The petitioners sought a faculty for extensive re-ordering of this Grade II* listed, nineteenth-century Romanesque church. The consideration of the petition was phased. The present, first, phase was for removing pews and plinths, the installation of two toilets, the construction of a chancel dais, carpeting and the provision of chairs. Early discussions had proposed the use of Theo un-upholstered wooden chairs. As a result, the Victorian Society and the Georgian Group had withdrawn their objections to the removal of the pews. Historic England maintained its objection, but accepted the proposed chairs if the pews were to be removed. However, the faculty petition, when brought, proposed an upholstered, chrome Alpha chair. The petitioners justified this by reference to the comfort of the upholstered chair, the fact that it had been permitted for use in other listed churches and the increased cost (some £43,000) of the Theo chairs.

The court deprecated the suggestion that partial removal of the pews might be an appropriate compromise. The removal of pews would amount to a significant but not substantial degree of harm, which would not be allayed by retaining some pews. That harm would be justified by the well-articulated need for the space to be more flexible for contemporary liturgical and non-liturgical use of the building, and for the space to be more accessible to those with disabilities. A faculty would accordingly issue for these works.

The court acknowledged that the Alpha chair was widely used, although a review of consistory court decisions showed that they remained unacceptable to consultees, and were sometimes permitted and sometimes refused. The court also referred to the Church Buildings Council guidance on new seating, which preferred un-upholstered chairs on aesthetic and practical grounds. The court would not grant a faculty for the introduction of chairs before potential objectors had been given an opportunity to comment (even though their position was likely to be highly predictable). In any event, the petitioners had not provided sufficient justification for something that would constitute significant or serious harm to a building of special architectural or historical interest. This aspect of the petition would therefore be deferred, to afford the petitioners an opportunity to provide that compelling case or, on reflection, to suggest alternatives. The present pews were not to be removed until a determination in relation to the chairs had been made. [DW]