In a petition for the major re-ordering of this Grade II* listed church, the diocesan advisory committee, English Heritage and the Victorian Society all objected to the removal of the pulpit and chancel screen. English Heritage and the Victorian Society became parties opponent to the petition. In the light of those objections, further discussions took place under which all parties agreed that the chancel screen would remain and the pulpit would be relocated within the church. Despite the agreement, the chancellor noted that the consistory court is not a mere arbiter of disputes between various parties but, rather, provides the only authority by which any work may be carried out to a church within its jurisdiction. He held that the court was the guardian of sound doctrine and should not ignore an arguable question of law once it had been raised. He held a hearing in order to determine the validity of the theological argument which had been raised by the petitioners, namely that the chancel screen was inappropriate as representing a return to the Old Testament Jewish temple form of worship where God is separated from His people in the Holy of Holies. After reviewing the evidence, the chancellor held that there was no set Church of England doctrine as to the theological significance of chancel screens, but that the view held by the petitioners was just one of many proper views which could be held within the Church of England. Accordingly, the retention of the chancel screen was not illegal per se. In applying the Duffield guidelines the chancellor granted the faculty in accordance with the agreement reached between the parties. [RA]