A faculty was sought for the introduction of 4 tables and 16 upholstered chairs into the north aisle of this early twentieth-century, Grade II* listed Arts and Crafts church. The area concerned was already open, the pews having been removed in 1997. The petitioners wished to allow the area to be used for refreshment and fellowship after services, and for Parochial Church Council meetings. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) did not recommend approval, identifying issues with the proposed chairs and suggesting alternatives; Historic England (HE) had also objected, regarding the proposed chairs as unduly domestic in appearance.

Following a site visit, the court agreed with the DAC and HE that the proposed tables and chairs would be out of keeping with the existing furnishings. The issue was exacerbated by the fact that the furniture was intended to be in place permanently but only used for a short period of time each week; a continuing harm would have been caused for a limited benefit. Very limited weight was put on the argument that the same chairs were in use in other churches, including local, listed churches. The circumstances of each church were different, and there would be cases where the benefit to be gained outweighed the harm and where that benefit could not be obtained in in any other way. The higher cost of the chairs recommended by the DAC was also of limited weight, given that the proposal was to purchase only 16 of them.

Accordingly, the petition was refused. The position would have been different if the tables and chairs were to be removed from sight when not in use; this would markedly reduce the harm to the special significance of the church. If this were possible, or if the petitioners were to decide to introduce chairs of the kind suggested by the DAC, then a further petition could be considered without further formalities other than consultation with the DAC.

Per curiam: in applying the Duffield guidelines, the court had to consider whether the same or substantially the same benefit could be obtained by other works which would cause less harm to the character and special significance of a church. If the degree of harm to the special significance which would flow from proposed works is not necessary to achieve the intended benefit because the desired benefit could be obtained from other, less harmful, works then that is highly relevant. In such circumstances it would be unlikely that the petitioners could be said to have shown a clear and convincing justification for proposals which would, ex hypothesi, cause more harm than is necessary to achieve the desired benefit. [DW]