Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during July 2024
Sixteen consistory court judgments were circulated in July 2024 and this Part I round-up includes Reordering, extensions and other building works, CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law. Part II includes judgments on Exhumation and Churchyards and burials.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Peter Egmond [2024] ECC Lic 2 In 2021 one of the four tower pinnacles had fallen in a storm; in 2022 the remaining three pinnacles had been found to be unsafe and had been removed under an interim faculty. A confirmatory faculty was granted in 2023, conditional on the pinnacles be restored within 3 years. However, “an explanation was provided for this provision, but was omitted from the notification of the faculty in error and the condition was (unsurprisingly in the circumstances) challenged by the PCC” [2] . The Court determined to stay the condition, pending further discussion with the interested parties.
Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Telford and Wrekin Council all objected to the permanent removal of the pinnacles from the Grade I listed building. The Chancellor decided to reinstate the condition that the pinnacles should be restored within a given period, but changed the period to 5 years. Noting the difficulty in raising the necessary funds, Verduyn Ch. said:
[28]. The central issue for the PCC is not aesthetic in any event. It is about the resources that restoration would require: financial; and, in respect of moderating the financial impact, the time and effort required from clergy and parishioners to raise funds. This cannot be under-estimated as an undertaking: the works may well take all or most of the current capital reserves of the parish. Funds will be hard to obtain by way of grants or from the local community. The apparent unpopularity of the scheme with members of the congregation and indifference from the wider community will not assist.
[29]. There is a powerful counter-argument, though: if resource issues were allowed to defeat restoration of a Grade 1 listed building, then where would matters end? Listing does not relate to practicality or utility, but to matters like historical and aesthetic value. Listed buildings are typically expensive to maintain by reason of their antiquity and merit.
[30]. I do have regard to the length of time that should be allowed for the purposes of restoration. A long campaign of fund raising is not assured of greater success than a short, focused effort, but how the costs are mitigated are a matter for the parish, and the PCC plainly thinks a significant further period of time is required. I will modify the condition to allow a period of 5 years, rather than the 3 years originally directed. The stay on that condition is, of course, now lifted and the period will run from the date of this judgment.
[Re St. Peter Egmond [2024] ECC Lic 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Baptist Holywell [2024] ECC Ely 1 A large reordering project was proposed, including: the introduction of a lavatory in the tower; raising the ringing floor; a gallery in the tower overlooking the nave; a servery unit at the west end of the north aisle; moving the font to the north east corner of the nave and replacing the pews with Howe 40/4 (or equivalent) chairs to allow for more flexible use of the nave [1]. The scheme proposed is in line with the diocesan vision, “Ely2025” of making churches viable as community spaces and is in line with a number of other schemes in the diocese for which faculties have been granted [2].
Two members of the congregation objected to the replacement of the pews and the moving of the font. Leonard Ch. observed:
“[12]. Whilst there is authority as to how much one should rely on opinion polls when considering, in particular, objections to the grant of a faculty, I find these figures of some use when considering [the objectors’] comment about the effect of the reordering on the older members of the congregation who, logic dictates are likely to be numbered among those on the electoral roll or who are regular worshippers”.
The amenity societies did not object to the revised proposals and none became a party opponent. Likewise the two objectors who wished their views to be considered by the Chancellor, which he did with care [15]. In assessing the Duffield questions, he determined that there would be harm although not severe, and judged that the resulting public benefit in respect of opportunities for mission and putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its rôle as a place of worship and mission outweighed the harm to the building knowing that there is a strong presumption against proposals which will adversely affect the special character of a listed building [21].
The estimated cost of the project was £550,000 of which £91,200 is presently available [28]. “Whilst funding will be sought from the wider community and from grant bodies it puts in context the size of the task ahead to create a space which will attract a larger congregation and more community involvement in the church [29].
