Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during May 2024
The eight consistory court judgments circulated in May 2024 include:
- Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Church Treasures/ Sale of Paintings/ Loans/ Memorials
- Churchyards and burials
This post also includes: Privy Council Business; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Substantial reordering
- Other building works, including re-roofing
- Removal and replacement of pews
- Net zero issues
Re Christ Church Woking [2024] ECC Gui 1 
An extensive programme of reordering was proposed in order to accommodate all the increasing activities of this very busy Grade II church. Planning permission had been granted in January 2020 for a large scheme comprising three essential parts: Ground floor re-ordering and rear Community and Youth centre; Northwest porch / café extension and new Nave entrance; re-building over the southern bookshop area with additional floor. The faculty application was for Part 1 of this consented scheme [4].
The estimated cost was just under £5M for which the parish has substantial funds and gifts available; it is seeking the balance of £1.5M [5]. Key elements of the “Gateway Project” are to provide a new café and an expanded and renovated kitchen, a new entrance and Nave screen to improve the welcome; also new toilet and office facilities with storage spaces. Although “A new boiler system is proposed to improve the carbon footprint and ensure a warm welcome” [7], the judgment contains no further details or reference to the Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022 which came into force on 1 July 2022.
The Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and well-evidenced need for the proposals and that the proposals would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the church. He therefore granted a faculty. [Re Christ Church Woking [2024] ECC Gui 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Bartholomew Bristol [2024] ECC Bri 1 In 2017 and 2018, two items of work had been carried out at the unlisted late Victorian church without the authority of a faculty, namely, the removal of a porch and the replacement of the wooden entrance doors with a pair of glass panelled doors. The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty. Though disappointed at the parish’s initial failure to co-operate with his enquiries as to how and why the works had been carried out without faculty, which was rectified by the appointment of new churchwardens, the Chancellor accepted the apologies of the new petitioners and granted a faculty. [Re St. Bartholomew Bristol [2024] ECC Bri 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Evangelist Goole [2024] ECC She 2 The petitioners proposed a 21-space car park in the churchyard of the Victorian Grade II church, in order to formalise existing parking arrangements. This proposal is the first phase of a project for the redevelopment of St John’s churchyard, to include spaces for relaxation, quiet reflection, outdoor worship and gatherings [1]. A large number of occasional offices are conducted and it is estimated that more than 10,000 people visit per year. In addition the church is one of two resourcing churches in the Diocese of Sheffield [2].
The proposed works do not impact upon the character of the church as a building of special architectural or historical interest. An archaeological watching brief will be deployed during the works. A bat and ecological survey carried out between 2021 and 2024 concluded that the level of impact did not require additional compulsory mitigation [3]. Historic England considered that statutory consultation was not necessary, and a validated planning application had been made to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. The Public Notice requirements had been completed and no objections were received [4]. The DAC recommended the works for approval at its meeting subject to conditions on the marking of parking spaces with wooden sleepers [5].
The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works were designed to “have a low impact visually and to protect the grass surface of the churchyard, to minimise disturbance of grave sites and to fulfil an obvious need for visitors to the church”. [Re St. John the Evangelist Goole [2024] ECC She 2 ] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Evangelist Goole [2024] ECC She 3 The works proposed were for the construction of below ground drainage infrastructure in the churchyard, east of the chancel, to facilitate the future installation of toilets in the church – to be the subject of a separate faculty petition [1]. These do not affect the character of this church as a building of special architectural or historical interest; an archaeological watching brief will be deployed during the works; and a bat and ecological survey carried out between 2021 and 2024 concluded that the level of impact did not require additional compulsory mitigation [3].
