The petitioners sought a faculty for the installation of solar panels on the roof of this 18th century Grade 2*-listed church, with associated hardware being installed in the tower. Not all amenity societies supported the proposal, and planning permission had been refused. Nevertheless, the DAC unanimously recommended the proposals. In considering the petition, the court observed in passing that it would have been preferable for the statement of significance to have been prepared by an architect rather than by one of the petitioners.

The court set out in detail the surrounding area of the church and the views of the church that it afforded, and other physical aspects of the church. It also set out in detail the reasons given for the refusal of planning permission; and noted that while in most cases such a refusal would make a faculty redundant, in this case the petitioners intended to appeal against that refusal.

In considering the Duffield questions, the court found that the proposals would cause moderate harm to the significance of the building as an outstanding and rare example of a rural Georgian church. The harm was justified both by the immediate financial savings that would accrue and more broadly by bringing the church close to carbon neutrality; and the court also considered the missional priority given by the church to its net zero principles and the ultimate reversibility of the proposals. A faculty would issue, subject to conditions of the grant of planning consent; proposals for the layout of the panels to be in sympathy with the rhythm of the building’s architectural features; and the limitation of the permission to 26 years to reflect the expected lifespan of the panels.

Post script: the petitioners’ appeal against the refusal of planning permission was unsuccessful.