In about 1997, speakers were fixed without authority to the timber frame of the fine mediaeval roof of this Grade I listed church. In late 2015 the curate with day-to-day responsibility for the parish had her attention drawn to the issue and she reported the matter to the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC). During a DAC visit the archdeacon noticed that new lighting had been installed in the west porch without a faculty in November 2015. The archdeacon immediately applied to the chancellor for a restoration order in respect of these works. The curate and the churchwardens petitioned for a confirmatory faculty in respect of the works. Both matters were considered at an oral hearing.

In respect of the speakers, the chancellor noted that, since the unfortunate discovery, the Parochial Church Council (PCC) had co-operated with the DAC to agree a scheme to put matters right, identify and repair any damage, and provide a sound system that would satisfy the needs of the church without causing harm, or any more harm, to its significance as a building of special architectural and historic interest. The proposed scheme involved removing the existing speakers and replacing them with ones that would fit inside the main circular light frames, where they would be both discreet and more effective. The chancellor held that the current petitioners had not been responsible for the default in relation to the speakers and had no difficulty in finding that the proposals, if implemented, would not result in harm to the significance of the church and that the provision of sound amplification in this large church was justified. Accordingly, he granted a confirmatory faculty for the proposed audio system.

In respect of the lighting, the petitioners had applied in 2014 for a faculty to make minor changes to the porch which included the lighting changes but had later removed the lighting proposals from the petition to avoid delay with the other proposals. Negotiations for a lighting scheme had then continued between the parish, the inspecting architect and the DAC but no consensus had been reached. At around this time an electrician was in the church carrying out works and the curate took the opportunity to have the lighting installed in the porch. She gave evidence both that she had taken a risk in relation to the grant of a faculty and that she thought that the grant of a faculty would simply be a formality. She now accepted responsibility for that wrong decision.

The chancellor emphasised that only he, or his deputy, could grant the necessary faculty. The DAC, even if it had favoured the lighting scheme envisaged by the architect, could only advise. By going ahead with the lighting works as she did, the curate had deprived the public of the right to express opposition to, or make observations on, the scheme, and she had pre-empted any consideration by the DAC or the chancellor that bodies such as the Church Buildings Council, Historic England or the relevant amenity societies might need to be consulted. She also deprived the DAC of its right to advise the chancellor about the proposals prior to their implementation.

Revised lighting proposals for the porch had now been agreed between the DAC and the PCC. The chancellor found that those proposals would not result in harm to the special architectural and historic significance of the church and, indeed, were capable of enhancing it. Accordingly, he was persuaded that he could refrain from making a restoration order at that stage. However, he was not prepared to grant a confirmatory faculty given the flagrant disregard of the faculty jurisdiction. Unlike the speakers, the lights had only been installed for a short time and there was no good reason why public notices, and the other normal steps consequent on petitioning the court, should not take place. A final decision on the application for a restoration order was adjourned for 36 days to allow a petition to be presented. Meanwhile, the present lighting system could remain until the chancellor had considered the grant of a faculty to relocate it more appropriately. The cost of all works, and the costs of the hearing were to be borne by the PCC. In concluding, the chancellor made clear beyond any doubt that this was never to happen again, either in this church or anywhere else. [David Lamming]