In 2014 the chancellor had granted a faculty for substantial works to this Grade I listed church for various structural repairs and for internal re-ordering, including the replacement of the nave pews with chairs. At that time the parish had narrowed the choice of chair to two models but had not finally decided which chairs they wanted to introduce. The chancellor made it a condition of the faculty that no order should be placed for the new nave chairs/pews until their design had been either agreed with the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), English Heritage and the Victorian Society or approved by the chancellor.

In August 2016 the chancellor was approached to approve the parish's choice of chair under the condition, whereupon it became clear that the parish had purchased and introduced chairs nine months previously with the approval of the DAC but without having sought the views of the other consultative bodies. Upon being asked, Historic England and the Victorian Society objected to the chosen chairs, which were matt gold-coloured, metal-framed chairs with brown faux-leather upholstery. The chancellor refused to approve the choice of chairs under the faculty condition and directed that the petitioners should petition for a confirmatory faculty in relation to the chairs. Historic England was unhappy with the choice of chair but did not consider that the impact on the historic significance of the building required a formal objection. The Victorian Society became a party opponent to the petition for a confirmatory faculty, objecting strongly to even the time-limited faculty sought. The chancellor considered the nature of the guidance published by the Church Buildings Council on seating. Such guidance was undoubtedly authoritative and departure from it must be carefully justified, but it could not have been intended to constrain the judgment which the chancellor must exercise in each case. There was no rule that upholstered chairs would never be permitted nor that only an approved list of chairs would be acceptable.

In applying the Duffield guidelines, the chancellor considered that only modest harm would be caused by the introduction of the chairs. The chairs were inelegant and could be seen as jarring, albeit with upholstery chosen to harmonise with the rich tones of the Victorian flooring. Nevertheless, the introduction of the chairs had no physical impact on the building: they were free-standing items of furniture with a finite life. The introduction of such loose furnishings would not have been subject to Listed Buildings Consent in a secular building. The justification for the proposals was strong: the church had been close to closure but was now in regular use with a growing congregation. There were very real financial constraints as a result of this very small village having raised in excess of £300,000 for the restoration and re-ordering project. The financial implications of refusing the faculty had to be considered. The faculty would be granted for a period of ten years, which should be sufficient period for the raising of funds for more appropriate chairs. [RA]