Bath Abbey is a Grade I listed UNESCO World Heritage site. In November 2015 the chancellor granted a faculty for the generality of the works proposed in a £19.3 million re-ordering project known as the Abbey Footprint project. Under that faculty, directions were given for the determination of contentious issues relating to potentially controversial aspects of the scheme. Pursuant to those directions the chancellor now came to determine the question of whether the nave pews and pew platforms should be removed and replaced with Theo chairs. There had been no public objection to the scheme and the Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the works. The Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting to the loss of the nave pews on the basis that it would cause substantial harm to the character of the building by eroding the significance of the Victorian interior and the hierarchical seating scheme designed by Sir George Gilbert Scott. Historic England and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings supported the position of the Victorian Society but chose not to take party status.

In the course of the hearing the Victorian Society relied upon responses to an online petition which it had initiated. Referring to the requirements in Re Emmanuel Church, Bentley [2006] Fam 39 that such material was admissible where there is proof of the signatures and evidence of the representations made to the signatories, the chancellor held that little evidential weight could be attached to the online petition. Many of the signatories had no proper interest in the proceedings, and any that did should have expressed their interest through the submission of letters after the public notice. The strong language of the petition meant that the objectivity of the signatories was open to question.

In applying the Duffield guidelines as developed by the Court of Arches in Re St John the Baptist, Penshurst [2015] PTSR D40, the chancellor rejected the argument of the petitioners’ counsel that the assessment of harm under the first Duffield question required the court to undertake a balance between the harm and benefit to the special architectural and historic interest of the building from the proposals such that only a residue of harm might remain. Any balancing exercise should be undertaken when applying Duffield questions 3, 4 and 5.

The chancellor assessed the significance of the nave pews as moderate, and the harm caused by their loss also as moderate, noting that serious harm to the seating scheme could not be equated to serious harm to the building itself. The petitioners argued that the proposals were justified on a number of grounds: the need for liturgical flexibility, the inconvenience and lack of comfort of the nave pews, the ability to offer the building for wider community uses and the architectural and historic benefit from exposing hidden ledger stones and allowing greater appreciation of the proportions of the nave. The chancellor found those arguments persuasive. The weight and lack of stackability of the pews rendered their retention in movable form impractical, and the retention of an isolated block of pews would serve no useful purpose, especially when the more distinguished elements of Scott’s seating scheme were to be retained in the chancel. The justification provided outweighed the modest harm caused and an order was made permitting the proposed works.

The Court of Arches refused the Victorian Society permission to appeal against the judgment of the chancellor on the basis that it had no real prospect of success. [RA]