The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for the substantial re-ordering of the nave and aisles of this Grade I listed fourteenth-century church. The scheme included the removal of nave and aisle pews and their replacement with wooden chairs. The nave pews were Victorian. The aisle pews were part mediaeval and part Victorian; all mediaeval elements were to be retained in benches set around the edge of the church. A glazed structure was to be introduced at the west end of the church which would provide a welcome lobby, three toilets, a kitchen, one large and three small meeting rooms, a gallery, a creche and a vestry. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council supported the scheme. Historic England, the Victorian Society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the local planning authority maintained strong objections. None of these bodies formally opposed the petition.

There was significant local opposition, including two public petitions, one of which was signed by more than 1,000 people. The registry received 120 letters of objection in response to the public notices and ten objectors chose to become parties opponent. In considering the admissibility of and weight to be attached to the public petitions, the chancellor considered that the petitions were admissible. He nevertheless considered that limited weight could be attached to them in light of a number of factors: the petitions had been signed prior to the publication of the plans for the scheme; untrue statements about the scheme had been published in the village newsletter prior to signatures being sought; the petitions contained erroneous information; some people had asked for their names to be removed from the petition upon learning the details of the scheme; the level of local opposition claimed was not borne out by the level of financial support pledged in the parties opponent's fundraising efforts compared to the funds raised by the congregation for the works.

The parties opponent relied upon the expert evidence of Mr Radice, an ecclesiastical architect. Mr Radice gave evidence that he had become involved in the case as a result of his wider concern about the operation of the ecclesiastical exemption from planning permission. The chancellor expressed concern that his evidence had the hallmarks not of an expert who had an overriding duty to the court but of one who was waging a campaign under the guise of expert evidence. While agreeing that the court must have due regard to the principles applicable in the secular planning system, he noted that one of the reasons for maintaining the existing separate system was the special circumstances which exist in relation to churches, and the need, under the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991, to have due regard to the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission.

In determining the petition the chancellor applied the Duffield guidelines as refined by Re St John the Baptist, Penshurst [2015] 17 Ecc LJ 393. He considered where the special significance of the building lay, identifying the particular significance of the chancel, which was to be left untouched. There would not be any serious harm caused to the chancel but serious harm would be caused by the design of the entrance to the way in which anyone entering the church would see it. Serious harm would also be caused by the moving of ledger stones to a location where they would be substantially obscured by a dais. The chancellor found that, with certain alterations to the scheme, no serious harm would be caused to the special significance of the building overall. Even if he was wrong about that, the needs justified, exceptionally, the harm that would be caused. The justification for the scheme was clear and convincing. The evidence of need was established and fitted well with the diocesan strategy for growth. The scheme would be permitted subject to a number of changes where the chancellor felt that serious harm would be caused or sufficient evidence of need had not been adduced.

Preparation time for the determination of the petition had been considerably increased by the desire of the parties opponent to act separately. The costs would be borne by the petitioners but the parties opponent would have to contribute one third of the registry's preparation costs. [RA]