The Norman church is Grade I listed. It was, at the relevant time, without an incumbent; its running was delegated by the Parochial Church Council (PCC) of the benefice to a District Church Council (DCC). The churchwardens were both members of both the PCC and the DCC; one was chairman of both. Both had practical, and successful, experience of the faculty system.
On Easter Sunday 2016, the archdeacon discovered that, without faculty or any architect involvement, a toilet had been installed in a roofless cubicle in the vestry. A drain had been installed across the ancient churchyard, with no evidence of proper connection to foul drainage. The vestry safe had been moved, so as to block access to electrical equipment and to make it potentially unsafe. The churchwardens did not co-operate with the efforts of the registrar, archdeacon and secretary of the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) in securing a lawful and proper restoration. It subsequently came to light that a kitchen sink unit and wall-mounted electric water heater had been installed, again without faculty, in a cupboard at the base of the tower.
It was not until after the court had fixed a directions hearing of its own motion (the various directions orders being annexed to the judgment) that a petition for a faculty to remove the illegal works was received. Witness statements did not elucidate how, when and by whom the relevant decisions had been taken. Shortly after the listing of a substantive hearing to make findings of fact, the DCC agreed that it should bear the costs incurred by the unlawful works and the costs of restoration. The court determined that, in those circumstances, it would be disproportionate to hold a substantive hearing, but expressed concern that a deliberate choice had been made to conceal relevant details, and that the parish had chosen to take collective financial responsibility when that liability might properly fall elsewhere. A faculty for restoration was made, with the DCC ordered to pay the DAC's costs of instructing counsel as well as the court's costs.
The faculty system had been criticised, both by the churchwardens and by members of the community in letters to the bishop (one of which was set out in full in the judgment). The court added the following explanation:
It is important in the circumstances of this judgment that I say something about the purpose of the law and the motives of those involved in its operation and enforcement. They are not ‘jobsworth apparatchiks’ doing their work because they like telling people what to do. What is done is done because churches, particularly listed churches, constitute a tangible and spiritual history which touches everyone including the people of the past, the present and the future including those from within and from outside our church communities and from within and outside their geographical area. They connect us to each other and to those who went before us and to those yet to come by our mutual and continuing appreciation and enjoyment of their beauty and history. These buildings need and deserve to be preserved, renewed and improved, expertly, professionally and within a process open to public scrutiny. That is my understanding of the purpose of the strict law which applies to listed buildings generally and within the Faculty Jurisdiction as applied to listed churches generally and Grade 1 and 2* listed in particular. Within the church the preservation and development of beauty and history is undertaken to the glory of God.
[DW]
