The petition sought the re-ordering of the west end of a Grade I listed church which involved the provision of a meeting room with glass front with gallery above, a servery and lavatory facilities. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings raised concerns in relation to the gallery only (accepting the need for the provision of the other facilities). Their officer's evidence was that the proposed gallery would draw attention to itself and dominate the west aspect when seen from the nave. The deputy commissary general considered that the works would not harm the historic interest of the church. This was so despite the fact that the west door, which was indicative of a link with the adjacent Davington Priory, would be obscured; the door would remain and the link with the priory could be described in literature that would be made available to visitors. The works would affect the architectural interest of the church to the extent that, when viewed from the east end of the church, the west end would appear less simple and would have an enclosed area with a gallery. Also, the last of a series of arches on the north side of the nave would be within the enclosed area and its opening filled in. But the essential plainness of the church in the Norman style would remain. The style of the meeting room would be consistent with that historically plain style. The inclusion of the gallery would not result in the proposals having any greater adverse effect than they would have if it were omitted, and it would afford a new spatial view in the church towards the east. The inclusion of the gallery would also make the development at the west end a more satisfactory new architectural feature in itself. Applying the Duffield guidelines, the deputy commissary general held that the harm to the special architectural interest of the church would be limited and would not constitute serious harm. The new view of the church interior provided by the gallery and the potential for revitalising the use of the church by attracting and accommodating greater numbers of people, including children and older people, would result in public benefit which provided clear, convincing justification for the works and which strongly outweighed the harm identified. That decision was strengthened to a small degree by the fact that the works would be reversible. Accordingly, permission was granted for a faculty to be issued. [Alexander McGregor]