“… despite a chink of flexibility from some DACs, consistory courts seem very reluctant to permit the practice [of burying fonts]”

The disposal options for unwanted baptismal fonts were reviewed in an earlier post, which reached the following conclusions:

• There is an important distinction between the treatment of the font bowl and its plinth;
• Canon F1 relates to use of the bowl of the font in church;.
• There is no restriction in ecclesiastical law on the burial of a font in the churchyard, though this is often the disposal option of last resort;
• There is a legacy of poorly-sited fonts which can result in health and safety issues, and problems in access and their liturgical use.

In the recent judgment Re St Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1, the Petitioners sought to dispose of a nineteenth century font which, as part of a major reordering in 1973, had been placed outside the church and used as a plant holder; in its place was “a bold stainless steel font (the “New Font”), surmounted by a dove” [3]. Unsurprisingly, the condition of the Original Font deteriorated and in 2022 all its salvageable parts were brought into the church (i.e. the bowl and the shattered remains of the plinth and lower section) [8].

Consideration

In her Consideration, [31] to [52], de Mestre Ch noted that as St Paul’s is a Grade II listed building and the Original Font itself has its own designation, proposals for alterations fell to be assessed in accordance with the “Duffield questions”, i.e., the guidelines set out by the Court of the Arches in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013]. However, she first addressed the appropriateness of burial of the Original Font at all, bearing in mind Canon F1 of the Font [32].

Case law

de Mestre Ch. commented:

”[33]. A post on the Law & Religion UK blog entitled “They bury fonts, don’t they? reviews case law and academic writing on the topic and helpfully sets out at some length the history and trajectory of the once common, but now seemingly rare, practice of the burial of disused fonts. The article concludes that “…now, despite a chink of flexibility from some DACs, consistory courts seem very reluctant to permit the practice.

”[34]. Case law on the question supports the article’s conclusions. Chancellor Petchey’s judgment Re St Michael and All Angels Blackheath Park [2016] ECC Swk 13 contains a comprehensive review of relevant case law, noting that there appears to be a common theme indicating that the burial of fonts should be seen very much as a last resort and that a sequential approach should be adopted, involving considering the availability of the following options in turn: relocation in the church, relocation in another church, relocation to a museum, sale, storage or burial or disposition in a tip…although the learned Chancellor ultimately elected for storage of the font in that case, he expressed some warmth toward the idea of burial. He said [at 53] ‘I am, however, attracted by the Petitioners’ approach that the best way forward is to “decommission” the font by way of burial and thus achieve finality'”.

“[36]. The consultees in the case before me all appear to accept the case law-supported conclusion that burial is available as an option of last resort. The consultees’ views as to the undesirability of burial appear to be premised upon the suggestion that burial is tantamount to destruction…The idea that burial is equivalent to demolition is not clearly explained, save to the extent that it is intimated that this is because burial would remove the Original Font from its intended church context and place it out of public sight, thereby depriving it of its artistic significance, “communal” and group value.

Equivalence of “burial” and “demolition”

The Victorian Society, Church Buildings Council and Historic England equated “burial” to “demolition”, [24] to [30]. However, de Mestre Ch. suggested that this rationale fails to give weight to the “communal value” of the Original Font; this also neglects the reality of the Font’s present appearance and condition; and furthermore, the argument that burial equals “demolition” is unreal. She noted that burial was a reversible process, would not result in the physical destruction of the Font, and could be viewed as preservative step [37].

Disposal Options

She agreed with the line taken in case law from other dioceses that the most desirable route would be to house the Original Font in the church, if possible. However, when the original aim was considered in the interim faculty, it did not appear that any real attempt had been made to work out either the practicality of finding a suitable space for it within the church, nor to evaluate the aesthetic impact that its introduction would have on the “strong, Brutalist style” of the  Sims-designed interior.

She noted: “these points appear only to have been given meaningful thought once the Font had been moved inside” [39].  “Upon that further thought being applied, the conclusion has been reached that the Original Font is not capable of being suitably housed within the church[*]…and there is insufficient space to house it within the Chancel now. Locating it elsewhere within the church has also been investigated and, subject to it being possible to remount and display the Font, two possibilities were identified” [40].

