Handed down on 21 November 2022, Re St. Saviour Croydon [2022] ECC Swk 5, was the first case to be considered under the new provisions of the Faculty Jurisdiction (Amendment) Rules 2022, described here. After coming into force on 1 July 2022, there has now been a total of twenty four consistory court determinations under the new provisions. These have covered a range of heating sources: four examples of heat pump installation; five using some form of electrical heating; ten where the primary source was gas; a further four with other modes of heating and one where solar panels provided supplementary power. In a further case, a retrospective faculty for replacement gas boilers was refused although but limited continuation was permitted; links to these cases are listed here.
The importance of the recently circulated case Re St. Mary Magdalene Stoke Bishop [2025] ECC Bri 4 lies in the court’s approval for permitting the replacement of an existing gas boiler with another gas boiler instead of the originally authorised air source heat pumps.
On 13 October 2025 a petition passed the seal for a reordering of this Grade II listed church; one part of which was for the replacement of the existing gas fired boiler with air source heat pumps[1]. Gau Ch. was subsequently asked to amend the Faculty to substitute a gas boiler for the air source heat pumps. A letter form the Petitioners said inter alia:
“[3]. Rule 4.1(2A) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (as amended) states that the requirements to consult interested parties in advance “do not prevent an intending applicant from consulting any other body or person.” However…it contains no recommendation to consult with neighbours particularly, as in this case, the proposal will clearly have an impact on those living nearby.
[4]. …Since the local authority have had to consider granting planning permission, three neighbours…have raised objections. The local authority, having raised concerns about the noise levels that would be generated by the 14kW air pumps, are considering granting planning permission for the installation of air pumps but stipulated that the 14kW air pumps be replaced with smaller 10kW air pumps.
The neighbours complained that, whilst they supported in principle the Church’s aims of reaching net zero, they did not support this particular parish’s attempts to help achieve it. Further
“[6]. …even the newer, smaller pumps will be too noisy to be installed and as they say with firmness but courtesy, they will go to law to stop the installation of any such pumps. One of the neighbours also raises, with dignified restraint, the health of a member of their family which would be adversely affected by the noise. That neighbour also states that they are ‘willing to consider contributing to’ any extra costs associated with the installation of a gas boiler.
[7]. The parish priest has also raised the point that the threat of litigation has caused her considerable stress and that this may further affect her ministry in the future if litigation were to happen and the attendant stress increase.”
The Chancellor noted:
“[8]. It is very clear to me that the parish had due regard to the Church of England’s net zero guidance as required by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. Indeed, that is clear from the very full advice that they received, and which formed part of their petition. It was from that advice that they decided that air pumps were the best possible solution to improve the heating and to conform to the Church’s guidance.
However, the DAC was initially sceptical about agreeing to the proposed amendment, although after some investigation that stance changed. [For completeness, these important, but lengthy considerations are reproduced here].
The Chancellor agreed with the petitioners’ original petition that, having due regard to the Church of England’s guidance on net zero, the installation of air pumps would be the best solution to this problem. There would have to be the most compelling reasons for me to overturn that decision bearing in mind the existential and missional reasons for that guidance [11]. He continued:
“[12]. On one level, I have to decide between two authorities-the Church of England’s guidance on net zero and the commandment to love our neighbours. I accept that following the Church’s guidance on net zero is also a manifestation of living out that commandment in the widest sense, but I have to take into the account the direct and indirect effect on the mission of this church if this amendment was allowed.
I must make it clear that I cannot be certain that an injunction would be granted if the neighbours decided to issue proceedings, or that proceedings for noise nuisance would be successful but I have to take into account the financial consequences of the parish defending any proceedings. The parish would be unable to complete its reordering and the work and mission of the church to serve the community would grind to a halt.
[13]. I note that it is intended that the air pumps would be working 24 hours a day with the attendant noise set out in the DAC’s report. I also note that the petitioners are keen to mitigate any environmental damage by improving insulation and installing double glazing as part of this reordering. They have also offered to make a financial contribution to another church community to enable a form of renewable energy to be installed”.
Taking into account the unique set of circumstances here:
a) the exceptionally quiet environment in a suburban area which would be unusually affected by even the smaller of the air pumps being used 24 hours a day;
b) the particular medical consequences of the noise in this case;
c) the effect that the threatened litigation would have on the viability of this church’s mission,
the Chancellor was prepared to allow the suggested amendment and, contrary to the Church of England’s guidance on achieving net zero, allow the replacement of this gas boiler with another one[14]. He encouraged both the petitioners and the opponent neighbours to consider making some material contribution to net zero initiatives[15].