A faculty was granted unopposed for the repair of stonework around the doors and west window of a Grade II listed Victorian church and to re-glaze the window. The contentious aspect of the proposals was the choice of materials to protect the new window from vandalism, a serious risk as the window was not visible from the road. The petitioners sought to replace the existing wire mesh guards with polycarbonate, cut to fit precisely within the footprint of the window. They argued that wire mesh looked from the inside like a cage or prison; polycarbonate technology had improved significantly and if fitted properly would not be visible from outside. Polycarbonate was as easy to clean as wire, although it was accepted that it was less durable. The diocesan advisory committee opposed the use of polycarbonate, arguing that wire mesh was more durable, resistant to scratches or graffiti, fireproof and easier to clean. The Victorian Society and English Heritage had no preference. The Church Buildings Council's guidance on the materials was considered. The evidence suggested that issues of flammability were equal between the two materials. A faculty was issued authorising the use of polycarbonate, accepting the argument that from within polycarbonate was aesthetically preferable to wire mesh. Although polycarbonate was less durable, its lifespan of twenty years was sufficient and it was the appropriate material in the case of this building. [Catherine Shelley]