The petitioners sought a faculty for a range of measures to re-order the interior of this mediaeval Grade I listed church in Hull's Old Town. The church had been the subject of major re-orderings by Francis Lockwood in the 1840s–1850s and by George Gilbert Scott at the end of the nineteenth century. The proposals resulted from a three-year process of negotiation with the Diocesan Advisory Committee and amenity societies. Much of the scheme was unopposed but the proposals for re-ordering the nave by re-configuring the Lockwood furnishings (including the choir stalls), removing the pew platforms, creating collegiate seating and installing underfloor heating were contested. The Victorian Society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Ancient Monuments Society opposed the proposals for the nave. The Victorian Society became a party opponent. Historic England broadly supported them.

The chancellor determined that he could decide the petition on consideration of written representations; there was no issue of credibility requiring cross-examination or of public interest requiring a public hearing.

Applying the principles in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the chancellor found that the proposals for the nave would cause serious harm to the historic and architectural significance of the Victorian interior of the church. As it was a Grade I listed building the proposals causing the harm should only exceptionally be allowed. The justifications for the works were liturgical and practical, enabling greater flexibility in worship and community use, the latter being needed to address the dire financial need, with reserves projected to last only until 2018. The liturgical need was to accommodate new informal services, which had outgrown the space available, large baptismal parties and civic and ecumenical services, and to locate the choir closer to the congregation for more formal services. The practical issues solved by removing the fixed pews included improved visibility, wheelchair access, an increase in capacity from 300 to 500 and the scope for a wider range of income-generating uses. As evidence in support of the financial arguments for the proposals, the parish's operations manager produced projections based on scenarios with or without the re-ordering, which were contested. The chancellor held that the petitioners had failed to show that the liturgical and practical needs could not be met by less severe re-ordering. The critical issue, therefore, was the financial need and capacity of the church to accommodate externally organised events, for which there was a market that would go elsewhere if the flexibility of the full re-ordering was not permitted. The chancellor accepted the petitioners’ financial projections and thus the need for the full extent of the re-ordering to allow for that development. Set against the extent of the harm caused was the risk that, if the re-ordering were not permitted, the church would not be viable and would be lost altogether, whereas, if the re-ordering were allowed, financial viability and the appreciation of the church by a far wider audience would be possible. Accordingly, the petition was granted. [Catherine Shelley]