Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T10:39:20.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re St Peter and St Paul, Newport Pagnell

Oxford Consistory Court: Hodge Ch, 23 December 2020 [2020] ECC Oxf 8 Installation of electronic organ – mothballing of pipe organ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2021

David Willink
David Willink*
Affiliation:
Deputy Chancellor of the Dioceses of Salisbury and St Albans
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 23 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 368
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2021

The petitioners sought a faculty for the installation of an electronic organ. The existing pipe organ, which although playable was in need of restoration, would remain in situ. The proposal would thus be unlikely to harm the significance of the Grade I listed building. However, since the grant of a faculty might affect the future of the existing pipe organ, the petition raised the question of how the court should approach the longer-term potential implications of the purchase and installation of an electronic organ. In particular, the cost of an electronic organ would substantially deplete the dedicated ‘organ fund’, leaving little possibility of future restoration of the pipe organ. The fund fell far short of the amount needed for a complete restoration of the existing organ.

In applying the Duffield framework, the court noted that the considerations and factors identified in Re St Nicholas, Radford Semele (2012) 13 Ecc LJ 457, Coventry Consistory Court – which was decided under the Bishopsgate questions – remained relevant when considering proposals to replace a pipe organ. These considerations are that there is a rebuttable presumption that the starting point should be to replace a pipe organ with a pipe organ; and that those who seek to replace a pipe organ with a different type of instrument will almost invariably fail if they cannot show that there has been a proper consideration of the issues, with due account being taken of the importance and benefits of pipe organs. However, in the present case, the pipe organ was not to be removed or replaced; the Duffield questions only required the petitioners to show a sufficiently good reason to rebut the presumption against change, which the petitioners had done. A faculty would therefore be issued.

In order to address the valid concerns that the introduction of an electronic organ would lead to the neglect and ultimate loss of the pipe organ, the court imposed a condition that required the parish to continue to maintain, insure and tune the pipe organ, and to make reasonable endeavours to ensure that it continued to be playable. [DW]