Following the theft of the greater part of the lead on the north aisle of the Grade I listed church, the churchwardens corresponded with the secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Committee, who indicated that, while terne-coated stainless steel might provide a suitable substitute for the stolen lead, alternative plastic coverings were unlikely to be supported. The church architect was unenthusiastic when consulted by one of the churchwardens about using Sarnafil – a membrane of composite material – as an alternative roof covering. The same churchwarden submitted an application, purportedly under List B of Schedule 1 to the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015, for approval by the archdeacon of a proposal to recover the aisle roof using Sarnafil. The archdeacon returned the application stating that what was proposed was not within List B and that it could not be undertaken without a faculty. Nevertheless, without obtaining a faculty, the churchwarden, with the support of the Parochial Church Council, proceeded to have the aisle roof covered using Sarnafil. A petition for a confirmatory faculty to retain the Sarnafil covering was subsequently submitted. Historic England and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings raised objections on the basis that the use of Sarnafil was visually objectionable and detracted from the significance of the church, that terne-coated stainless steel provided an acceptable alternative to lead, that non-metal products required a very high standard of workmanship with a risk of water penetration if cracks and joints opened, that information about the performance of synthetic materials was elusive and that Sarnafil had only a 20-year life, which was short in terms of a church building.

The chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty on the basis that it would be a waste of materials and money to require the Sarnafil membrane to be removed and replaced and that it was likely to be adequate for at least a number of years. It could remain in place for the rest of its natural life but should be inspected and maintained with the greatest care to prevent damage to the church. There would be no presumption that it could in due course be replaced with a subsequent Sarnafil membrane. The churchwarden who had been the driving force behind the works being carried out unlawfully was ordered personally to pay the court costs. [Alexander McGregor]