The Battle of Bosworth Field took place on 22 August 1485 and the night before the battle, Richard III’s army made camp in the village of Sutton Cheney where he is reputed to have attended mass in the church of St James. In Re St. James Sutton Cheney [2024] ECC Lei 3, as part of a scheme to create a 12-mile sculpture trail linking sites connected with the battle, the churchwardens sought to introduce a statue of King Richard III into the churchyard.

Although the petition was brought by the churchwardens, the scheme was promoted by Bosworth 1485 (“the promoters”), the body responsible for establishing the proposed sculpture trail; many of the documents filed in support of the petition were derived from the promoters rather than the petitioners. The project is funded by a grant from the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership and match funding by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council. The sculpture, once installed, would be insured and maintained by the local authority [14].

The Church has various items on display relating to Richard III, many of the church kneelers commemorate the colours, badges of that king. There is a modern commemorative plaque to Richard III. An annual service is held to commemorate Richard III and those who died in the battle, and this attracts national and international visitors. Some of the dead from the battle are believed to be buried in the churchyard.

Sutton Cheney is the proposed start of the sculpture trail which is planned to include five artworks marking key moments from the events of 1485. Two of the other proposed artworks are in nearby churchyards (at St Margaret’s Stoke Golding and St James’s Dadlington) and Rees Dep. Ch. granted faculty approval for the Dadlington in 2023 [6].

The PCC and the DAC gave unanimous support to the proposal for the  installation of the sculpture at Sutton Cheney, and planning permission was granted by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council in May 2023. A requirement of the planning permission is that the location, form, dimensions and content of the proposed interpretation panels are to be submitted to the local authority prior to any installation work, and that the panels are installed within three months of the final installation of the sculpture. There will be a further faculty application for the installation of an interpretation board [12].

Furthermore, the Deputy Chancellor noted a discrepancy between the faculty petition and the planning application made to the local authority. The final version of the plans submitted in support of the faculty petition was shown as being amended at 4 April 2023 (and were described in a letter from the promoters to the DAC dated 8 May 2023), whilst the planning permission granted by the local authority requires the development to take place in accordance with earlier drawings submitted on 1 February 2023. He stated: “If a faculty is granted, it will be necessary for the promoters to obtain a variation of this condition from the local authority” [13].

The petition was considered in the context of the Duffield Questions following the decision of the Court of Arches Re St. Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158 and the nature of the harm that the installation of the proposed sculpture will cause harm to St James’ church due to the effect on its setting as assessed by Historic England [18], the planning report for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council [19], the promoters of the project, Bosworth 1485, [21] to [23]. The promoters produced a detailed statement of significance and of need was filed by the promoters in relation to the Bosworth 1485 trail as a whole (and is relied upon by the petitioners) [25] of which Historic England were supportive, but considered that the benefits did not outweigh the harm that will be caused to St James’s church by the proposals [26].

In its planning report, recommending the grant of planning permission, the local authority took the view that the adverse impact of the proposals on the listed heritage assets (St James’s church and the neighbouring alms houses) amounted to less than substantial harm within the terms of the NPPF and was towards the lower end of this spectrum [27].

However, the Deputy Chancellor was concerned that the documents filed by the petitioners did not adequately address the issues that the court had to consider; in particular that the justification for the scheme as described focussed largely on secular benefits of the proposed trail for the wider community (such as increased awareness of the Bosworth battlefield site or an increase in tourism), and did not really seek to identify what the specific benefits of the introduction of this sculpture would be for St James’s church itself [28]. He therefore issued a direction requiring the Petitioners to address these issues [29].

In response the Petitioners filed a further document “Answers to the Deputy Chancellor’s Questions”, which is summarized in [30] to [34]. He accepted the petitioners’ submission that it would not do “actual” harm to the fabric of the church, in that it is situated on the edge of the churchyard, although there would be some harm caused as a result of the effect of the sculpture on the church’s setting [35] on which he noted “[a]lthough the introduction of the sculpture represents a change to the church’s setting, the location of the sculpture near the edge of the churchyard means that the overall change is slight and the characteristics of the setting can still be appreciated”.

However, he was satisfied by the additional reasons provided by the petitioners that the balance lay in favour of granting the petition. I accept also that significant care has been taken in the design of the sculpture and that a smaller form (as suggested by Historic England) would reduce its impact and would run the risk of it appearing to be a grave marker or memorial [37].

In conclusion the Deputy Chancellor addressed Richard III’s “posthumous  reputation”, and after considering whether this itself was a factor which should cause him to pause before allowing this petition, he concluded that it was not [38], [39].