The petitioners sought a faculty to extend the church to accommodate an accessible lavatory, a store, a kitchen and a meeting room to provide facilities for children and general community use – uses for which there was currently inadequate space and some of which had had to stop as a result. Following the abandonment of two earlier sets of proposals for building in different locations (which had proved controversial), the current proposal had been designed to minimise the impact of the extension on a 750-year old ‘veteran’ yew tree situated to the north of the existing church. A curved elevation to the extension would ensure that no part of it came within 6.5 metres of the trunk of the yew, while pile-and-beam foundations would minimise interference with the roots. Planning permission had been granted by the local planning authority. Their tree officer was satisfied that the potentially damaging impact of the extension on the yew would be minimised. Historic England and the Victorian Society supported the overall principle of the extension but raised concerns as to aspects of its design and its relationship to the existing church building. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals for approval. The Church Buildings Council (CBC), which provided two reports on the impact of the proposed extension on the yew, did not support the proposals on the basis that they risked threatening the yew, and suggested that other locations should be explored instead.

In assessing the proposals in terms of the risk of harm to the yew tree, the chancellor adopted a balancing exercise by analogy with the Duffield guidelines on assessing proposals which would result in harm to the significance of listed buildings (see Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158). In the light of the fact that there appeared to be considerably fewer yews of great age than there were Grade I or II* listed buildings, the yew in question was of considerable rarity value and merited protection so far as reasonably possible. As pointed out by the CBC, the distance between the proposed curved elevation of the extension (of 6.5 metres) was significantly less than the 15-metre separation recommended by the relevant British Standard (BS 5837:2012, Trees in relation to construction) and the adoption of pile-and-beam foundations would not eliminate the possibility of harm to the roots. The chancellor concluded that the construction of the extension would lead to a significant risk of harm to the yew, and a smaller – but still significant – risk of its total loss. The chancellor accepted that the petitioners had proved a need for new facilities. The size of the extension and its relationship to the church building were acceptable. But the total loss of an ancient or veteran yew was equivalent to serious harm to a Grade I or II* building and should only exceptionally be allowed. While the benefits of the proposed extension would outweigh any modest harm caused to the character of the listed church, they would not justify the sufficiently great risk of loss of the yew. A faculty was accordingly refused. [Alexander McGregor]