Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T01:17:43.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Re Holy Trinity, Kimberley

Southwell and Nottingham Consistory Court: Humphreys Acting Ch, 17 March 2016 [2016] ECC S&N 1 Re-ordering – unlisted church – objections – replacement of organ

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 

Three petitions were presented in relation to this unlisted church built in 1847: for the loan of bells to Loughborough Bell Museum, for the replacement of a redundant pipe organ with an electronic organ and for significant internal re-ordering. These applications were linked to further plans, which had received planning permission, to sell the church hall after transferring all activities, including a weekly nursery, to the church building. A small group, including two members of the Town Council, became parties opponent in the case. Their argument that there had been inadequate consultation was manifestly unfounded, as was the objection that the court hearing was held during working hours. The suggestion that the Built Environment department of the local university be invited to submit proposals for development of the church hall was rejected with a reminder that those advising on changes to church buildings are required to be qualified architects.

The decision concerning the loan of the church bells was deferred to enable statutory consultation with the Church Buildings Council. The faculty for replacement of the organ was granted: as restoration was impossible, the removal of the old organ and its replacement was unavoidable. The dedication plaques should be retained and displayed within the church. As the church was an unlisted building, the only test to consider was whether the need for the proposed changes outweighed the status quo. However, given the age of the church and the deeply felt nature of the objections, the acting chancellor assessed the proposed re-ordering works against the more restrictive Duffield guidelines. The acting chancellor found that there would be no harm caused by much of the re-ordering save for the change of layout and removal of the pews. The slight harm caused by removing the unremarkable pews was outweighed by the far greater benefit of enabling the dwindling congregation to breathe new life and community use into the church. In light of the stretched financial resources of the parish, the need to accommodate the nursery and open the use of the church to the wider community justified the re-ordering. A faculty was granted. [Catherine Shelley]