Church pipe organs have featured in fewer than 2% of the total number of consistory court judgments reviewed in L&RUK. Nevertheless, the following links provide an indication of the range of issues that have been considered by the courts.

• Installation of replacement pipe organ
• Maintenance/refurbishment of existing pipe organ
• Replacement of pipe organ with electronic organ
• Rebuild as hybrid organ
• Removal of pipe organ

Installation of replacement pipe organ

Re St. Barnabas Morecambe [2023] ECC Bla 3 The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the pipe organ from an unlisted United Reform Church in Weybridge following its closure in 2021; the solid oak casework from the existing instrument will be retained. The original organ in St Barnabas was installed by Edward Wadsworth & Brother, but had not sounded for over two years after the main wind trunk blew off. Since then the parish has been using its chamber organ. The proposed replacement was a pipe organ originally built by Henry Willis in 1865. [Re St. Barnabas Morecambe [2023] ECC Bla 3]

Re St. Bartholomew Orford [2018] ECC SEI 3  The existing organ at the church was installed in the 1830s as a “temporary measure” after the original organ had been damaged as a result of the collapse of the west tower. However, whilst “adequate to accompany a choir” (the church has a respectably-sized choir of twenty four choristers), it was now deemed “unsuitable to perform the vast body of organ and choral music”.

The PCC voted in favour of accepting the gift of a 1977 Peter Collins organ from Southampton University; “there is no dispute that this is a fine instrument and one which would enhance any church or other music venue. As the petitioner identified, if they fail to take up this offer, there is little likelihood of a comparable organ being offered to this generation” [2]. Although offered without cost, the DAC estimated that its installation would cost £60,000 to £100,000, and had concerns regarding its size and modern casing. English Heritage had reservations about the proposed organ, but the Church Buildings Council supported the project.

Deputy Chancellor decided there was a clear and convincing justification for the installation of the organ and granted a faculty. He concluded:

“[36]. St Bartholomew’s Church needs an organ suitable to its size and its ambitions. They have been offered an organ which may not be perfect in every particular, but the chances of the church being offered anything remotely suitable in the foreseeable future are negligible. This provides a reason why I have considered this application with care”.

[Re St. Bartholomew Orford [2018] ECC SEI 3]

Maintenance/refurbishment of existing pipe organ

Re St. Anne Stanley [2024] ECC Liv 2, the third occasion on which a tuba rank from another church has been installed in the church, within the same diocese. There was no issue in relation to funding. Therefore, subject to the availability of the organ builders, there is no reason why the works could not commence promptly. Faculty conditional on St Elphin’s giving St Anne’s a minimum of 6 months’ notice should they wish to seek the return of the tuba  rank, or to sell their organ. The petitioners were aware that the costs to “uninstall“ will have to be met by St Anne’s should this ever arise.

Post: Consistory court considers organ donation, again, Analysis of Re St. Anne Stanley [2024] ECC Liv 2, (2 May 2024).

Re St. Lawrence Aldfield [2022] ECC Lee 5 The rector and church treasurer sought retrospective permission for works already carried out to the organ, including treatment of woodworm, cleaning of pipework, fitting two new sets of sliding tuners, and asbestos removal from the blower. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, but stressed the need to seek formal approval for works, even in urgent cases. [Re St. Lawrence Aldfield [2022] ECC Lee 5]

Re All Saints Bakewell [2021] ECC Der 4 The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for repairs and overhaul of the church organ at an estimated cost of £135,000. There were two objections both relating to the cost of the works and the justification for spending a significant amount of money on repairs to the organ. The Chancellor granted a faculty: “In my judgment, issues relating to the cost of the works and the justification for spending money on the organ are primarily matters for the PCC, not for the Consistory Court.” [Re All Saints Bakewell [2021] ECC Der 4]

Re All Saints Rothbury [2015] Newcastle Const Ct, Duff Ch. The petitioners sought a faculty to restore and reposition the Hill organ in the church. There was one objector who argued in favour of an electronic organ. The objections appeared to have been based upon incomplete information, and were refuted by the petitioners. A major reason for the restoration is to alleviate problems caused by the tracker system; nevertheless, the petitioners acknowledged that the operation of the organ would never be as silent as an electronic or digital system,

The expected life of the electronic organ is only about 30 years. In contrast, a grant by the Heritage Lottery Fund of £27,300 had been augmented to £63,700 and the restored Hill organ “should be good for about 150 years”. Faculty granted. [Re All Saints, Rothbury [2015] Newcastle Const Ct, Duff Ch.]

