A number of parishioners opposed a petition for the re-ordering of the church which included the provision of office space and the creation of a new vicar's vestry. Their case was that the means proposed for providing the office space and vicar's vestry – which involved housing them in the existing parish centre – would have the effect of reducing the spaces available for meetings and community events from two to one, as the parish centre would then cease to be available for those purposes, leaving only the church itself. They also objected to the manner in which decisions to proceed with the proposals had been taken, in particular because consultation with the body of worshippers was inadequate. The chancellor found that the existing arrangements – which involved a makeshift parish office under an expired archdeacon's licence and an insecure vicar's vestry which lacked privacy – were unsatisfactory and unsustainable. While what was proposed would have the disadvantage of reducing the flexibility for the holding of meetings and other events, the way in which a parish chose to allocate its resources in furtherance of its mission was primarily a decision for the Parochial Church Council (PCC). The PCC supported the proposals by a clear majority, they had explained why they took that view and their position was independently supported by the archdeacon. It was not for the court to substitute its own view as to what a parish's priorities should be or how it should seek to allocate resources. The chancellor did not need to address an argument by the parties opponent that the improved facilities could be provided by other means that would not result in a loss of flexibility in the uses to which the building as a whole could be put. There was no general obligation on petitioners to demonstrate that they had examined alternative means of meeting their needs in cases where (as here) there was no question of proposals resulting in harm to a church as a building of architectural or historic significance. Applying the test in Peek v Trower (1881) 7 PD 21, the chancellor held that the proposed changes would make things better than they currently were. The advantage of providing a proper office facility and an adequate vicar's vestry outweighed the disadvantages.

So far as the consultation process that led to the adoption of the proposals was concerned, while a failure to consult would not automatically result in a petition being dismissed, it was a matter that the court should take into account in the exercise of its discretion (Re St Mary's, White Waltham (No 2) [2010] Fam 146). The substance of the requirements for consultation set out in R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 GLR 168 at 189 (and endorsed by the Supreme Court in R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] 1 WLR 3947) should form the basis for the way in which PCCs carried out consultation where significant proposals were being formulated. Those requirements were: first, that the consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; second, that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal, to permit of intelligent consideration and response; third, that adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and finally, that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals. If a consultation did not in substance meet these requirements it could not be said to amount to a fair or effective consultation. Although there had been serious efforts to inform the congregation of the proposals and to obtain their support for them, there were significant shortcomings in the consultation process. The proposals had significantly changed after the congregation had been consulted, with the result that the proposals which were finally adopted had not been the subject of consultation. Although there was subsequent interaction with the congregation, the relevant decision had already been taken. The consultation was seriously deficient as the proposals were no longer at a formative stage when they were consulted on, and there was inadequate time given for consideration and response. The fact that key decisions were in practice being taken by a re-ordering group – membership of which was by invitation of the incumbent – rather than by the PCC contributed to the lack of confidence in the process. The case came close to being one where the chancellor might decline to exercise the discretion to grant a faculty. He concluded that a faculty should issue; the advantage of the proposals for the parish was very clear and the present ad hoc arrangements could not continue. But any further phases of re-ordering would have to be subject to adequate consultation and the development of the relevant proposals undertaken by, or under the auspices of, the PCC, rather than a separate group. [Alexander McGregor]