Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during March 2025
The four consistory court judgments circulated in March 2025 considered Reordering, extensions and other building works and Churchyards and burials.
This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; Visitations; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2025] ECC She 1 A substantial scheme of reordering was proposed, with the aim of improving the experience of worship and also creating flexible spaces at the front and rear of the nave to facilitate increasing community events. St Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough is a Grade 1 listed medieval church. The judgment noted the recommendation of the DAC for approval by the Court of “[t]he works which are the subject of this Petition [1].
The proposed scheme of re-ordering had been preparation for many years. Its purpose is to open up the East End and chancel of the Church physically and visually and to create a more open and flexible space for worship and events” [2].
There were objections inter alia to the relocation of the chancel screen to beneath the east window and the removal of some pews, which were said by the Twentieth Century Society to be part of the works carried out by Sir Ninian Comper in 1915; the division of the twentieth century lectern/priest’s desk designed by the architect George Pace; and the relocation of the pulpit.
The Chancellor decided that the proposed changes were well argued, and she therefore granted a faculty. However, she proposed to direct that the faculty sought by this Petition be issued, subject to the works being described in the Faculty as set out in this judgment and not as set out in the DAC Certificate of Advice or the Petition because they do not accurately reflect the works finally proposed by the Petitioner [11, page 15].
The list of proposed works, as finally determined, therefore read as follows:
- The removal of the green curtain behind the altar, and the re-purposing of the rood screen to create a reredos, with removable panels reflecting the liturgical seasons and matching altar falls;
- Relocation of the choir stalls (with misericords) to the sides of the chancel. This will improve sight lines and access into the chancel;
- Removal of two of the front pews with their book rests and wooden plinths, with any historic woodworks being re-utilised elsewhere in the church;
- Relocating the pulpit intact with the sound board to the North Aisle;
- The adaptation of the current lectern/priest’s desk (currently one large unit) so that the taller part remains a lectern which will be movable but is to remain primarily placed where it is at present. The remaining timber of the lower, desk part, after being applied to making good the separate lectern is to be used elsewhere if possible;
- The re-routing of all necessary electrics and heating in a sympathetic and discreet manner;
- The relocation and modernisation of the existing sound and projection system. The repositioning of the existing light controls and the provision of additional 13 amp sockets;
- The complete redecoration of the interior with plaster repairs as required.
[Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2025] ECC She 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1 Following a major extension and radical reordering of the church in 1973, a “bold stainless steel font … surmounted by a dove” was introduced into the church. The nineteenth century font was placed outside the church and used as a plant holder. In recent years its condition had seriously deteriorated and in 2022 it had been brought back into the church and its parts had been stored on wooden pallets behind a pew.
Having considered various options for the font, the petitioners had decided that burial of the font in the churchyard was the best option. The Church Building Council, Historic England and the Victorian Society did not support the proposal. The Chancellor considered that the redesigned interior of the church had made the retention of the older font no longer practical or desirable, and after considering all other options she concluded that there was no viable alternative other than to allow the burial of the font in the churchyard. [Re St. Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Reordering and alternative uses
Re St. Bartholomew Colne [2025] ECC Bla 1 The Rector and Churchwarden sought a faculty to regularize the installation of four infra-red heaters in the north aisle of the church, the subject of an interim faculty [[1(1)], and make permanent some minor reordering carried out under an archdeacon’s licence, viz. the removal of four pews, a pew frontal, and two altar rails from the north chapel and the installation of free-standing shelving and refrigerators as storage for the church’s food bank [1(2)].
The DAC required the petitioners to consult with Historic England, the Church Buildings Council, the Victorian Society, and Historic Buildings and Places (the new working title of the Ancient Monuments Society). The DAC subsequently issued its Notification of Advice (NoA) on 14 September 2023 [3]. Hodge Ch. observed:
“[4]. Following the issue of the DAC’s NoA, instructions for completing the petition and the public notice were sent to the parish. Between September 2023 and October 2024 the DAC secretary chased the parish several times to complete these documents.
An assistant DAC secretary was appointed in early October 2024; and, after sustained chasing, the petitioners at last got around to displaying the usual public notices on 16 December 2024. Notice of the petition was duly displayed between that date and 15 January 2025. Notice under rule 9.9 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 as amended (the FJR) was also duly displayed on the diocesan web-site. No objections were received in response to these public notices.
The Victorian Society and Historic Buildings and Places objected to the proposals to remove the four pews, pew frontal and the altar rails from the north chapel [4].
The consultation responses
The Church Buildings Council (the CBC) was consulted over the proposed pew removal and the installation of the infra-red heaters; its initial response [15] was:
“This is a simple scheme for which the purpose is well justified. The documents making up the statement of needs clearly demonstrate the benefits of the food bank store being at the church and the need to separately heat the area used as a café.
The CBC was of the view that the infra-red panels are “small, well located, and do not have undue impact on the appearance of the north aisle. The Council would be content with their retention…Having subsequently been provided with further information regarding the pews and the altar rail … the CBC are now content to defer to the DAC.”