A validated planning application had been made to the East Riding of Yorkshire Council; Yorkshire Water had been consulted as had the East Yorkshire Highways Authority. The Public Notice requirements had been completed and no objections were received [4]. The works required careful planning since there was no convenient existing foul infrastructure required for the installation of toilets in the future. The likely costs of this part of the project were prohibitively high and precluded the development of project planning. The recent availability of suitable funding enabled the planning for the installation of toilets to progress [5],
The DAC recommended these works for approval at its meeting of February 2024 subject to provisos that:
1. A smaller foul water pumping tank being used as recommended during pre-petition consultations,
2. The boxed-in soil pipe being painted to match the wall, and:
3. An archaeological watching brief being undertaken when the pipe trench is being dug.
The Chancellor granted a faculty. [Re St. John the Evangelist Goole [2024] ECC She 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2024] ECC She 4 The Petitioners sought to create a social space and kitchen hub located at the west end of the south aisle of the church. This is the most modern part of a well looked-after Grade I listed building. The works comprise the modest start to a larger scheme of reordering to be presented to the Court in stages [1]. The Church is a late Norman structure, extensively re-ordered in 1912/14 by Sir Ninian Comper. It is at the heart of a broad and active community of worship and fellowship [2].
The DAC recommended the works for approval; Public Notice Requirements have been complied with and no objections had been communicated to the Registry; the CBC and four national relevant amenity societies had been consulted and raise no objection to the works, having been assured that they do not impact any ancient features of the church. Indeed the proposals were welcomed as modest and well planned [3].
Singleton Ch. was satisfied that the proposed works would not impact the historical and architectural significance of the church building or affect any feature associated with its listing. Both she and Historic Buildings and Places were reassured that the affected seating comprised modern 20th Century pews. Medieval panels had been incorporated from another now closed church into other pews, not in this part of the building [5].
On the issue as to whether the oak staining of the kitchen hub should be light or dark, the Chancellor considered this to be a narrow one affecting an ultimately removable feature. It seemed to be more a matter of taste than a serious question of historical significance. The DAC supported the Petitioners on the choice of light staining, and she saw no particular reason to depart from the Petitioners’ preference. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not impact the historical and architectural significance of the church building [6]. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2024] ECC She 4] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. Anne Bagshot [2024] ECC Gui 2 The proposed works included: the removal of the front two pews and pew fronts in the nave, together with two radiators; electrical sockets to be relocated; and carpeting to match existing [3]. The works were estimated to cost £2,500 and predicted to take 4-5 weeks [4].
Burns Ch. considered that the proposed works would not damage the overall significance of the church as a listed Victorian church and that there was a clear justification for carrying out the proposals, in view of the “public benefit and particularly the opportunities for mission and putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission” [11(d}]. He therefore granted a faculty [12]. [Re St. Anne Bagshot [2024] ECC Gui 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
See Re Christ Church Woking [2024] ECC Gui 1 above. Although the judgment notes “[a] new boiler system is proposed to improve the carbon footprint and ensure a warm welcome” [7], it contains no further details or reference to the Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022 which came into force on 1 July 2022.
Church Treasures/Sale of Paintings/Loans/Memorials
Re St. John Marchwood [2024] ECC Win 3 Following discussion at the hearing on 18 April 2024, Ormondroyd Ch. amended the description of what was sought by the Petitioners to “removal of paintings from the eastern wall (retrospective) and storage within the church” [1]. He noted that the significance of the church as a listed building seemed to reside particularly in its architectural quality, and the quality of its internal fixtures and fittings (said in the list entry to be “all C19 originals”); the paintings, which were the subject of this petition, were held to make a contribution to its significance.
Some of its historical significance was derived from their association with the incumbent’s wife, “whichever one it may be”, particularly as it is unusual to find the work of a female artist from this period in a church building. Furthermore, the method of painting (oil on linoleum) is also unusual and of some interest. The paintings themselves are of good, although not exceptional, artistic quality and expression [5].
There was some debate at the hearing as to whether the paintings were properly regarded as “temporary” or not; the evidence for that claim was circumstantial at best, e.g. fact that the paintings were done on linoleum and not varnished), and unconvincing. The Chancellor tended to agree with the Parties Opponent that it did not make sense to describe as temporary paintings which had been in place for over a hundred years, and which had been a feature of the church for the majority of its existence. In any event, there is no dispute that a faculty was now required for their removal [6].
