Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T08:12:20.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re St Peter and St Paul, Pettistree

St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Consistory Court: Etherington Ch, 31 October 2017 [2017] ECC SEI 6 Restoration order – breach of faculty – paint – diocesan-approved list of architects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2018

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

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Case Notes
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 247 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2018 

In 2014 Zinsser Grade 1 paint (ZS) had been applied to the walls of the church in breach of the terms of a faculty which required four coats of limewash to be used. The paint failed, leaving an unsightly mess, and the archdeacon applied for a faculty for a restoration order in relation to the works. The chancellor found that the architect was solely responsible for the breach, which had been deliberate and avoidable. The need for a change in wall covering had become apparent during the works and the architect had, despite protestations from the contractor, required the ZS to be applied in place of the limewash. Queries had been raised about the need to seek an amendment to the faculty, but no such amendment had been sought prior to the application of the ZS, despite the architect indicating to the Parochial Church Council (PCC) that he would make the necessary arrangements with the Secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Committee. The PCC were not made aware of the contractor's concerns about the suitability of the ZS.

The chancellor concluded that the architect had, out of a desire to avoid delay, simply decided to press ahead without the necessary amendment in the expectation that a confirmatory faculty would be granted in the fullness of time. This was not acceptable. A restoration order was made requiring the church to be put in the position it would have been had the faculty not been breached. The architect would meet the costs of those works and was ordered to pay the court costs of the hearing.

The chancellor gave guidance in his judgment reminding professionals involved in the faculty jurisdiction of the heavy responsibility that came with the trust placed in them as professionals. He considered whether the architect should be removed from the diocesan list of approved architects. Taking into account the architect's acceptance of responsibility and apology and his long experience and previously unblemished record, the chancellor did not direct his removal from the list, but indicated that that would be the likely consequence should any repetition occur. [RA]