A petition sought authority for a number of proposals relating to a Grade II* listed church, including the construction of a separate lavatory block in the churchyard, the construction of an extension to the north side of the church and the re-opening of a blocked-up arch to provide access from the church to the extension. Upon arriving at the church to carry out an inspection the commissary general discovered that works of construction had already commenced in respect of the lavatory block and the extension. The incumbent believed that as planning permission had been granted and a certificate had been issued by the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), he did not need further permission to proceed. The commissary required him to cease all works until further order of the court.

In an initial judgment the commissary, having set out the guidelines provided in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, held that the lavatory block would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It would clearly be useful and a faculty was granted authorising it. As to the extension, the commissary expressed serious concern that the jurisdiction of the court had been flouted (which was also true of the lavatory block) and that the extension covered an area which was likely to have formed the nave of the original church and that works had begun before an archaeological report had been prepared. She therefore declined to grant a confirmatory faculty for the works already undertaken on the extension or to authorise any further works until she had seen an archaeologist's report.

In a second judgment the commissary recorded that she had received a letter from the incumbent apologising for having allowed the work to proceed without lawful authority. She held that while the unblocking of the arch amounted to demolition within section 17 of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991, the demolition was necessary for the alteration of the church and was therefore within subsection (3)(b). She further held – in the light of the advice of the DAC – that the demolition would not materially affect the external or internal appearance of the church or its architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic character. That being so, it was not necessary to comply with the elaborate procedural requirements of subsections (4) and (5). Applying the Duffield guidelines to the extension, the commissary held that, in the light of all the evidence, its construction would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest and that the case for it was made on the basis that it secured a suitable use for a historic building and assisted the mission of the church. A further faculty was granted accordingly. [Alexander McGregor]