sidered acceptable. The removal of the medieval screen, at the junction of the chance! and the nave, so as to allow for the provision of a new altar at that location, was however not allowed. The upper part of the screen was missing, but the surviving lower section was an important work of art, with painted panels of high quality. The Chancellor considered that, artistically and aesthetically, the screen in its original location amounted to a treasure possessed by the parish. There was also a risk that it might be damaged if it were to be removed and reconstructed.

In re St John the Baptist. Wonersh (1989) 2 Eec U 3, on the other hand, which also concerned interior works in a medieval church, a faculty was granted. The proposals again involved (amongst other things) the removal of the rood screen, and its repositioning against the east wall, as well as the bringing forward of the altar towards the nave, and the removal of the screen between the chancel and the Lady Chapel. There was opposition from within the parish and from the Victorian Society. The Chancellor found, however, that the changes could improve facilities for worship, and that the re-ordering could be reversed. The rood screen, although a striking feature, was not intrinsically important in the appearance of the church, and was relatively modern. The petitioners had

made out a good case, and a faculty was granted.

A faculty is often sought for the removal or replacement of the heating system in a church (how often is such work carried out in a secular building without consent?). The Chancellor in one such case, re St Silas, Blackburn (1989) 2 Eec U 5, considered that this is pre-eminently a matter for decision by the parochial church council. However, he held that, especially in the case of a listed building, it may be appropriate to refuse to grant a faculty if (amongst other things) the proposal involves unjustifiable alterations or additions to the fabric of the church, or changes to its appearance that are not acceptable on aesthetic grounds. In that case, which concerned a grade II building built between 1894 and 1904, he declined to grant a faculty for the insertion of a direct fired warm air system, because it involved the cutting of a hole in the wall and the construction of a very substantial addition.

Re All Saints, Otley (1990) 2 Eec U 65 concerned somewhat more major works, to a grade I church, including the creation of a self-contained meeting room to accommodate up to 150 people at the west end. The proposals had been carefully drawn up with advice from English Heritage, as well as from the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Council for the Care of Churches. They would not cause appreciable damage

to the fabric; and the case for conversion was found to be overwhelming. In this case, the guidelines in Sr Mary’s, Banbury were followed; the Chancellor considered that the re-ordering would not adversely affect the architectural or historic interest in the church.

Finally, the most authoritative recent decision is re All Saints, Mel bourn, reported briefly in The Times on 24 March 1990. In this, it was held by Sir John Owen, Dean of the Court of Arches, that when a church was listed, a faculty for works which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest should only be granted in wholly exceptional circumstances, showing clearly a necessity for such a change. This decision — which exactly reflects his earlier decision in re St Mary Banbury — is of course subsequent to re St Stephen Wallbrook, and will thus be of greater weight than decisions of Consistory Courts which preferred the approach in that case to the one adopted in Banbury.

The Melbourn decision will also be of some comfort to those concerned about the future of churches of special interest, and suggests that a very high standard is now required of those proposing to alter substantially a listed church — at least if it belongs to the Church of England. It is hoped that other denominations will follow suit.