The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the removal of most of the pews from the nave and south aisle of a Grade II* listed church and their replacement with wooden chairs with wine-coloured upholstery. The Victorian Society and Historic England reluctantly accepted the need for the removal of the pews to allow the church to be used more flexibly but opposed their replacement with upholstered chairs. The Victorian Society described the proposed chairs as an unworthy replacement for the pews. Historic England expressed the view that they would not be a fitting replacement and that upholstered chairs did not last well. Both argued that chairs without upholstery could be comfortable. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, although it recommended the proposals for approval by the court, had sought to encourage the petitioners to use chairs without upholstery for the same reasons.

The chancellor authorised the removal of the pews on the basis that the harmful impact of doing so was modest and the benefits real and substantial. He went on to consider the objections raised to the introduction of upholstered chairs and the Church Buildings Council (CBC)’s guidance note on seating. The CBC advocated wooden chairs without upholstery on the basis that these had the greatest sympathy with a historic church environment, presented the best value for money with a long lifespan and could provide as much comfort as upholstered chairs. The chancellor did not accept the petitioners’ case that chairs without upholstery would present an unwelcoming appearance or that such chairs were necessary for them to achieve their objectives for the use of the church. Those objectives could be achieved by using chairs without upholstery, which would have less of an impact on the special significance of the church than those proposed by the petitioners. Upholstered chairs would unnecessarily detract from the appearance of the church and would not be permitted. [Alexander McGregor]