The church having been destroyed by fire in 2008, a faculty had been granted for its reconstruction and those works were ready to commence. Two outstanding matters remained: proposals to install a digital organ and a moveable font. As to the organ, the chancellor referred to his judgment in Re St Nicholas, Warwick (2010) 12 Ecc LJ 407, in which he had held that those seeking to replace an existing pipe organ with something other than a pipe organ had to discharge a heavy burden, there being a presumption in favour of replacing pipe organs with pipe organs. This was still the case even where, as in the present case, the previous pipe organ had been destroyed, as the presumption in favour of pipe organs resulted from the musical quality and longevity of such instruments. The petitioners' argument that a digital organ would cost less in terms of both capital outlay and maintenance carried little weight. Over time pipe organs were better value for money than organs with a more limited lifespan and the court would not be sympathetic to arguments that it was justifiable to install something of lesser quality simply because it was cheaper. The court also discounted an argument that a digital organ was easier to play by a non-expert organist. Although the case was borderline, the following factors resulted in the court concluding that it was appropriate to authorise the installation of a digital organ. First, the PCC had given serious consideration to the issues relevant to the type of instrument they wished to install. This was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Second, and more significantly, installing a pipe organ would have an adverse impact on space and openness, which were significant features of the reconstructed church. The intention of creating an open and flexible building would be hindered if a pipe organ were installed and the parish would not enjoy the full benefits that would otherwise flow from the reconstruction. On balance, enabling the parish to enjoy those benefits was judged to be a sufficient reason for permitting the installation of a digital organ. As to the proposal for a moveable font (which was supported by the archdeacon), the chancellor held that the same arguments about the flexible use of space in the new church applied equally to the question of whether the font should be fixed or moveable. There were cases where it was appropriate for the font to be located away from the main entrance to the church, and a moveable font was not necessarily impermissible. However, a moveable font must be substantial, both physically and symbolically. A faculty for the introduction of a moveable font would be granted subject to conditions as to its design, scale, appearance and materials and as to securing its suitable location in the church when not in use. [Alexander McGregor]