Replacement of pipe organ with electronic organ

Re St. Giles Skelton [2019] ECC Yor 5 Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the replacement of the pipe organ with electronic organ, and granted a faculty. The tests that the Chancellor needed to apply were to consider: whether the petitioners had made at a case for the proposal; whether the proposals, if Implemented, would result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest; and if they would, then there would be a number of other issues for to consider [10]. Collier Ch. referred to his judgment in Re St. Nicholas Guisborough [2018] ECC Yor 6 in which he said:

“[37]. The next step is that there is no principle of law requiring that it be replaced like for like with a pipe-organ. However, there is a presumption that the starting point should be to replace a pipe-organ with a pipe-organ but that that is a presumption that can be rebutted.

[38]. If they are to rebut the presumption the petitioners will need not only to give an account of the ‘wishes, needs, and resources of the parish in question’ but will also need to show that they have considered the merits and demerits of any alternative proposals…In particular they will need to show that their preference for an alternative to a traditional pipe-organ follows careful and reasoned consideration after detailed and informed research. In just the same way the Chancellor must gave regard to the advice of the DAC but is not bound to accept it if there are good reasons for not doing so”.

Faculty granted. [Re St. Giles Skelton [2019] ECC Yor 5]

Re St. James Heckmondwike [2019] ECC Lee  The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for removal of pipe organ (1878), leaving the front of the casing and its decorative pipes, and to install an electronic organ within the old casing. Some objectors resorted to Facebook to disseminate ill-informed, abusive comment. The Deputy Chancellor concluded that removal of this pipe organ would not cause harm to the character of this building. However, he supported the contention of both the British Institute of Organ Studies [BIOS] and the Church Buildings Council that an alternative location for the pipe organ must be sought. [Re St. James Heckmondwike [2019] ECC Lee]

Re St. Paul St. Albans [2017] ECC StA 2 The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the disposal of the existing pipe organ and its replacement with an electronic organ. The existing organ “appeared to date from about 1915 (possibly earlier)”, and originated from a church in Brighton. However, it was described as “a second-rate instrument of little historic, musical or artistic merit having suffered repairs and alterations since installation” . It was considered to be “a shadow of its former self” (diocesan organ adviser) and “rather “‘vin ordinaire’” (petitioners’ organ consultant). A faculty granted, subject to conditions on the disposal of the existing organ.  [Re St. Paul St. Albans [2017] ECC StA 2]

Re Christ Church Fulwood [2017] ECC She 6 The Chancellor granted a faculty for the creation of a courtyard in the churchyard, between the church and the road; also the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic instrument in order to provide more seating space. The Chancellor stressed:

“[36]. That application of the Duffield test to the organ is not the end of the matter because I cannot and should not ignore the fact that the instrument stands in its own right as a church treasure of considerable value both historically and musically (not to mention financially). I would not consider it appropriate to permit its removal from its present location unless or until it could be removed to another church in the Diocese of Sheffield where it will be played, appreciated and maintained”.

[Re Christ Church Fulwood [2017] ECC She 6]

Re St Richard Aldwick [2014] Chichester Cons Ct, Hill Ch. The petitioners sought a faculty to decommission and dismantle the existing pipe organ and store it within the church, and replace it with a Makin Thirlmere digital organ. The relative merits of pipe- vs electronic organs are often explored by the consistory courts of this and other diocese, but “each case turns on its own facts, and there is no presumption in favour of pipe of digital instruments. The Chancellor granted the petition taking into account: the cost/benefit analysis favoured the digital organ, the solution favoured by the DAC, a number of experts, and the solution of choice of the PCC; furthermore, the proposal is “entirely reversible”. The refurbishment cost was estimated as ~£50,000 whereas cost of purchasing the digital organ was £26,305. Re St Alkmund Duffield [2013] was not applicable in this 1930s unlisted church. [Re St Richard Aldwick [2014] Chichester Const. Ct, Hill Ch.]