The Chancellor was satisfied that the radical nature of the redesigned Sims interior in the church had the consequence that housing the Original Font within it was no longer practical nor desirable, at least in the church’s present configuration and given its present usage. In reaching this conclusion she was “highly conscious of the [listed] designation of the Font and of the fact that, although it is currently broken and in a poor state, it is nonetheless capable of being repaired and restored to something of its former appearance” [41].

Relocation to another church had been investigated, with the assistance of the DAC Church Buildings Advisor, but over the period in excess of a year, none had been found that is willing to take the Font [42]. Sale was explored as an option but no buyer had been found [43]; however, the Church Buildings Advisor confirmed that space for storage in the Diocesan Store was available. Nevertheless,

[44]. “The sequence of appropriate outcomes articulated in other cases suggests that storage should be opted for in preference to burial. However, whilst [the Chancellor] accepted that the Original Font no longer had a place in the interior of this church for reasons both practical and aesthetic, it was nonetheless an important item with a particular significance said to be drawn from the “group value” it has in association with this church. It is also, in my view, more likely to result in the Original Font being forgotten about and lying permanently moribund in the store than a dignified (and reversible) burial in the churchyard with appropriate record keeping would.

“Storage in the diocesan store, where it may be inadvertently chipped, bumped or knocked over, is unlikely to afford the Font any greater physical protection than burial in the ground would do. It also severs the group and “communal value” links, and lacks something of the symbolism, reverence and respect that burial would afford it.

She concluded: “In these circumstances I consider that burial of the Font is potentially an appropriate outcome on the facts of this particular case” [45].

Duffield Questions

On the Duffield questions, which apply both as a result of the contribution the Original Font makes to the significance of the church and, by reason of its designation, to the Font itself, she considered that the answer to question 1 is “Yes” [46]. The answer to question 3 requires account to be taken account of the designation of the Font and the church, their special characters and the contribution the Font has made to the community and to the “group value” of aspects of the church’s fabric, as described above [47].

Assessing the various factors in the round, [48] to [50], whilst the semi-permanent disposal, out of sight, of a grade II listed object – even though it is in a poor state of repair, no longer resembles the item that warranted its designation and was listed for a “group value”…is a serious matter, she did not consider that the harm that would be caused in the particular circumstances of this case can fairly be assessed at any higher than moderate.

On the question of how clear and convincing a justification is given for carrying out the proposal, the Chancellor was satisfied that, on their more detailed explanations supplied to the Court after an initially unsatisfactory Statement of Needs, a cogent and persuasive case has been made out for the burial of the Original Font;  also, the unusual 1970s redesign of the church interior, including the arresting stainless steel New Font, had both obviated the role of the Original Font and led to it becoming an anomalous feature which it would be very difficult to incorporate and read successfully within the interior. In these circumstances, the Chancellor was persuaded that burial in the churchyard is the most fitting and appropriate means of answering these needs,  bearing in mind that there is a strong presumption against a proposal which adversely affects the special character of a listed building and in this case an individually listed Font [52].

Comment

Finance

The church stated that is was not wealthy and the repair of the font, for which the purpose would not be missional nor form part of our liturgy, would be beyond its means [23]. However, the burial of the font is not a cost-free option since the faculty is conditional [53] on: work associated with planning permission, if required; a record of the history and significance of the Original font; burial at an appropriate depth above the water table, and its surrounding and covering by free-draining material in order to keep it well drained and protected; marking and protecting the location of the burial of the Original Font by a slab or slabs incised with a short text with an approved text, recording that the Original Font is buried beneath; and the treatment and recording of any remains that might be uncovered.

[*] …the Original Font has never previously been placed in the Chancel (the listing designation, dated 14 March 1986, refers to it as having originally been located “2.5 metres to the north” of it, the associated map showing it in the churchyard). A photograph of the font is here.