The petitioners sought a faculty for phase one of the re-ordering of this large, Georgian city-centre church. The two areas of controversy were the proposal to replace the Victorian pews with upholstered chairs and the proposal to relocate the font from near the south door to the east end of the south aisle.

In relation to the pews, the court concluded that their removal and replacement with modern chairs would not be harmful to the overall significance of the church. The petitioners had selected their chosen chair from a range of options, by reference to identified criteria. The preferred chair was the Alpha SB2M, an upholstered chair; the next choice, the non-upholstered Howe 40/4, was three and a half times as expensive. Against the views of the amenity societies, the court was not convinced that wooden chairs were always intrinsically more suitable than upholstered chairs and the chosen chair was suitable for the more modern style of worship practised in the church. As to concerns regarding longevity, the court noted that, if the church was purchasing 320 chairs, it could afford to lose one or two to damage; and it could replace its entire stock twice while still saving money over the purchase of the second-choice chair. This was not intrinsically an argument in favour of the proposed chair, but did help to mitigate the problems said to arise from the lack of durability of upholstered chairs.

As to the font, Canon F1 provides: ‘the font shall stand as near to the principal entrance as conveniently may be, except there be a custom to the contrary or the Ordinary otherwise direct’. This is expressed in the principle that it may be permissible for it to be located elsewhere in exceptional circumstances (see re Holy Trinity, Wandsworth (2012) 15 Ecc LJ 125). The proposed location for the font appeared to be used by the worship band at present. While matters might change in the future, the petitioners had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances in this case. [DW]