The consensus is that they were painted by the wife of the then incumbent, although which wife is in dispute. “The best hypothesis appears to me to be that they were painted by the first wife, Isabella Sarah Coghlan, who died in 1896. She also appears to have made a painting depicting the outside of the church building. That would place them firmly in the 19th century, but either way they are of some considerable age” [4].
Some historical significance derives from their association with Mrs Coghlan, whichever one it may be, particularly as it is unusual to find the work of a female artist from this period in a church building. Furthermore, the method of painting (oil on linoleum) is also unusual and of some interest. The paintings themselves are of good, although not exceptional, artistic quality and expression [5].
There was some debate at the hearing as to whether the paintings were properly regarded as ‘temporary’ or not, but the Chancellor found the evidence for that claim to be circumstantial at best (the fact that the paintings were done on linoleum and not varnished), and unconvincing. He tended to agree with the Parties Opponent that it does not make sense to describe as temporary paintings which have been in place for over a hundred years, and which have been a feature of the church for the majority of its existence. In any event, there is no dispute that a faculty is now required for their removal [6].
The paintings had been executed on linoleum by the wife of a former incumbent over 100 years previously and had covered the painted Ten Commandments, Creed and Lord’s Prayer. They had been taken down in August 2019 after it was noticed that they were buckling and part of the decoration behind was visible. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the four outer paintings to be permanently removed and stored, on condition that they were to be restored, preserved and stored in the body of the church. He imposed a further condition that the three central paintings should also be restored and then reinstated. [Re St. John Marchwood [2024] ECC Win 3] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. James Ravenfield [2024] ECC She 1 The Petitioner sought retrospective permission for a wooden surround and blue slate chippings installed without permission and contrary to the diocesan churchyards rules on a grave containing the remains of his grandparents. Singleton Ch. commented [emphasis added]:
“[1], …For a number of reasons good and bad which do not need to be catalogued in this short judgment, this matter has taken a very long time and is mired with indignant high feelings on the part of the Petitioner. He has declined to pay the Registry fees for his Petition and described the rules which required such a Petition as ‘pathetic’”.
[5]. The Petitioner and the objector advance opposing views of whether and to what extent there are other grave sites in the church yard which breach the Churchyard Rules and the PCC’s prohibition by incorporating surrounds and chippings. This is an irrelevant dispute; whilst it may be difficult for those affected to understand, the fact that rules have not been consistently applied is not a justification of itself for them not to be applied generally.
[6]. Despite the delay and the likely anger of the Petitioner I have no proper basis to permit a faculty to be issued to enable the retrospective validation of his installations. I therefore dismiss the Petition and permit/direct the removal of the wooden surround and blue slate chips by the PCC as soon as is practical. The PCC should arrange to leave the grave site in a condition which is neat and sightly.
[7]. I do not propose to make any provision as to the costs of this matter; the Petitioner is highly unlikely to comply with any costs order made against him and the costs and time that would be required to enforce any such order would be disproportionate to the amount involved“.
[Re St. James Ravenfield [2024] ECC She 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Mary Magdalene Churchyard, Hatfield Hyde, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire; Holy Trinity Churchyard, Freckleton, Lancashire; and St John the Baptist Churchyard, Donhead St Mary, Shaftesbury, Dorset.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St Mary’s Churchyard, Swillington, Leeds, West Yorkshire.
Also three Orders approving Statutes of: University of Cambridge; Clare Hall, Cambridge; and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. The latter two included inter alia changes to the use of pronouns within the Statute.
Reports from the Independent Reviewer
Individual Reports from the Independent Reviewer are to be found at House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (Independent Reviewer), scroll down.
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. The programme for 2024 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 6 June 2024. [The last reported meeting was that held on Thursday 7 September 2023.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- An unfortunate sequence of events: Re St Bartholomew Bristol, (21 May 2024),
Organs
- Pipe Organs – repair, removal and replacement, (10 May 2024).
- Consistory court considers organ donation, again, (2 May 2024).
General/Miscellaneous
- John Smyth Review – a further update, (14 May 2024).
- “Spiritual influence” and elections – an update, (8 May 2024).
[Top]
Updated: 28 May 2024 at 11:06.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.