A soft-play climbing frame had been erected in the nave of this nineteenth-century Grade II listed church, under a faculty granted in 2013. Soft-play facilities were provided during the week, while worship was conducted in the chancel and eastern part of the nave. The soft play was not run by the Parochial Church Council (PCC) but by a separate company, KM Play Ltd (‘the company’), set up by the PCC to keep the soft play's operations separate from those of the church.

When the church sought a faculty for further re-ordering works in 2017, questions were raised about whether the church had authorisation to run the soft play. Accordingly, in 2018 the chancellor approved the re-ordering, conditional on the church providing confirmation that the soft-play activities were authorised. It then emerged that, while the church had a faculty to erect the apparatus, they had not sought authorisation for allowing the company to use the bulk of the church for its soft-play activity. The condition of the 2018 faculty could not, therefore, be met. The chancellor's approval was sought for amendments to the faculty, to permit the church to be used for soft play and to deal with a proposed licence agreement between the PCC and the company with respect to their running of the soft-play area.

The first question before the court was whether a faculty was actually needed, either for allowing soft-play activities or for the PCC to enter into the licence agreement with the company. The chancellor ruled that a faculty was needed for both proposals, having regard to Appendix 3 of the Church Building Group's 2015 report, which states that a faculty must be sought for all secular activities within a church. In granting a faculty for allowing soft play to take place within the church, the chancellor considered it determinative that a faculty had previously been granted in 2013 for erecting the apparatus in the church, which could not reasonably be used for anything other than as a soft-play frame. This, the chancellor ruled, meant that a faculty for the activity of using that same apparatus must also be appropriate.

In considering the proposed licence agreement, the chancellor acknowledged that its terms were beneficial to the PCC, who could suspend soft play at any time, with maintenance obligations resting with the company. That said, he had various concerns, including as to the company's finances and potential conflict where PCC members were directors for the company. While not all those concerns could be conclusively answered at the time, the chancellor was satisfied that a sufficient case had been made to allow the agreement to be entered into for a shorter trial period to test its working. Accordingly, the chancellor granted the amendments sought to the 2018 faculty, albeit with changes to the proposed licence agreement to reflect its shorter trial period. [Jack Stuart]