The petitioners wished to introduce a frameless glass door into the north porch opening of this Grade I listed church, to create a lobby to a recently installed toilet and protect it from the elements. The modern design was chosen to create a light and contemporary feature, and to enhance a welcoming appearance while providing security and reassurance to those using it.

The Victorian Society and the Ancient Monuments Society objected, advocating a solid timber door. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) (with whom Historic England agreed) did not recommend approval of the scheme; while accepting the need for a glazed door, it recommended a timber- or metal-framed door, regarding a frameless door as appearing too modern and urban for a church in a rural setting.

The court considered the Duffield questions, and emphasised that their rationale required that the works permitted must be only those which caused the minimum harm to the special significance of the church consonant with producing the benefit in question. If a desired benefit could be achieved in a way which caused less harm to that special significance than the works proposed, the petitioner would not have shown that it was necessary to undertake those works (or to undertake them in the proposed way) to achieve the benefit; such works could not, therefore, be authorised. While the petitioners had made out the case for a glazed rather than a solid timber door, considerable weight should be placed on the advice of the DAC; in the absence of any significant flaw in that advice, it should prevail. The petition was dismissed, the court indicating that a petition for a glazed door with a wooden or timber frame would issue on confirmation of the DAC's approval of the proposal. [DW]