In determining a petition for the introduction of new internal porch doors in a church it became apparent to the chancellor that the terms of a previous faculty permitting the creation of a baptistery and the installation of a baptismal pool had not been adhered to. The previous faculty had permitted those works on condition that integration of the baptismal pool and the existing Victorian font was achieved, in order to avoid the creation of two baptismal areas, thereby creating the impression of two different types of baptism. Contrary to the terms of that faculty and consequent upon changes in the cost of the baptistery works, the parish had installed the baptismal pool but had not moved and integrated the Victorian font. They had instead placed a distinctive red carpet joining the two baptismal areas. This had resulted in a saving of approximately £2,000. The chancellor noted that the estimated cost of the proposed works to the internal doors was also about £2,000. The chancellor was not prepared to grant the faculty for the work to the doors until the outstanding issue in relation to the baptistery and baptismal pool had been resolved. [RA]