The case concerned a Grade II* listed mediaeval church building which, although not deconsecrated, was no longer used for regular worship but instead as a community facility. The church sat just six inches from and shared a churchyard with the church of St Mary, Reepham. Following significant refurbishment, St Michael's was well used by the community but was poorly heated and inadequately soundproofed for the levels of noise generated by some of the community events. Complaints had been received. Accordingly a faculty was sought for secondary glazing to insulate the building for heat and sound. The proposals were recommended by the diocesan advisory committee as a special case and because the building was predominantly used for secular activities rather than worship. However, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and English Heritage objected on the basis that the glazing would harm the historic significance of the building. The work would introduce modern materials on a large scale, altering the general appearance of the church's interior and the particular feature of the nave windows. It was also argued that other alternatives had not been explored and that there was insufficient evidence that the glazing would provide adequate insulation.

Applying the Duffield guidance the chancellor found that the installation of secondary glazing would cause harm to the historic and architectural significance of the building. It would affect the aesthetics of the windows themselves and the overall view of the nave. The chancellor held that it was appropriate to take account of the current nature of the building in reaching a determination. There were already significant areas of glazing within the building as a result of the recent refurbishment, and the plain quarries of the nave windows limited the impact of the secondary glazing. The plans had been modified to reduce the visual impact of the glazing and, most importantly, the proposals would not alter the historic fabric of the building and were entirely reversible. While it was found that the harm would be significant, it was not serious.

The work was justified as the current insulation problems limited the uses to which the building could be put. Alternative insulation such as curtains had already been tried and found wanting and even more aesthetically intrusive than the glazing. The floor and roof had already been insulated and the body of the church had already been divided by screens so that individual areas could be heated independently. An engineer's report provided sufficient evidence that the glazing would improve the insulation of the building further. A faculty was granted. [Catherine Shelley]