1
|
|
1 |
|
|
The regular round-up
|
|
|
|
In view of the theme of this issue of
Context,
this time he highlights those cases with an ecclesiastical flavour.
Readers of
Context
will not need to be reminded that works to a listed Church of England building do not need listed building consent. If the church is in use, however, such works will need a faculty from the Chancellor of the relevant diocese. And if an application for a faculty is opposed, or is otherwise likely to be of more than local significance, there will be a hearing of the Consistory Court of the diocese.
This is of particular significance since the parties entitled to a right of audience at such a hearing now include the local planning authority, any ‘statutory amenity society”, and “any other body designated by the judge for the purpose of the petition”. It should be noted, however, that, in order to have a right to appear, it is necessary first to give a written notice of objection
—
Consistory Court hearings are not as informal as planning inquiries, and the Chancellor need not hear someone who merely turns up on the day.
Until recently, cases heard in the Consistory Courts (or in the higher ecclesiastical courts
—
see below) have only rarely reached the law reports. This has to some extent been rectified by the publication by Sweet & Maxwell in 1988 of G H Newsom’s book
Faculty Jurisdiction of the Church of England,
which takes into account all reported decisions since 1950 and provides a very thorough, if somewhat straight-laced and unimaginative, analysis of the procedure adopted and the issues involved. In addition, Consistory Court cases are now reported regularly in the
Ecclesiastical Law Journal
(back copies available from the Editor, c/o 1 the Sanctuary, London SW1P 3JT).
Many Church of England buildings are of course listed; indeed a very substantial proportion are grade I or II*. It is not surprising therefore that several Consistory Court cases in recent years have explicitly considered the extent to which the listing of a church is a material consideration that should be taken into account by the Chancellor in reaching his or her decision. The following cases give some indication of the
|
position that has gradually emerged in the last few years, and suggest that, whether or not a decision relating to a listed church would have been ‘better’ if it had been taken by the local planning authority, the listing is in any event fully taken into account.
The background to many of them is the conflict between the interests of conservation and the desire for freedom to re-order churches at will. These two views were reflected in the decision of the Court of Arches, in re
St Mary’s Banbury
(1987) Fam 136, and that of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved in
re St Stephen Wall- brook
(1987) Fam 146 (which related to a Henry Moore altar in a Christopher Wren church).
In
Banbury,
the Dean held that a faculty which would affect the special nature of the architectural or historic interest of a church should only be allowed in cases of clearly proved necessity. This reference to ‘necessity’ was however criticised in
St Stephen Wallbrook.
Sir Ralph Gibson held there that “the fact that an ecclesiastical building is listed is a relevant consideration in deciding whether or not to grant a faculty”; but that the decision is to be taken “in the context that the building is used for the purposes of the Church, that is to say in the service of God as the Church, doing its best, perceives how that service is to be rendered”.
The Court of Ecclesiastical Cases Reserved is only called upon in cases involving doctrine, ritual, or ceremonial
—
and its decisions are thus strictly binding only in the very rare cases of that kind. The Court of Arches (or the Chancery Court of York in the northern province) is the court to which an appeal is made from a decision of a Consistory Court in every other case.
Re St Mary, Beddington
(1987) 1 Eec U (No 2) 36 concerned a church that was medieval as to its main structure, and was thus presumably listed. The north aisle had been designed by the architect Clarke, and was also of great architectural importance. The proposed works consisted of the insertion of a mezzanine floor in the north aisle, so as to create an attic which could be used for the teaching of Sunday school classes and for other purposes. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee supported
|
the proposals, the Council for the Care of Churches, the Victorian Society and SPAB all opposed them. There was a sharp conflict between pastoral requirements and conservation interests; but the Chancellor considered that the importance of the church, and particularly the north aisle, was such that no major interference with it should be tolerated. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Inre
StLawrence, Skellingthorpe
(1988) 1 Eec U (No 4) 5, a faculty was sought for major internal works to the church, and for the building of a substantial extension on the south side of the nave. The church was a grade II listed building, but “of no particular architectural interest”. The Chancellor stated that the onus lay upon those proposing the works to satisfy him that the faculty should be granted. Further, he had to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the church and its setting. On the evidence, however, he considered that the needs of the worshipping community, both present and future, justified the granting of a faculty, and outweighed the objections to the proposals.
A faculty was also granted in
re St Andrew Bebington
(1988) 2 Eec U 3, for extensive re-ordering of the interior of the church, which was grade I listed. In having regard to the listing of the building, and to the possibility that the desired changes were merely the result of passing fashion, the Chancellor concluded that the changes in the forms of worship (which had largely prompted the desire for the re-ordering) gave the impression of progressing along a steady line, and were likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
In both
Skellingthorpe
and
Bebington,
the guidelines set out by the Court of Arches in
re St Mary’s Banbury
were noted, but the approach in
re St Stephen’s Wallbrook
was preferred. In
Bebington,
indeed, the Chancellor specifically turned a blind eye to the fact that the
Wallbrook
decision did not, strictly speaking, overrule
Banbury.
In
re St Nicholas, North Walsham
(1988) 1 Eec U (No 5) 4, a medieval church, a faculty was sought for various works to reorder the interior. The moving of the pulpit and the alteration of the seating were con-
|
|
28
|
|
CONTEXT 28
|
|
|
1 |
|