The views of the CBC were echoed by the other statutory consultees in that the Statement of Significance did not provide enough detail to assess the impact of the proposed removal of the pews and the altar rails: Historic England [16]; Historic Buildings and Places [17, 18] and the Victorian Society [19] to [22] which said
“[19]. What was proposed might ultimately prove to be unobjectionable, although the seeming quality and interest of the furnishings and the space, and the nature of its proposed use, would suggest otherwise. However, on the basis of the information provided, this is impossible to judge.”
From his visit to the church on 23 February 2025, the Chancellor noted:
“[28]. From my visual inspection, the four pews that were removed from the north chapel are very different in both quality and design from the pews within the nave and the south and inner north aisles of the church building…Although I do not profess to be an expert in this field, I formed the clear impression that the pews formerly standing in the north chapel had been crafted as part of the works carried out to the two chapels in the 1920s and 1930s, and not as part of either of the mid to late C 19th restorations carried out under the supervision of Paley, Austin and Paley”.
The Petition was reviewed according to the Duffield Guidelines, the Chancellor referring to the summary of the relevant principles within his decision Re St. Laurence Combe [2022] ECC Oxf 5 (at [19]).
The Chancellor granted a faculty as sought, being satisfied that the petitioners had made a clear and convincing justification for the proposals in terms of the resulting community and missional benefits [34] to [41]. The faculty was subject to a condition that the four pews, their pew frontal, and the two altar rails should all be retained within the church building or in the adjacent Parish Rooms [42, 43].
Details of his consideration of the infrared heaters, [36] to [39], are here.
[Re St. Bartholomew Colne [2025] ECC Bla 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
See also Re St. Bartholomew Colne.
Designation of closed churchyard
Re All Saints Feathertone [2025] ECC Lee 1 Wakefield Metropolitan District Council sought a confirmatory faculty for felling and removing an ash tree without lawful authority [1]. Hill Ch. concluded “it is appropriate to grant a confirmatory faculty in this instance. I do so despite my concerns about the Council’s widespread and institutional ignorance of the relevant law and procedure concerning works affecting trees in closed churchyards”. He allowed the Council seven days to make written representations on costs [36]. [Re All Saints Feathertone [2025] ECC Lee 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of page].
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
CDM Decisions
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd Dr JAYSON DONAL RHODES
Diocese: Leeds
Date imposed: 4th March 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 4 March 2025)
Name: The Revd NICHOLAS KERR
Diocese: Rochester
Date imposed: 28th February 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 7th March 2025)
Name: The Revd MATTHEW PAUL MCMURRAY
Diocese: Blackburn
Date imposed: 14th February 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s 8(1)(d): conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office, injunction & limited prohibition for 3 years (with effect from 1st April 2025)
Name: The Revd NICHOLAS JOHN CLARKE
Diocese: Bath and Wells
Date imposed: 27 January 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited Prohibition for 2 years (with effect from 27 January 2025)
Safeguarding
Diocese of Carlisle
- Independent safeguarding audit report published, (20 March 2025).
- Independent Safeguarding Audit of Carlisle Diocesan Board of Finance and Carlisle Cathedral, (14 March 2025).
Diocese of Lincoln
- Welcoming The Publication Of The INEQE Independent Safeguarding Audit, (13 March 2025).
- Independent Safeguarding Audit of Lincoln Diocesan Board of Finance and Lincoln Cathedral.
Recently there has been significant progress with all Form 8s, and all Form 10s, now including 1 February 2024 and 11 April 2024 up to date. Links to all the published determinations &c are here.
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 2025 is here and the next meeting will be on 27 March 2025.
- Winchester Cathedral: Bishop’s Review On 3 March 2025, the Rt. Rev. Philip Mounstephen, Bishop of Winchester, published his response to the Review he commissioned into events over recent months at Winchester Cathedral surrounding and subsequent to the departure of Dr Andy Lumsden as Director of Music. The Review was undertaken by Bishop Philip “using the powers given to [him] in ecclesiastical law. However, the responsibility for implementing its recommendations lie wholly with the Dean and Chapter, in recognition of their own statutory responsibilities, not least as Charity Trustees”.
- Further to the Bishop of Winchester’s response to the Review, supra, The Reverend Canon Dr Roland Riem, Interim Dean of Winchester Cathedral, issued a Statement.
-
Safeguarding in the Church in Wales The recent news on safeguarding in the Church in Wales in relation to Anthony Pierce, who was Bishop of Swansea and Brecon, will be seen as further evidence of the need for mandatory reporting and independent safeguarding. Further, in a letter to the cathedral chapter of Bangor that was leaked to Nation Cymru and reported in the Church Times, it emerges that the Archbishop of Wales has ordered a visitation into Bangor Cathedral after safeguarding concerns, which he describes as serious and requiring urgent attention. The details of the safeguarding concerns are not known, but a serious incident report has been mad to the Charity Commission. Round-up 2 March 2026.
- Church of Wales Statement on Anthony Pierce sentence, (12 March 2025).
- Safeguarding in the Church in Wales: Anthony Pierce, (27 February 2025).
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Fonts
- Burial of a baptismal font – some considerations, (21 March 2025).
Churchyards
- The faculty jurisdiction and trees in closed churchyards: Re All Saints, Featherstone, (11 March 2025).
[Top]
Updated: 31 March 2024 at 09:03.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.