The petitioners sought a faculty permitting the permanent continued use of existing glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) gutters and downpipes fitted to the north aisle of this Grade I listed church. In 2009, stolen lead rainwater goods on the north side of the church had been replaced with similar goods, which were again stolen in 2011. In 2012, in view of water ingress and damage to internal walls, the church sought approval for the immediate installation of GRP rainwater goods. In July 2012, despite concerns expressed by the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) and English Heritage in relation to their appropriateness, the deputy chancellor granted a temporary emergency licence for the installation of GRP rainwater goods, subject to conditions. These were subsequently installed and the present petition was for a confirmatory faculty. The heritage bodies and DAC all objected to GRP, but all were agreed that it was inappropriate in the circumstances for the rainwater goods to be replaced using lead, with the heritage bodies and DAC recommending the use of a metal substitute (such as cast iron) instead.

In approaching the present petition, the chancellor considered the Duffield guidelines (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158), and paid particular attention to the judgment of Eyre Ch in Re All Saints, Leamington Hastings (Coventry Consistory Court, 11 August 2014, unreported), in which was provided a detailed analysis of previous decisions and particularly that in Re St John the Baptist, Bromsgrove [2012] 14 Ecc LJ 319, which was cited by the petitioners in support of their application. In Re St John the Baptist, Bromsgrove, the replacement material on the roof was not visible and the use of a non-lead metal solution was not before that court. Although the petitioners suggested that the heritage bodies might revisit their views as to the longevity of GRP, the advice that the chancellor received from all the expert bodies who had been consulted, supported by the DAC, in relation to the present petition was that GRP was not an appropriate substitute for metal.

The chancellor found that it was not necessary that the rainwater goods should be made of lead. Metal, however, whether cast iron or stainless steel, would have a longer life expectancy than GRP and was a preferable alternative to it at present, while the suitability of GRP was still being assessed. The risk of theft of cast iron or stainless steel rainwater goods was low. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the patina of the GRP rainwater goods presently installed, their limited extent had not to date adversely affected the external appearance of the church, given that there were at least three other materials used on the building, although the appearance and suitability of GRP in the medium to long term was uncertain. It would, however, be a significant waste of money for a parish which had already suffered financially through the theft of lead on two occasions to be made to remove the GRP only to find that with the benefit of hindsight such removal was unnecessary. Given the uncertainty, there was some benefit to the parish in allowing the GRP to remain, but for a limited period of time. The chancellor therefore granted an interim faculty, allowing the GRP rainwater goods to remain for a further five years (ten in total from the date of their initial installation). At the end of that period he expected them to be replaced with metal (albeit subject to a further petition) if the general advice of the heritage bodies as to the appropriateness of GRP, and the evidence on that issue, had not by then changed. [Jonathan Storey]