In 2015 as part of a reordering project, the ground floor of the tower of All Saints, Wrington[1] was converted into a vestry, “shielded from the nave by a wooden screen situated neatly within the tower arch”. The vestry has a wooden floor and various cupboards; beneath the floor was included a foul drainage connection;  although not utilized at that time, this proved to be timely “future proofing”.

It was discovered that the joisted wooden vestry floor of All Saints had become infested with death watch beetle, necessitating repair. The proposed remedial work includes the replacement of the present floor with stone brought to the level of the paving in the nave, in addition to various consequential works. This also provided an opportunity to introduce a lavatory cubicle with disabled access, taking advantage of the existing drainage connection.

Two associated projects were the subject of the petition Re All Saints Wrington [2026] ECC B&W 2, presented by the Rector and the two churchwardens who estimated the aggregate cost of the works to be £94,000 [3]. The petition attracted a substantial level of opposition. Four parishioners joined in the proceedings as parties opponent while a further 15 letters of objection were sent to the Registry (one of which was later withdrawn) [4]. Most of opponents to the proposals had a connection with Wrington Church extending over many years, and several had served as church wardens or in other important roles within the parish.

The Issues to be Determined

Although some objectors challenged the need for any additional toilet facilities, given the availability of those in the Reading Room outside the churchyard, the majority, together with the Petitioners, recognised that convenient facilities are required if the church building is to fulfil its potential for worship, mission and community use. This was reflected in the agreed particulars of objection which stated: “At the outset we wish to point out that we are not objecting to the concept of a WC within the Church grounds, but not in the Vestry of a Grade I Listed Building” [6].

Briden Ch. noted:

[7] This realistic concession reflects the experience in many churches where such provision for the comfort of those who use the building has led to growth and has reinforced the contribution of the church to the life of the community. For the purposes of this judgment the need for change at least to the extent accepted by the parties opponent, cannot realistically be disputed.

“[8] …despite the reluctance among the objectors to concede the principle of a lavatory within an outstanding historic building, there can be no arguable case, based on the guidance in re. Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, that harm will result from the proposed change. The absence of potential harm is evident from the supportive attitude of the statutory consultees. Of these, the Victorian Society made no substantive response.

[9] Had any issue of harmful intervention arisen it would undoubtedly have been recognised and made the subject of comment by those consultees. Moreover, at diocesan level no questions of harm has been identified by the Diocesan Advisory Committee in respect of the vestry as a location. While there is no evidence of harm (in the Duffield sense) upon which the objectors can rely, it is open to them, as they have done, to contend that the vestry is, in other respects, an unsuitable place for a lavatory.

[10] The difference between the parties was further narrowed by the document  prepared by the WC committee and headed “Assessment of advantages and disadvantages of six toilet locations including attached and remote options”, (“the Assessment Document”, 31 July 2024). On the basis of the representations made, the Court had to decide, for the purpose of selecting a location, between Number 1, the petitioners’ proposal, and Number 3, a new external building in the churchyard where sheds currently stand, which had the support of the parties opponent.

It was common ground that the beetle attack must be addressed and the floor repaired. While the parties opponent saw the cost of repair as a justification for economy regarding the provision of a lavatory, for the petitioners the removal of the wooden floor was an opportunity not to be missed providing their scheme for internal facilities receives approval [11].

Location

With regard to the location, neither of the remaining potential sites – in the churchyard or within the tower – was deemed to be ideal, [12] to [16], and “[o]n balance the tower vestry is to be regarded as the preferred location. Hidden by the tower screen, its position does not intrude upon the historic nave or the churchyard, and is reasonably remote from activities within the building. Along with the remainder of the vestry arrangements, the layout is fully reversible without harm to the surrounding architecture” [17].

Safeguarding

An advantage asserted for the tower vestry solution in the Assessment Document was that “care and safeguarding responsibilities were met in full”. This assertion was “roundly condemned in the particulars of objection as, ‘An exaggerated view of the safeguarding issues used as a means of ignoring realistic outside alternatives all at a likely lesser cost’”. Against this, the Chancellor commented [18]

“[q]uite apart from the emphasis now put upon safeguarding in the life of the Church of England, the practicalities have been explained in the letter […] from the Head Teacher of Wrington Church of England Primary School. Pupils of the school”,

on which he continued:

“The need, on the grounds of care and safeguarding, to escort young children to the Reading Room applies equally to an isolated building (as proposed in Option 3) in the churchyard but some 60 metres from the church and close to the churchyard gateway. Conversely, safety is maximised if the pupils can be kept under supervision within the church. Since engagement with the school is an essential feature of the role of the church within the community, the petitioners have rightly attached importance to safeguarding as a justification for Option 1”.

