This nineteenth-century Grade II listed church had suffered from lead thefts, and already had a terne-coated roof over the north porch. The petitioners sought a faculty to replace the lead roofs of the south aisle and vestry in the same way. A similar petition in 2013 had not had the support of the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), and the chancellor had given permission only for ongoing repair in lead. However, leaks had continued. In the quinquennial inspection the inspecting architect had suggested that, given the previous lead theft and the fact that this was not a prominent elevation of the church, a terne-coated steel replacement should again be considered. A replacement lead roof would require an expensive change to the profile of the roof, as the present problems were partly attributable to the use of oversized lead sheets.
On consultation, the Church Buildings Council and the Victorian Society did not comment. However, Historic England (HE) objected to the pre-emptive replacement of historic material and concluded that the use of lead (with the necessary re-profiling of the roof) could be achieved at modest cost. The DAC recommended the proposal. The court reviewed HE's booklet ‘Metal thefts from historic buildings’, which provided that:
Where the risk of further theft is too high, for example where there has been a serious theft, or repeated minor attacks, it is not reasonable to expect like-for-like replacement. We would normally recommend that the most appropriate alternative would be a long-term durable material with a known standard of performance, such as terne-coated stainless steel.
HE's preference for like-for-like replacement was said to be founded on a presumption that a lead-covered roof was probably designed for that material. In the present case, there was information which showed that lead was not, in fact, the most suitable material for the roof as presently configured. As to pre-emptive replacement, the document provided that:
We will not support the pre-emptive removal of lead from roofs not affected by theft, unless there are exceptional circumstances. For example, where a lead roof on a church has reached the end of its life (as proven in the Quinquennial Inspection), the church has been subject to previous thefts and the risk of further theft is too high, we may support the removal and replacement of lead with an appropriate alternative material.
In the present case, such exceptional circumstances existed. A faculty would be issued, subject to appropriate conditions, including the raising of revenue from the removed lead, the preservation of any historical markings and the obtaining of any necessary planning consents. [DW]