The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that no work should commence until 75% of the cost of the work, or of a particular phase, had been raised or promised. [Re St. John the Baptist Holywell [2024] ECC Ely 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St Mary the Virgin, Stevington [2024] ECC StA 1 The petition requested a confirmatory faculty in respect of the replacement of an extremely rare Anglo-Saxon triangular window head in the tower of the Grade I church with a head having a curved shape. The works had been carried out on the basis of the Archdeacon’s approval under List B of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. The Chancellor took the view that this particular item of work (which was part of a range of repairs to be carried out) should not have been authorised under List B, as the Rules only allow List B approval if: “The repair does not involve the substantial replacement of a major part of the fabric or of historic material…” The Chancellor considered making of a restoration order, but decided to grant a faculty, having given “particular weight to the opinion of the CBC which deplores the loss of the Window Head, but pragmatically recognises the lack of proportionality in requiring the existing works to be removed and attempted again in the face of an inability to truly reinstate what has been lost.” [Re St Mary the Virgin, Stevington [2024] ECC StA 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Removal and replacement of pews
Re St. John the Baptist Wales [2024] ECC She 5 
The church benefited from a substantial extension of its nave in 1897 in response to a growing local population, but the pews installed at that point were agreed to be of mediocre and deteriorating quality; as amply demonstrated by the photographs lodged by the Petitioners. Their Petition seeks permission for the removal of twelve of those pews and their replacement with 100 chairs. No objections were been received following the Public Notice [1].
The CBC and the Victorian Society did not object in principle to the removal of the pews particularly since the parish proposed to retain the older higher quality18th century box pews in a different and older part of the church. However, both objected the replacement of the pews by upholstered chairs, though neither became a party opponent [2].
The CBC referred to its guidance issued under s55(1) (d) of the Dioceses, Mission and Pastoral Measure 2007, which given its statutory basis “must be considered carefully”. The CBC pointed out in their response to the DAC in this matter departure from the guidance “must be justified by reasons set out clearly, logically and convincingly”, which Singleton Ch. took to mean “that generally, where a view is based upon experience and/or expertise [she] should accept the reasoning of the guidance over that of the parish”. More importantly, she accepted the Guidance as to wooden seating being “more consonant with the setting of a listed church than upholstered seating even in a neutral wood toning colour as selected by the Petitioners [7].
The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews with chairs, provided the chairs were not upholstered. [Re St. John the Baptist Wales [2024] ECC She 5] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. George Brailes [2024] ECC Cov 2
The Parish sought a faculty to install a replacement heating boiler, “after what can only be described as the debacle that followed a List B permission for installation of like-for-like heating boilers that was granted in 2019 by the (then Acting) Archdeacon. The Parish had already used a considerable amount of available funds to pay for a boiler system that does not work…and which has virtually no scrap value if sold [1]”.
Replacement options were limited by: absence of gas supply; 60 amp single phase electricity [3]; the already permitted and installed oil-fired boilers requirement for considerable works to be safely and satisfactorily used [4]. At a meeting in March 2024, the members of the Coventry DAC agreed to issue a certificate of recommendation for the proposed installation [5].
Attempts had been made to correct defects in the present system, but without success. In spite of an objection to the contrary [7], the Chancellor was satisfied that the PCC had considered alternative eco-friendly options. Although oil would be used for the new boiler system, the PCC envisaged converting to biofuel when available. The Chancellor granted a faculty for 5 years, with liberty to apply at the end of that period for an extension, when consideration would be given as to whether biofuel or an improved electrical supply would be available at that time. [Re St. George Brailes [2024] ECC Cov 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St James the Great Church Churchyard, Ruscombe, Wokingham, Berkshire; and Great St Mary’s Church of England Churchyard, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further 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.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Penalties by consent
A new policy came into force on 24 October 2022 although there is a potential lacuna for cases where the penalty was imposed after the change in the Code of Practice, paragraph 312, but before this date, as with The Right Reverend Peter Hullah. The page on the CofE website Penalties by Consent records the penalties that have been imposed by a bishop or archbishop with the consent of the respondent under section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and penalties that have been imposed under section 30 or 31.
Name: The Revd BRIAN JEFFERY HIBBERD
Diocese: St Albans
Date imposed: 23rd June 2024
Relevant CDM section: 8(1)(d)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited prohibition for 4 years (with effect from 23rd June 2024)
Safeguarding
Diocese of Sheffield
- Barnardo’s independent investigation – statement
- Stage 1 Report (redacted)
- Stage 2 Report (redacted)
Diocese of Truro
- Independent Safeguarding Audit – The Diocese of Truro and Truro Cathedral
- Full Audit Report
- Diocese of Truro Safeguarding Report Booklet
All Saints Spring Park Parochial Church Council v Church Commissioners [2024] UKPC 23.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Exhumation
- Captain Matthew Flinders – a legal history, (12 July 2024).
Churchyards
- Non-Christian symbols on churchyard headstones, (9 July 2024).
General/Miscellaneous
- Disbanding a parish – and a question of jurisdiction: All Saints Spring Park PCC, (31 July 2024).
- Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill, (17 July 2024).
[Top]
Updated: 1 August at 11:12.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.