The chancellor refused a faculty to authorise the re-roofing of the fifteenth-century porch of a grade II* listed church using plain tiles. The porch roof had been covered in lead from the time of its construction but the lead had been stolen and the roof had been provided with a temporary covering for the past six years. The Parochial Church Council favoured tiles rather than lead or terne-coated steel (TCS) on the grounds that lead would be likely to be stolen again and that TCS, once weathered so that it had the appearance of lead, would still attract thieves, who might then steal the lead flashings even if they did not take the TCS. The difference in cost between TCS and tiles was insignificant. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) did not recommend the proposal to use tiles. There was no example known to the DAC of plain tiles being used on a church before the Reformation. A tiled roof, as opposed to a TCS roof which, once weathered, would have the appearance of lead, would be inauthentic. English Heritage considered the DAC's endorsement of TCS to be well founded. In applying the Duffield guidelines, the chancellor held that the use of tiles would harm the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest and that the level of harm would far outweigh any benefit. There was no justification for changing the roof covering from metal – which had been the case for over 500 years – to plain tiles when the porch had been designed so as to show off its metal roofing. The potential for further damage by thieves could be addressed by placing signs to the effect that the roofing material was TCS and by other means. [Alexander McGregor]