St John, Waterloo, is a prominent, Grade II* listed landmark to the south of Waterloo Bridge. The Georgian building was significantly damaged in the Second World War, and was restored as the Church for the Festival of Britain with an interior designed by Thomas Ford. An earlier petition, for a more radical re-ordering scheme, had been opposed by the Twentieth Century Society (as a party opponent), Historic England and the planning authority, and was dismissed in February 2017 following a four-day hearing, because the harm that would arise to the special character of the church was not outweighed by the public benefit that would arise.
This petition concerned a revised scheme which was intended to provide the same or similar benefits as the earlier scheme, but which retained most of the important elements of the Ford interior. The chancellor considered that they represented a visual improvement in the focus of the building, while allowing the original Ford scheme to shine through the new arrangements. In one respect – the removal of some later murals – the proposals would restore the integrity of that scheme. The most significant and specific element of harm arising from the proposals was the removal of the Ford pulpit and lectern. It seemed likely that they had never been used as originally intended; a photograph of the opening service in 1951 shows that they had already been moved from their intended positions to the outer walls. In terms of the Duffield questions, this harm would be significant, but not ‘serious’ or ‘substantial’, and there was a clear and convincing justification for the proposals. Accordingly, a faculty would be issued.
The chancellor had been concerned about the proposed provision of a pulpit, given that they are commonly no longer used. However, it was intended that the pulpit be used liturgically, if not for all services; it would have a value for secular performances; and the existence of the pulpit symbolised the importance of the Word as the Holy Table symbolised the importance of the sacrament.
Per curiam: there is a risk of categorising harm backwards: that is, deciding on the outcome and categorising harm by reference to the desired outcome. The attraction of arriving at a judgment in this way is greater, given that harm to the special character of a listed building and public benefit are different commodities, and not directly comparable. In the present case, the judgment that the harm was not substantial was one that was intended to reflect the fact that the proposals build on the Ford scheme, of which much will survive. [DW]