Extent of Consultation

The particulars of objection allege that there has been a lack of direct consultation with the congregation and the inhabitants of the village, leading to Option 1 being presented as a fait accompli. Closely connected with this allegation was the suggestion that the process had been rushed in order to avoid the imminent imposition of Value Added Tax upon the works [19]. Briden Ch. observed:

“Plainly there is a difference of perception concerning the level of public consultation. It is possible that greater interaction with the congregation and residents might have avoided some of the misconceptions, for example with regard to the impact upon the traditional appearance of the building, which feature in the objectors’ letters.

Even so, the question arises, what difference to the outcome would more extensive consultation have made? In the event, the petitioners have produced a scheme which has been favoured by the D.A.C., Historic England and the amenity societies and has been accepted by this Court as the least disadvantageous of the possible solutions. Further discussion at parish level is unlikely to have been productive, since the petitioners had good reason to adhere to their preferred scheme even in the face of opposition”.

Finance

The particulars of objection dwelt in some detail upon the means of funding the two elements (the floor and the lavatory) which appeared in the petition; it was questioned whether the lavatory is affordable [23]. The Chancellor explained “[t]he role of the Consistory Court in this respect is limited, because by Section 4(1)(ii)(a) of the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 there is vested in the PCC power, duties and liabilities with respect to “The financial affairs of the Church including the collection and administration of all moneys raised for church purposes”.

Democratic control of the finances is underpinned by the requirement in the Church
Representation Rules that the year’s financial statements shall be open for discussion at the Annual Parochial Church Meeting (See Part 9, Rule M5(i)(c)of these Rules).

“[26] The Consistory Court will not override the PCC in the exercise of its wide statutory powers in determining how money is to be raised or spent. The financial information to be given in paragraph 4 of the faculty petition is directed to the narrower issue of the adequacy of money required for the task in hand. With that issue the Court is concerned because it will not sanction works or purposes which on their face are doomed to failure for lack of funds. Where money is to be raised after the faculty has been granted, a condition is likely to be imposed requiring a minimum level of funding before all or part of the work may be commenced.

[27] Applying the principles summarised in paragraphs 25 and 26 to the particulars of objection and the petitioners’ response, it is clear that the principal objections, notably the dissipation of capital, and spending upon the foul drainage connection and architect’s fees from the capital accounts, fall within the remit of the P.C.C. in the exercise of its administrative powers. The Court will not interfere with the control of the P.C.C. over these matters. In so far as the parties opponent have expressed the fear that the lavatory project will simply run out of money, the petitioners have, however, a case to answer. They have sought to do so in their response.

[28] Of the estimated aggregate cost of £94,000 (which includes a 10% allowance for contingencies) the petitioners expect a contribution of £44,000 from capital funds to cover the cost of the vestry floor as a repair item. The balance of £50,000 is intended to be raised from various sources such as gifts, pledges and grant funding without recourse to the assets of the church or its regular income. Thus far, the petitioners’ appeal for money has met with reasonable success, and (in line with experience elsewhere) it is expected that more contributions would be forthcoming after a faculty had been granted.

[29] The petitioners’ expectations, while realistic, might remain unfulfilled… The appropriate means of catering for such contingencies is the imposition of a faculty condition that the projected works shall be divided into convenient phases and operations in relation to each phase shall not commence until at least 75% of the funding applicable to that phase has become available.

Conclusion

[30] Despite the written submissions ably deployed by the parties opponent and supported in the letters of the remaining objectors, it has been concluded in this judgment that the weight of expert advice, and at least on balance the practical advantages associated with the petitioners’ preferred plans, justify the grant of a faculty for the interior lavatory cubicle.

A faculty will accordingly pass the seal as prayed. The faculty will also extend to the uncontentious floor repairs. There will be a condition in terms set out in paragraph 29 and a further condition for archaeological oversight of works to the floor or other excavations.

Postscript

[1] Sir Charles Barry, one of the architects for the Houses of Parliament was said to have used Wrington’s tower as inspiration for the Victoria Tower.