In Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1, a retrospective faculty was granted for the authorization of illuminated symbols on the church tower; this was subject to conditions on the timing of the illumination and the petitioner obtaining planning consent. Wood Ch noted that the two significant aspects of the planning advice were heritage impact of the lighting [12] and the impact on neighbouring amenities [13].
With regard to the latter, in response to early complaints from the resident of a neighbouring property, the parish commissioned a planning consultant to consider the local planning controls which might impact on the temporary illuminated displays. The consultant formed a preliminary view that the display most likely constituted an advertisement to be considered under the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007, notwithstanding that the displays were only illuminated on a temporary basis [10].
The planning officer believed that the broad principle of the development proposal was acceptable; whilst acknowledging that listed building consent was covered by the faculty application process, she pointed out that any alteration to the exterior of a building required planning permission. In relation to the “advertisement” nature of the displays, these were considered in the context of layout, appearance, design and local amenity. The Chancellor noted:
“[14]. Accordingly, despite the provisional view of [the consultant], the planning officer indicated that planning permission would be required, although the principle of the illuminated structures was considered to be broadly acceptable.
[…]
[15]. A decision was made by the parish that a full planning application should be costed, with all the requisite material to support it, although it is my understanding that the application has currently been put on hold pending, as is the usual practice, this faculty application. Clearly, if the faculty were to be refused, there would be little point in the incurrence of almost £4,000 in fees to obtain planning permission”.
The Chancellor visited the church at dusk and took photographs of the symbols (figures 1 to 4) [16] and [17]. After noting each of the issues raised by the complainant, [18] to [22], he noted:
“25]. … I am prepared to acknowledge that the jurisdiction of the Chancellor, and the discretion which is exercised in determining an application for a faculty is a broad one, and it should take into account factors such as light disturbance and amenity disruption for those who are affected by the adaptations which the church wishes to make. Certainly Justin Gau Ch had no difficulty in the case of [Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4] in applying sensible considerations which allowed for the impact on a close neighbour to proposed changes in lighting”.
He considered each of the complaints, [29] to [35], and concluded that a faculty for the seasonal display of the illuminations could be granted for the periods requested; these restricted the permitted timings of all the displays from dusk until 10:30 pm, save that there will be an exception in relation to the stars to allow for their illumination on Christmas Eve in the event that the church holds a communion/mass after that time, where there will be an extension to 30 minutes after the conclusion of any service [37].
This was subject to the conditions that: planning permission is formally sought for the necessary consents, with any application to be initiated within 4 weeks of the faculty issue, before the displays are illuminated; and a fused spur will be established within the belfry to enable electrical connection, with the elimination of any extension leads [38]. Whilst the parish may wish to act on this faculty grant and switch on the illuminations in the near future, (i.e. after planning consent application) steps should be taken to ensure that this is permissible in the context of planning requirements, which may allow for retrospective consent [39].
Comment
The earlier case Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4, reviewed here, addressed the movement of an external spotlight, but here Gau Ch. refused to grant a petition for altering the terms of the faculty granted in 2011, concluding at [27] “[w]ere this petition to be unopposed it would have passed the without any difficulty. The issue here is now one of neighbourliness”. The case Re All Saints Rainford has similarities to Re St. George Kidderminster [2019] ECC Wor 4, reviewed here, extracts of which are reproduced below.
A useful review of the legislation has been produced by the Church Growth Trust, External signs and notices at church premises: the need for consent, September (2018). In addition, the extra heading “External Lighting” has been added to our index of consistory court judgments.
Re St. George Kidderminster [2019] ECC Wor 4
Mynors Ch. considered in detail whether authorization under the planning Acts was required for an illuminated cross, in the form of either planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Relevant extracts from the judgment are:
The archdeacon’s licence
[6]. I note in passing that an archdeacon’s licence may only be granted for “a scheme of temporary minor re-ordering” (see Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015, rule 8.2(4)). That is designed to authorize on a temporary basis a scheme of internal reordering, prior to a more permanent scheme being proposed and authorized.
[7]. The present proposal does not seem to me to fall happily within the scope of “re-ordering”; nor, in view of its visibility, can the cross necessarily be said to be “minor”; and whilst the cross will presumably not be in place for ever, it is only questionably “temporary”.
Is the cross at St George’s an advertisement? [12] to [17]
[17]. In the light of [the consideration in [12] to [16]], it seems clear to me that the cross at St George’s is either a “model” (albeit a stylised one), or a “device” – or, of course, possibly both. It therefore constitutes an “advertisement” for the purposes of the Act and the Regulations.
The need for consent [18] to [22]
[21]. It follows that deemed consent is not granted under the Regulations, so that express consent under the Advertisements Regulations will be required. There is no ecclesiastical exemption from the need for such consent – even though in practice many planning authorities seem to operate as if there is.
[22]. It may be noted that the same conclusion would apply to a very large range of crosses and other such signs, illuminated or otherwise, on churches and church halls across the country – few if any of which are the subject of consent under the Regulations – and indeed a wide range of other signs and advertisements. It is no doubt for that reason that deemed consent (under Class 13) is granted for any advertisement that has been in place for at least ten years.
The need for planning permission
[23]. The display of the cross at St George’s would probably constitute a building or engineering operation, and thus “development” within the meaning of section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for which planning permission would normally be required.
Alternatively, it could be classified as “the use for the display of advertisements of any external part of a building which is not normally used for that purpose”, which is classified by section 55(5) as a change of use, and thus “development”. However, planning permission is deemed to be granted for any display of advertisements that is in accordance with the Regulations – see section 222.
[24]. Once express consent under the Advertisements Regulations has been obtained, therefore, planning permission will not be required.
Relationship between advertisements consent and the faculty system
[25]. The display of the cross in this case requires both an application for express consent under the Advertisements Regulations and a petition for a faculty under the Faculty Procedure Rules. And if either consent were to be refused, the display would be unauthorised.
[26]. But there is no requirement in either the Regulations or the Rules as to one or other having to be obtained first. The faculty petition form merely enquires whether secular consent (usually planning permission) is required and, if so, whether it has been sought or obtained.
The case is also reviewed here.