Re Holy Trinity Cambridge [2016] Lincoln Const Ct, Leonard Ch. A faculty was granted for the replacement of a pipe organ and its replacement with an electronic organ as part of substantial reordering project, yet to come before the court. The organ was described as an instrument “[not] of special merit compared with those that are found within Cambridge, although in many cities its ‘…musical resources would be considered outstanding’ ”. However, it was only used “at major festivals and weddings and [it] does not suit the Evangelical style of worship which has been a part of this Church for more than a century. Instruments other than the organ are used to accompany and enhance the worship they offer to God.”

An objection was raised by the Victorian Society, who suggested that if a faculty were to be granted, the organ case should be retained. However, the views of the DAC and British Institute of Organ Studies, (BIOS), extended beyond mere visual aesthetics, and believed that the organ and case should be removed together, an opinion supported by the PCC and the CBC, who emphasized the nonsense of separating the casing since the front pipes make up the bass voice of the organ.

He considered that the need for liturgical freedom, opportunities for mission, and putting the church to viable uses which are consistent with and enhance its role as a place of worship and mission outweighed the harm. However, the faculty for removal and disposal of the existing pipe organ was conditional inter alia on: its sale to Oliver Schulte for installation in the Church of St Crucis for £25,000 and completed within 6 months; its replacement with a “high quality replacement organ suitable to the building”, approval by the Diocesan Organ Advisor and by the Chancellor. He further directed that any further for the re-ordering of Holy Trinity must cover the full extent of the proposed works. [Re Holy Trinity Cambridge [2016] ECC Ely 1].

Rebuild as hybrid organ

Re St. James Islington [2021] ECC Lon 1 The proposal sought to rebuild the organ as a hybrid pipe/electronic instrument, involving its pipework being turned to face the nave, with associated structural alterations. There were two parties opponent, plus other objectors. The objections included allegations of irregularity in the tendering process, and questions as to whether the extent and cost of the project was excessive. The Chancellor concluded that the PCC was entitled to choose the proposal it had selected to resolve the longstanding problems with the organ, and he granted a faculty. [Re St. James Islington [2021] ECC Lon 1

Re St. Mary Bampton Proper [2020] ECC Oxf 6 The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposed restoration and improvement works and he granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary Bampton Proper [2020] ECC Oxf 6]

Post: A dismantled organ, a deceased organ builder, and a digital dispute, (9 April 2020). There were circumstances specific to the Bampton petition, including: the petitioners were not seeking to replace an existing pipe organ with a digital organ but rather the re-introduction of the church’s historic pipe organ renovated, repaired and updated, with some of the bass stops being provided by digital recordings of pipes rather than the pipes themselves [31]. The church’s historic pipe organ had already been lawfully dismantled and removed from the church pursuant to an earlier faculty (now set aside) so that it no longer strictly forms part of the fabric of the church building. In the present case; however, the church still retains the historic organ case and pipework [33].

Removal of pipe organ

Re St. Laurence Combe [2022] ECC Oxf 5 A Petition was granted for the removal of a redundant 1960 pipe organ (“the Osmond organ”), eight pews (to be replaced with chairs) and a number of items of redundant church furniture, in order to create a “flexible circulation area at the back of the church”. [Note: a replacement organ – “the Eminence organ” – had been introduced by faculty in 2014 and the instant judgment concerns the removal of its predecessor, the Osmond organ. “The Eminence organ has…been responsible for a step up in the church’s musical offering, with a young organist from Stonesfield, with the encouragement of the organist, the choir, the churchwardens and the congregation [7(5)” ]

The Osmond organ had served the parish well for nearly 30 years”…However, it is not powerful enough to support any but the thinnest of congregations. There is just one keyboard, and its musical range is limited to playing hymns during services. Those who choose to sit at the front of the church may struggle to hear it over the voices of those behind them. The Osmond organ itself had been installed pursuant to a faculty dated 20 May 1994, and it was a gift from St Mary Magdalene Latimer, who were disposing of it on the recommissioning of their organ post-restoration”.

