A faculty was sought for re-ordering works including the creation of a new bell-ringing platform in the tower, accessible by trapdoor, which would free up space for an accessible toilet and servery at its base. Two bell-ringers at the church had raised letters of objection, principally motivated by concern that the proposed trapdoor route would prevent or impair access for elderly or disabled bell-ringers. The petitioners regretted this, but explained that there was no other practicable location for an accessible toilet.

Applying the Duffield guidelines, the chancellor found that the proposed works would cause modest harm to the special character of the church. Subject to the matters raised by the objectors, it was apparent that the benefits to be obtained and the needs to be met by the proposed works would sufficiently outweigh the modest harm to the special character of this church to justify the grant of a faculty. Addressing the two bell-ringers’ concerns, the chancellor noted that the relative importance to be attached to facilities for the disabled and to arrangements for bell-ringing in the life of a particular church is very much a matter for the local judgment of the incumbent and parochial church council (PCC) of that church. It is the incumbent who has the cure of souls and the churchwardens and PCC are the elected representatives of the worshipping community. They are far better placed than the court to assess the extent to which an adverse impact on bell-ringing, or any other part of the life of the church, is justified in order to meet a different need. In this case, the impact on those engaged in bell-ringing of what was proposed was to be regretted, but that impact could not warrant refusal of permission for proposals which were otherwise justified and which the churchwardens and PCC sought in order to further the mission of the church and to provide for those attending it who are disabled. The faculty was granted. [Jonathan Storey]