The incumbent and churchwardens petitioned for a faculty for the introduction into this Grade I listed church of a multimedia display system that included fixing four 50-inch LCD monitors to pillars in the nave. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals for approval by the court and advised that they would not be likely to affect the character of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. The incumbent nevertheless consulted Historic England. Historic England – whose main concern was with the visual impact of the scheme – were opposed to the proposals on the ground that the monitors in the nave would be strident modern fittings in a space otherwise visually unencumbered by this type of intrusion. The Local Planning Authority did not support the proposals for similar reasons. Letters of objection were received from a number of members of the congregation. The Church Buildings Council did not object; although it considered that movable screens would be preferable, their use presented difficulties in this densely pewed church.

In applying the guidelines in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 1, the chancellor agreed with the view of Historic England that the proposals would result in serious harm to the timeless composure and calm visual atmosphere which was the essential character of the interior of this beautiful church. As this was a Grade I listed church, more cogent evidence was required to enable the petitioners to discharge the burden of proof that lay on them than would be the case with a Grade II* or Grade II listed church. It should have been possible for the petitioners to support their case with evidence as to the mission effects of similar screens in other churches, but the incumbent merely volunteered the view – which did not amount to evidence – that ‘no-one can say what the mission impact [of the proposals] will be but we are convinced it will help’. In the absence of evidence that the proposed monitors would benefit the church's mission, the harm to the listed building that would be caused by their introduction could not be justified and a faculty was refused for the four monitors on the nave pillars. [Alexander McGregor]