To the proposers of a scheme, the citation of “health and safety” issues might be viewed as an “objection of last resort” when used as an addendum to other objections or the sole reason against a particular course of action if no others can be found. Not infrequently, such objections are accompanied by the inclusion of an analysis of the proposed scheme by a person or consultant with expertise in the area [Ref 1].

Both elements were considered recently in Re St John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3 which, in the context of the provision of a community hub within the church building [2], the petitioners sought permission to remove the plinth of the font [Ref 2]. In its current position the font inhibits the use of the space at the west end of the church; if it is moved “a little to one side, this will provide additional usable space. In the event the funding was not available, but the PCC still want to encourage community use of the church, which moving the font would facilitate” [6].

Health and Safety

On this aspect of the petition, the Chancellor noted:

“]7]. …the PCC [has] become increasingly concerned about the health and safety hazard presented by the plinth. People do trip over the plinth from time to time; and, although it has not happened, the PCC are concerned that someone who trips might then fall against the sharp edges of the plinth. To mitigate in respect of this particular aspect of the hazard that the plinth presents, a padded cover has been made for the plinth”.

Petchey Ch.  commented [emphasis added]:

“[9]. The assessment of acceptable risk is not an easy matter, particularly if potential alternative options for addressing the risk while retaining the hazard have objections attached to them – such as roping off or (in this case) providing padding. The padding in the present case is certainly (albeit in a modest way) unattractive. However, I think that it is helpful first to deal with the Health and Safety aspect of the proposal. This is a bit of a puzzle. If the font and the plinth are a safety risk now, they always have been, but it is only recently that the issue has, in the light of experience, been perceived to be so serious that something has had to be done about it.

[Strictly, the font and the plinth have always been a safety hazard, which in the light of experience has been identified as a risk for which remedial action has been taken].

The emphasis which has been placed by the petitioners on the health and safety aspect of the matter has caused some concern to the DAC – there are, after all, many churches with fonts on plinths. The DAC is not equipped itself to consider, save in general terms, health and safety issues: it sounds a note of caution in authorising proposals on the basis of health and safety without clear evidence…”

[10]. …I think that, in the present case, the hazard that plinth presents (at whatever level it is assessed) is something of a red herring, at least as a determining factor. It would be perfectly possible to keep the font in its current position but, in doing so, to remove the plinth. I cannot tell of course what the PCC would do if I were to reject the current petition, but it does seem to me that it is likely that it would present a new petition to do just that.

[11]. Against this background, the reasoning of the PCC thus proceeds in this way. We would like, it says, to free up space for community use at the west end of the church. We need to address the health and safety aspect presented by the plinth by its removal. If we are going to spend a substantial sum on removal of the plinth, it is appropriate to move the font to a better location in terms of our use of space. The new location will link the font with the picture (referred to in [8]) in an appropriate way, emphasising the significance of each. In the often-used phrase, what is there not to like in this?”

After noting the downside of the proposal, i.e. the loss of a central focus near the principal entrance to the church (as Canon F4 requires), Petchey Ch. noted the second Duffield question which addresses the situation where there is no harm to the listed building [12]. There is a burden upon the Petitioners to demonstrate the case for change, the burden of proof being upon the balance of probabilities. The Chancellor considered that in the circumstances, the benefit that flows from moving the font (namely the space it opens up at the back of the church coupled with the improved safety) is justification which outweighs the limited harm: “[t]he font will continue to be near the principal entrance to the church in accordance with Canon F4. Accordingly, it is appropriate that a faculty should issue” [15].

Assessment of risk

The judgment notes that one of the Petitioners, the churchwarden, was (before her retirement) a Fellow of the International Institute of Risk Management and a chartered member of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and keeps up to date with health and safety matters[9]. The Chancellor added “[t]he PCC and I have both benefited from her advice on this aspect of the matter”.

The limited harm occasioned by relocation of font was considered to be outweighed by benefits of the proposal and a faculty was granted.

______________________________________________

References

[1]. Hazard and Risk The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) explains: “A hazard is anything that has the potential to cause harm” whereas “A risk is the likelihood of harm occurring from a hazard”. A risk considers how often people are exposed to the hazard and how severe the consequences could be, and factors that influence risk include: Exposure: how often people come into contact with the hazard; Probability – the likelihood of an accident happening; and Severity – how serious the consequences could be. Essentially, “A hazard is something that can cause harm, while a risk is the chance of that harm happening”.

[2]. From the context of the judgment, references to the trip hazard of “plinth”, the added padding, and its use as a platform for the officiating minister clearly relate to the floor-based part of the font on the floor, i.e. not to the supporting column beneath the font bowl, sometimes referred to as the plinth.

This post is based upon reported judgment in Re St. John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3. It does not purport to be used as legal or technical advice, or technical analysis of the issues discussed. Site-specific advice from experts in the area should be sought where potential problems have been identified.