The recently reported case Re St. John the Baptist Tideswell [2025] ECC Der 2 concerns the replacement of the gas boilers at a Grade I listed church which had been damaged by flooding. The initial request for like-for-like replacement was refused because it failed to demonstrate “due regard” to the Church of England’s Net Zero Carbon guidance, which is mandatory under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules.
The petitioners had sought a like-for-like replacement on the understanding that Ecclesiastical Insurance would only cover like-for-like replacement of gas boilers. However, Clarke Ch. clarified:
“…further enquiries revealed that this is indeed the standard response, although, when pressed, there is no requirement that insurance money is used on a fossil fuel system, simply that payment has to be made on this basis, which is more understandable” [4].
“Heating is the main source of carbon emissions for most churches and so decisions [although this about replacement of heating systems will be the most important net zero carbon decisions that most churches will have to make. That is most particularly the case where fossil fuel boilers have failed and a new heating system is required.
The Chancellor cited with approval the review by the Deputy Chancellor of the diocese of Carlisle in Re All Saints’ Church, Scotby [2023] ECC Car 2 whose judgment concluded:
“[27]. … the purpose of requiring the Petitioners to explain how they have had “due regard” to the guidance, and of requiring the DAC to set out its opinion on that explanation, is clearly to enable, and indeed to require, the Chancellor to make a decision on whether they have actually had due regard to the guidance”.
In Re All Saints’ Scotby, the Deputy Chancellor had “helpfully distilled five key points from the Church’s guidance”; these were repeated in full at [12]. These key points were also adopted by Chancellor Ormondroyd in Re Christ Church Chineham [2025] ECC Win 1. The DAC’s non-recommendation appears to have provoked further action from the Petitioners in the form of a Revised Options Appraisal which runs to 62 pages – “undated, but…uploaded to the OFS, along with other documents, on 1 March 2025” [14].
“[15]. This Revised Options Appraisal does address the ideal, most energy efficient option, before then considering other options, in the light of a commitment to working towards net zero carbon by 2030. It is what should have complied at the outset.
The Appraisal determines that the ideal system would be electrical, but concludes that this is impractical. It then considers Combined Heat and Power, Electric boilers, Air Source Heat Pumps, Air to Air Heat Pumps, Biomass boilers, Ground-source Heat Pumps, Localised Heating, Solar generation of electricity, Hydrogen ready boilers and conventional gas boilers. Its final conclusion is a request for a three phase programme:
[16]. This analysis is of the type which ought to be carried out by every parish with a Grade 1 listed building which needs to replace its heating system. It enables both the DAC and the Court to consider properly the key points contained in the issued guidance.
[17]. It was following the submission of the Revised Options Appraisal that this petition was referred to (the Chancellor). It had not been reconsidered by the DAC and so the Notification of Advice was still a “Not Recommend”.
After visiting the church, the Chancellor requested a reconsideration by the DAC of its advice, and he was provided with a copy of the minutes of the DAC meeting. However, in essence, while impressed by the Revised Options Appraisal, the DAC was unwilling to change its advice because what was being requested was unchanged and the DAC was not convinced that there was a genuine commitment to proceed to the proposed Phase 2 [19].
It is in that context and with the principles set out in the judgment in mind, that Clarke Ch. considered this petition. He held that the petitioners had now properly engaged with the Net Zero guidance and that immediate heating was necessary for the church’s mission and community use. A faculty was therefore granted, but only on strict conditions: the new gas boilers must be hydrogen-ready, supplied on a green tariff, subject to carbon offsetting, and approved for a limited period of five years to 2030, during which progress towards low-carbon alternatives must be demonstrated.
Comment
Even the Church’s “Net Zero Carbon 2030: Impact Report“, (January 2023 to March 2024), now acknowledges that “The Church of England’s contribution to climate change is small compared to the footprint of the UK and then globally” (page 34) – a point we have been making on a number of occasions.
The total emissions of the Church of England constitute less than 0.05% of those of the United Kingdom, which themselves are one hundred times smaller in global terms. Furthermore, places of worship – churches, church halls and cathedrals – account for under 30% of the Church’s total GHG emissions.
Furthermore, the timescale for achieving this target, 2030, is substantially shorter than that for national and global targets, 2050.
David Pocklington
Thank-you for this.
I came here via the Telegraph’s culture war article about Christ Church, Chineham.
Chineham seems strange – a lot of somewhat speculative interpretation from the Chancellor followed by detailed requirements, on what is essentially a like-for-like replacement in a modern, more energy efficient anyway, building.
Having read the judgement in that case, this whole area seems to me to be a massive can of worms, with Chancellors potentially making determinations and judgements for which they are not qualified (how many are Low Carbon heating experts?) – and putting in detailed requirements that may not have much of a half-life.
As one example, a requirement that a replacement boiler be set up potentially to be removed within 5 years is a bizarre environmental decision – because it would require a whole new package of emissions embedded in the new product be created.
As another example, ‘we did not trust the parish to proceed to Phase 2’ is a principle of suspicion and mistrust. What kind of witness is that?
Like everything else, fact, degree and balance applies, and I feel this is not entirely correct at present. I think Matthew 23:23 may need to be reflected upon, referring to the dot and tittle of buildings, and the service to the community:
“You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.”
And I write as a dedicated low carbon enthusiast in multiple renovations meeting legal requirements that would be 10 to 20 years into the future.
Were I setting up a LEP like Chineham now, with a new building, I would make sure that the DAC was written out of the list of supervising authorities in the constitution if possible.