Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T01:16:03.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Re St Botolph, Stow Bedon

Norwich Consistory Court: Arlow Ch, 18 January 2016 [2016] ECC Nor 1 Re-ordering – pews – justification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2016

Ruth Arlow*
Affiliation:
Chancellor of the Dioceses of Norwich and Salisbury
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Case Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2016 

The parish petitioned for a faculty permitting the re-ordering of the nave of this Grade II* listed church by the removal of all of the pews and their replacement with chairs, the installation of a new kitchenette and chair store at the west end of the church, the relocation of the font and the replacement of the concrete and decaying wooden floor with an engineered wooden floor. The proposed works were recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee. Two parishioners objected, albeit out of time, and Historic England, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society all objected to the proposals in relation to the pews and the floor. It was the consensus of the consultative bodies that the pews were of no particular merit in themselves but that they were part of a coherent and largely unchanged Victorian re-ordering and that their wholesale removal would result in substantial harm to the building. The Church Buildings Council shared that view. No-one chose to become a party opponent in the case.

Each of the bodies that objected to the proposals supported the retention of some of the pews at the east end of the nave with the pews at the west end being removed for greater flexibility. The chancellor applied the Duffield guidelines and in assessing the significance of the building had regard to the representations made, the church's listing entry and a visit to the church. She held that the proposed works would cause harm to the significance of the building. The chancellor refused the faculty on the basis that the justification provided by the parish for the proposed works was not clear and convincing. The works would undoubtedly produce a real public benefit in this community but, given the expressed needs of the parish for space to host meetings, concerts, exhibitions and Messy Church services, that benefit could readily be met by the removal of all but the front four or five rows of pews with the remaining pews being made moveable. The chancellor stayed the proceedings for six months to give the parish the opportunity to present amended proposals in the light of her findings, in default of which the proceedings would stand dismissed. [RA]