The petitioners sought a faculty for the installation of combination light and heating chandeliers in place of the Victorian chandeliers and oil-fired heating system in this 14th century, Grade I-listed church. No objection was raised by Historic England or the DAC, and the petitioners proceeded with the installation under the mistaken impression that a faculty was a fait accompli. This became, therefore, a petition for a confirmatory faculty. A parishioner, an architect and heritage expert who had objected to the cabling of the new installation, became a party opponent and sought an oral hearing.

The petitioners justified the installation by reference to its sustainability, efficiency, speed and ease of use, leading to greater community use of the church. They accepted that the wiring needed to be improved, but argued that a restoration order would be financially and practically unreasonable. The party opponent opposed the petition on a broad basis, including admitted failings in the petitioners’ statements of needs and significance, and failing to seek heritage or heating advice. He further asserted that the loss of the previous chandeliers caused harm to the significance of the building, and the new heaters were less effective than the oil boiler, which could have been repaired.

The court described the new chandeliers as having an uncompromisingly modern appearance, in contrast to the remaining original ones, but noted that they were efficient, flexible and easy to run, and improved the church’s mission to the community. Applying the Duffield questions, the court noted that while the previous chandeliers did not feature in the church’s listing, they were sympathetic to the interior in the way the new ones were not; however, the harm caused was small. The visual and physical harm caused by the inappropriate wiring was serious but could be easily remedied. A faculty therefore passed the seal, subject to conditions including improving the wiring and repairing the damage caused to the building.