A faculty was sought to erect nine telephone masts in the tower bell chamber of this Grade I listed church. The application was the same as several others in the diocese, of which two also concerned the same local authority planning department. The work proposed replacing lead-covered oak louvres with GRP replicas, a process approved by both English Heritage and the Victorian Society on condition that the original louvres would be reinstalled when the masts were removed. Notice of the work was given to the planning authority, although it was thought that no planning application was required as there was no material change to the building's appearance. No reply or request for a planning application was received in the 28-day notice period. Only one objection to the works was received by the prescribed deadline; many others came after the expiry of the notice period. The objections related to the consultation process and health concerns about the masts. In response to the campaign against the masts the local authority requested a further 28 days to consider the proposals, well outside the statutory notice periods. They then proposed to lodge an objection in the faculty proceedings arguing that the works required planning permission as they would detract from the external appearance of the building. Considering whether the works would materially affect the external appearance of the building and thereby its character, it was found that viewed from street level the replacement louvres 30 feet above would have no material effect on the church's appearance. The plan to reinstall the original louvres would guard against the risk of the appearance changing because of different weathering of the GRP. It was also found that the same authority had previously allowed precisely the same works to other churches with no objections or requirement for planning permission. They had only been able to object to the works out of time because of the extended notice period necessitated by the faculty process. Both secular and ecclesiastical cases were considered in concluding that there was no evidence to substantiate fears about health risks from the masts. The faculty was therefore issued on the basis that the works were exempt from the planning authority's jurisdiction. [Catherine Shelley]