Proposals for the re-ordering of a Grade I listed church involved replacement of the outer west doors, relocation within the church of the inner west doors, creation of an entrance foyer at the west end and the alteration of the font and its relocation from the west end to the north aisle. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals for approval by the court. A number of bodies were given special notice of the petition, including Historic England and the Victorian Society. Both responded by stating that they relied on representations, including certain objections, made by them at an earlier stage of consultation. The chancellor observed that that approach was unhelpful when the petitioners had made revisions to the proposals in the light of those representations; he would nevertheless seek to extract from the earlier correspondence any representations that remained material to the revised proposals. Applying the framework of guidance provided in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, and having regard to the observations made in Re St John the Baptist, Penshurst (2015) 17 Ecc LJ 393, the chancellor held that the elements of the proposals relating to the outer and inner west doors and the creation of the foyer would not result in harm to the significance of the building. Relocation of the font, given that it made some, but not a major, contribution to the architectural significance of the church, would result in minor harm to that significance.

The proposed alteration of the font would have a much greater impact. That was because the whole piece, font and base, currently remained in the same form as they were when designed and installed by G E Street when he carried out a major restoration of the church in 1872. The pulpit had already been altered from the form in which it was designed by Street and that increased the value which the unaltered font contributed to the historic character of the church. The proposed alteration of the font would result in moderate harm to the church's historic significance. The justification for relocating the font was clear and convincing: it currently obscured about one-third of the view into the church from the west doors, which gave the impression of a dark, unwelcoming interior; relocating it would significantly assist in creating an open and welcoming entrance to the church. That public benefit would outweigh the minor harm to the building's architectural significance. However, the justification for altering the font was not clear and convincing. A less harmful alternative to alteration – involving the use of a removable wooden surround that would, when needed, have the effect of increasing the size of the font platform – was available. The justification advanced for altering the font did not outweigh the harm to the historic significance of the building that would result. Accordingly, a faculty was granted subject to a condition that the proposed alteration of the font was not proceeded with and that it was relocated in its current form. [Alexander McGregor]