The petitioners sought a faculty for the substantial re-ordering of the church, including the re-location of the font to the east end of the church. The font was currently located in a screened baptistery at the west end of the church, within which the petitioners sought to create a servery. The baptistery was unused and for the last 70 years baptisms had taken place with a portable font at the front of the church. The Diocesan Advisory Committee supported the petition but English Heritage, the Church Buildings Council and the Victorian Society raised objections, particularly in relation to the proposals for the font. None of those bodies chose to become parties opponent within the proceedings.

The chancellor reviewed in detail the historical and canonical background to the location of fonts. He reviewed much of the case law and the House of Bishops' Response of 1992 on the issue of fonts. The chancellor emphasised that he rejected the view that the qualified requirements of Canon F 1 – that the font shall stand as near to the principal entrance of the church as conveniently may be – were no longer of application. He further rejected the suggestion that the House of Bishops' Response altered the position in relation to Canon F 1, as the amendment of the Canons is vested in the General Synod rather than the House of Bishops. The chancellor held that the basic rule was that the font should be as near the principal entrance into the church as conveniently may be and for the authorising of an alternative location there needs to be shown circumstances out of the ordinary.

In determining the petition the chancellor first considered whether the requirements of Canon F 1 had been met, before going on to consider the Bishopsgate questions. He found that the font in its current position inside the baptistery was effectively redundant. The case for moving it was, thus, made out. He then considered whether the requirements of Canon F 1 meant that the font should be moved to another location nearer the principal entrance, rather than at the east end as proposed. The chancellor found that the relative inconvenience of locating the font near the principal entrance, where it would limit the flexibility of the welcome area, did not amount to circumstances out of the ordinary. However, the fact that a tradition had developed within the church of baptisms taking place at the front of the church did amount to circumstances out of the ordinary justifying an alternative location. The faculty was granted. [RA]