Petitioners from a Grade II* listed church sought approval for the disposal of 35 deteriorating plastic chairs and the purchase 35 additional upholstered stacking chairs matching the 25 already in use. Applying the Duffield guidelines, in Re St. Leonard Grendon Underwood [2026] ECC Oxf 4, Hodge Ch. considered that while removing the plastic chairs was clearly beneficial and would cause no harm, the introduction of more upholstered chairs would result in low to moderate harm to the church’s character and would conflict with Church Buildings Council (CBC) guidance favouring unupholstered wooden seating.

As far as the parish could ascertain, the chair purchase [of the 25 existing upholstered chairs] did not have faculty permission (apparently because of the erroneous belief that this was unnecessary since  the chairs are not fixed to any part of the fabric of the church). Some old, plastic, bucket chairs are stored in a shed in the church grounds and are brought out for larger weddings, funerals, and services, such as the Crib Service at Christmas. With a view to disposing of them, the parish submitted a grant application to fund the purchase of additional chairs of the type they already have. A grant was awarded by the Diocesan Development Fund to purchase the additional chairs, and it was intended that these would be stored, either in the vestry or at the rear of the church, when not in use[14].

The parish is working on a project to improve the use of the Edwardian vestry which requires the parish to empty the shed of the plastic chairs, and to move stored items from the vestry into the shed. The parish would be able to store the newly purchased chairs in the vestry, and also to make use of them to facilitate the conversion of the vestry into a space for meetings and small groups…This work depends upon being able to dispose of the old plastic chairs, and to create space within the shed[15].

In his Analysis and Conclusions [22] to [38], Hodge Ch. noted that the parish had provided a clear and convincing justification for the disposal of the 35 existing plastic, bucket chairs which were in various states of disrepair and desperately needed to be replaced. The CBC was clearly right in its view that the replacement of these chairs would be beneficial to the historic character of the church building: “they should never have been introduced into this church in the first place. They are wholly unsuitable for a Grade II* listed, historic church building” [24].

He unhesitatingly granted a faculty for their disposal. However,

“[25]. …the real question on this petition was what should replace these bucket chairs: Should the parish be permitted to introduce more of the existing, upholstered, stackable chairs, further reinforcing their presence within this church, contrary to CBC guidance? Or should they be replaced (if at all) with a new style of chair which conforms to such guidance?”

[26]. In answering this question, the court must recognise that it cannot compel the removal of the existing chairs. Although they were introduced into the church unlawfully, this was more than a decade ago; and the time has long elapsed since the court could make any restoration order requiring their removal: see s. 72(5) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018. This case demonstrates the need for the archdeacon, when conducting his regular visitation of each church within the archdeaconry, to be vigilant about identifying any changes that have been made to the church’s fabric and contents since the last visitation, and inquiring as to the nature of any requisite lawful authority for such change…

[…]

[29]. I find that there is a degree of tension in the CBC’s approach, which is not easy to reconcile with the petition that is actually before the court. The CBC has an understandable wish to see a single style of chair introduced into this historic church, so as to give the interior a unified appearance. However, the parish are not seeking, by this petition, any authority to dispose of their 25 existing upholstered, stackable chairs. Thus, the adoption of a single style of chair would seem to involve the acceptance of upholstered seating, contrary to the CBC’s published guidance, and the CBC’s strong suggestion that the parish should consider an alternative replacement chair in line with that guidance.

[31]. I confess that at times my mind has wavered about the outcome of this petition. However, I have reached the clear conclusion that I should refuse the petitioner’s request to replace the 35 plastic bucket chairs with an additional 35 stacking chairs, of the same design as the 25 existing chairs which have been used in the church since 2013 or thereabouts. My reasons are as follows.

[32]. First, I am satisfied that the presence of the existing chairs has caused a degree of harm to the significance of this fine, medieval village church as a Grade II* listed building of special architectural and historic interest. The introduction of any significant number of additional chairs of the same design and style would add to that degree of harm. The parish’s choice of chair departs from the CBC’s published guidance on seating in churches. That guidance is a matter of substance, and not mere form […]

[33]. Second, the burden rests on the petitioners to demonstrate a sufficiently good reason for introducing these particular chairs into this listed church building[…] I agree with the DAC that the parish have provided no clear or convincing justification for the limited harm that would be caused by the introduction of their preferred design and style of chair[…]

[35]. Third…I am satisfied that the same, or substantially the same, benefits could be obtained by the introduction of another form of seating which would cause less harm to the character and special significance of this Grade II* listed historic church building.

[36]. Fourth, I appreciate that the point can be made that, strictly, any new seating will not form a permanent addition to the fabric of this church building. But that is to ignore the realities of the position. If the quality and design of the existing 25 chairs is permitted to dictate, or even to influence, the form of any new seating, similar considerations will apply when any future decision comes to be made about the replacement of the existing 25 chairs.

Since they will be 13 years older than the new chairs, it is likely that they will need to be replaced first. The likelihood is that it will then be said that their replacements should replicate the quality, and design, of the remaining chairs. These chairs will therefore become permanently embedded within this church, perpetuating the inappropriate quality and design of the existing seating for future generations. It is at this point that the second of the principal reasons provided by the DAC for refusing to recommend the parish’s new seating proposal becomes of relevance. The existing, upholstered chairs in the church were never authorised under faculty, and so they cannot provide any precedent for the introduction of additional, unsuitable matching chairs.

[37]. For all these reasons, I find that the petitioners have not discharged the burden that rests upon them of demonstrating a sufficiently good reason for introducing these particular chairs into this listed church building…Whilst I will grant a faculty for the disposal of all 35 plastic, bucket chairs, I refuse to grant a faculty for the purchase of an additional 35 stacking chairs of the same design as the church’s 25 existing, upholstered chairs.

[38].  Should the parish wish to amend their petition so as to seek a faculty for the purchase of up to 35 additional stackable chairs of a quality and design that complies with the CBC guidance note on church seating, then I would be prepared to dispense with the display of any further public notices (since no objections were formally raised to the parish’s present, and more drastic, seating proposal) and to grant such a faculty…

Comment

The CBC Guidance Note Seating is here, which was issued by the Church Buildings Council under S55(1)(d) of the Dioceses, Mission and Pastoral Measure 2007.