate upon the petition without first ascertaining the views of SPAB. Rule 13(3) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000 was of no application because, although SPAB had properly been consulted in a timely manner, the chancellor could not be satisfied that it had indicated that it had ‘no objection or comment to make’ and in such circumstances the requirement for special notice was mandatory.
After the handing down of the written judgment and the issue of the faculty, the registrar received an objection from a parishioner who alleged that the public notice displayed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2000 was not displayed in its entirety, in that the reverse of the notice – containing instructions on how to object to the proposed works – was not visible. The chancellor ordered an immediate stay on the implementation of the faculty pending inquiries. The investigation as to whether the notice was correctly displayed was inconclusive and the chancellor made no finding of fact in the matter. He noted that Rule 33 stated that non-compliance with the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules did not necessarily render a faculty void. He considered in some detail the nature and likely force of objections that the parishioner might have made and concluded that the objections would not have altered the outcome of the case. While mindful that a further period of notice might have produced additional and possibly different objections, the delay that this would have caused to the parish in the implementation of the works had also to be considered. Accordingly, he reinstated the faculty and gave permission to proceed. [RA/WA]
