In 2017 a faculty was granted for the disposal of the pipe organ from this Grade II* listed church on condition that it should not be removed until a faculty had been granted for a suitable replacement. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) had advised that the old pipe organ was not fit for purpose and that restoration was too costly.

The DAC did not recommend the grant of a faculty for the permanent introduction of a Hauptwerk digital organ from Wakefield Cathedral to replace the pipe organ. The DAC's decision was based upon the advice of its organs expert, who had advised that the old pipe organ was not fit for purpose, who had identified concerns about the Hauptwerk organ and who took the view that the old pipe organ should be replaced with another pipe organ. The petitioners sought to introduce the digital organ on the basis that it would cost in excess of £100,000 to restore or replace the old pipe organ.

There was some inconsistency between the views of the DAC and its organs expert. The chancellor reviewed the relationship between the DAC and its advisers. The advisers were appointed to advise the committee about issues that arise within their particular fields of expertise. The DAC is enjoined by section 35 of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018 to have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission. This gives the committee a wide-ranging remit to consider many different issues that may bear on the formulation of its advice. That means that sometimes a DAC will not follow the proposal that an expert makes and can be justified in doing so as long as it has considered the advice and based its decision on evidence-based reasons. Any suggestion that a specialist adviser's view is determinative of the outcome of a DAC discussion is entirely misplaced. In the same way, the chancellor must have regard to the advice of the DAC but is not bound to accept it if there are good reasons for not doing so.

The chancellor referred to Canon B 20 and the decision in Re St Nicholas, Warwick (Coventry Consistory Court, 20 April 2010) and noted that there was no canonical requirement for the provision of an organ, whether or not a pipe organ, in a church. Whereas there was no rule of law that a pipe organ should be replaced with another pipe organ, there was a presumption that it would be, although that presumption could be rebutted. In this case the petitioners had shown that they had considered carefully the options of restoration of the pipe organ or its replacement with a redundant pipe organ. In light of the needs, wishes and resources of the church, the presumption of keeping a pipe organ had been rebutted and the retention of the Hauptwerk organ had been justified. The faculty was granted. [RA]