Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during April 2026
Summaries to the four consistory court judgments reviewed during April 2026 are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included[*] Reordering, extensions and other building works, Net zero issues and Churchyards and burials. This monthly review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
An index to these and earlier judgments in here.
Reordering, extensions and other building works 
Re St. Andrew Hove [2026] ECC Chi 1 The petition proposed major reordering works at St Andrew Hove, a significant Grade II* listed church. The proposals included replacing pews with chairs, installing kitchen and toilet facilities, improving accessibility, creating office space, introducing solar panels, and undertaking external works[1]. Although unopposed, several heritage bodies (including SPAB, Historic England, and the Victorian Society) raised concerns, particularly about mezzanine structures, internal “pods,” and seating changes[3,4]. The Chancellor applied the Duffield framework, recognising a presumption against change and requiring clear justification for harm to the building’s significance.
He found that, despite some fairly significant harm, the proposals would deliver substantial benefits by improving usability, accessibility, and sustainability, and were the product of careful consultation and revision. However, he was not satisfied that raising the chancel platform to the proposed height was necessary[7]. Accordingly, a faculty was granted subject to revision of the chancel platform height. [Re St. Andrew Hove [2026] ECC Chi 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Andrew Bishopstone [2026] ECC Chi 2 The petition proposed works to St. Andrew Bishopstone, a Grade I listed Saxon-origin church. The proposals involved a north aisle extension to provide a vestry, accessible lavatory, flower area, and a tea point. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and key heritage bodies (including Historic England) supported or did not object, and planning permission had been granted[2]. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) raised concerns about the extension’s location, preferring a detached structure, but acknowledged no ideal alternative existed[3].
Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor accepted the proposal would cause some harm to the church’s historic fabric, but found this harm limited and justified by strong pastoral and practical needs. Alternatives had been thoroughly explored and reasonably rejected. The SPAB’s objections were given weight but treated as an outlier among consultees. Accordingly, a faculty was granted. The court also noted concerns about fossil-fuel heating and required the parish to pursue its commitment toward net zero[7]. [Re St. Andrew Bishopstone [2026] ECC Chi 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Removal and replacement of pews 
Re St. Leonard Grendon Underwood [2026] ECC Oxf 4 The petition from the Grade II* listed church sought approval for the disposal of 35 deteriorating plastic chairs and the purchase 35 additional upholstered stacking chairs matching 25 already in use. Applying the Duffield guidelines, the Chancellor assessed harm to the church’s significance and whether it was justified by public benefit. He found that while removing the plastic chairs was clearly beneficial and caused no harm, introducing more upholstered chairs would cause low to moderate harm to the church’s character and would conflict with Church Buildings Council (CBC) guidance favouring unupholstered wooden seating.
The parish’s arguments (cost, flexibility, lightness, and suitability for mission) were insufficient to justify departing from that guidance, especially as similar benefits could be achieved with compliant alternatives. The existing upholstered chairs, which had been introduced unlawfully, could not set a precedent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for disposal of the plastic chairs, but refused to allow the proposed replacements, unless redesigned in accordance with CBC guidance. The court indicated willingness to approve compliant alternatives and stressed vigilance by archdeacons over unauthorized changes in churches. [Re St. Leonard Grendon Underwood [2026] ECC Oxf 4] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].
See Re St. Andrew Bishopstone.
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Mary the Virgin Denham [2026] ECC Oxf 5 The petitioners sought to fell a single mature, healthy lime tree in the middle of the churchyard of St. Mary the Virgin, Denham, a Grade I listed church. This stands just to the north of an ancient yew tree in the old churchyard. The parish want to fell this lime tree, grind out the stump, and re-grass the area. The felling is to be undertaken in the autumn, after the normal nesting season (from March to August), and is expected to take 2-3 days [1].
Buckinghamshire Council, the local planning authority, has considered this proposal and has confirmed that it does not intend to make any tree preservation order in relation to this lime tree. Subject to faculty approval, the parish may therefore carry out the felling, provided this is done within the period of two years before 27 January 2027 [3].
The proposal, which was unopposed, aimed to improve visibility of an ancient yew tree and enhance the aesthetics, biodiversity, and usability of the churchyard [5]. The DAC does not object to the felling of this lime tree, subject to the usual provisos relating to tree works, and to the usual archaeological conditions concerning human remains. The NOA states: “A number of lime trees were planted around the newer section of the graveyard when it was extended and it is one of these which they wish to fell. Although the loss of a healthy tree which will be contributing to the biodiversity, carbon sequestration and visual amenity of the churchyard is not encouraged, there seems to be strong community and congregation support for the proposal and there is no lack of alternative habitat for wildlife in the churchyard”[6].
Citing its recent decision Re All Saints Emberton [2025] ECC Oxf 9 the court emphasised the careful scrutiny that it will give to any application to permit the felling of a mature, healthy tree. This is because this court is mindful of the Fifth Mark of Mission — to safeguard the integrity of God’s marvellous creation. It is for this reason that the court is producing this short written judgment, rather than providing summary reasons for its decision [7].
The Chancellor found that removing the lime tree would cause no harm to the church’s significance or to biodiversity, given the presence of other trees and habitats. The parish had provided a clear and convincing justification, particularly the improved setting and visibility of the ancient yew tree and overall enhancement of the churchyard’s ambience. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions including timing outside nesting season, compliance with tree-work standards, archaeological safeguards, consultation on replacement planting, and ecological measures such as retaining some timber for habitat [9]. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Denham [2026] ECC Oxf 5] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Note: the Ancient Yew Group has three categories of yew, according to their age – “notable” (300 to 700 years old); “veteran” (500 to 1200 years old); and “ancient” (at least 800 years old). The overlap between the categories reflects the fact that the age of particular trees is often being reassessed, usually upwards. See Re St. Philip and St. James Whittington [2017] Ecc Wor 1.
[Top of section] [Top of page].
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in:
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order prohibiting further burials in: St Mary’s Church (Annex) Churchyard, Chithurst, West Sussex; St Paul’s Church Churchyard (Extension), Coven, Wolverhampton, West Midlands; All Saints Churchyard, Elsham, Brigg, North Lincolnshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Anthony Pierce – February 2026, Decision; Samuel Erlandson – February 2026, Decision; Andrew Robinson – February 2026, Decision; Ryan Forey – August 2025. Decision; Jason Kennett-Orpwood – October 2024, Details of Penalty; Nigel Cahill – August/October 2021. Details of Penalty.
See: “Defrocking” in UK Anglican churches: Church in Wales, (1 May 2026).
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 2026 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 7 May 2026. The last set of published minutes is for the meeting on Thursday 22 October 2025
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
General/Miscellaneous
- Memorialization of Thomas Corker in Falmouth church (update), (23 April 2026).
- Musical chairs” in Buckingham Archdeaconry, (14 April 2026).
[Top]
Last revised: 30 April 2026 at 13:50.
[*] This is an approximate classification based upon the main issues considered by the court. Determinations relating to reordering and building works will often address other aspects of the Petition.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.