“The parish have advertised the Osmond organ (subject to faculty) in the register of the Institute of British Organ Builders but without any response. The present proposal is to advertise the organ on eBay for £450 in the hope of finding a buyer. The parish have an offer of £150 for the parts that can be recycled. The parish may be able to obtain something further for the wooden casing which is in reasonable condition if they have to go down the scrapping/recycling route”.

[Re St. Laurence Combe [2022] ECC Oxf 5]

Re St. Lawrence Eyam [2022] ECC Der 1 As part of their application for a Faculty for Works to South Porch and Other Work, the Petitioners sought to remove and dispose of the pipe organ with the intention of installing an electronic organ at a later stage [1(5)].

Clarke Ch. was not satisfied that the parish had properly considered the replacement of the organ as a discrete question. As the objectors suggested, they focussed on establishing equal access to the exclusion of all else. They failed properly to recognise the serious harm which would be caused by the removal of the pipe organ and have not put forward compelling evidence of public benefit sufficient to outweigh that harm. The arguments advanced by the parish in response to the DAC indicated  that they have not seriously considered relocation of the organ. Certainly, no consideration has been given to identifying a suitable, smaller, replacement pipe organ [34].  Furthermore, the  petition did not request authority for the installation of a particular electronic organ [11]. The Chancellor stated:

“[25]. What concerns me is that, because the removal of the organ is put forward as a necessary consequence of the other works, the focus has not been on justifying of the removal of organ in its own right. Additionally, the question of whether the organ should be replaced and, if so, by what manner of instrument is not part of this petition. It is indicated that the intention is to install an electronic instrument, but no faculty is sought for this, even though a temporary faculty was previously obtained for trial of such an instrument”.

“[29] In my judgment, the question as to whether a faculty should be granted to remove the organ must be considered on its own merits and it cannot be the case that its disposal is simply a necessary consequence of the construction of a new fire exit. The test Duffield must still apply. This organ is an item of significance its own right and its removal would, in my judgment, result in serious harm to the historical significance of this church… The justification for removing it is not particularly clear or convincing, based principally on it being in an inconvenient location. Neither is the  public benefit of its removal my judgment, persuasively argue”.

He cited with approval Hodge Ch. in Re St. Peter & St. Paul Newport Pagnell [2020] ECC Oxf 8 and Eyre Ch. in Re St Nicholas, Warwick (2010) 12 Ecc LJ 407 at 19, in relation to “the correct approach to the removal of pipe organs has been much considered by the consistory courts” and stated:

 “[20]…The presumption in favour of a further pipe organ is more likely to be rebutted by those who can show that the preference for an alternative results from careful and reasoned consideration after detailed and informed research. Those whose preference for an alternative is based on a consideration which does not take proper account of the merits of pipe organs are unlikely to persuade the court that their preference can displace the presumption in favour of replacing a pipe organ with another pipe organ”

[Re St. Lawrence Eyam [2022] ECC Der 1]

Re St. Dunstan Edge Hill [2021] ECC Liv 2 Faculty granted for removal and sale of the Willis pipe organ, which was installed soon after the church was built in the late 19th century. The petitioners sought a faculty to sell the organ, which is in a deteriorating condition of repair and has not been played for many years, to an interested buyer, the Bethany Presbyterian Church in New York state who would like to restore it, without modification from its original design, and to use it for performances and worship. It is said that the funds raised by this sale would secure the future of St Dunstan’s for many years.

The Chancellor explained that the organ had not been installed immediately after the construction of the church building, but several years later, and was fitted into the space intended for an organ. However, this was not purpose-built as such, and “it is said that the fit is far from perfect, although there is no doubt that this magnificent instrument is a prominent focal point within the church [6]”.

An offer had been made in the sum of £100,000 with all costs of removal being borne by the purchaser [8]. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions [30], [32]  which included a requirement that the petitioners undertake to petition for a faculty in relation to refurbishment works of the organ space, once the organ is removed, and in any event within 12 months of the date of this faculty grant. The return of the Choir Organ’s Corno di Bassetto currently on temporary loan to St Anne’s Aigburth, is subject to the conditions of an earlier faculty in 2008. [Re St. Dunstan Edge Hill [2021] ECC Liv 2]

Post updated 10 May 2024 at 09:38.