Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T00:06:58.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re St Martin, Brampton

Carlisle Consistory Court, Fryer-Spedding Ch, 12 October 2025[2025] ECC Car 9 Alterations – equal access – Duffield questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2026

David Willink  and
Ross Guinea McIntrye
David Willink
Affiliation:
Barrister, Lamb Chambers, London, UK
Ross Guinea McIntrye
Affiliation:
Paralegal, Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Case Note
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2026 , pp. 300
Check for updates
Copyright
© Ecclesiastical Law Society 2026.

The petitioners sought a faculty permitting them to undertake external and internal works to St Martin’s Church, Brampton. The proposed external works included the installation of a lift at the entrance with ramped access and associated railings (‘the access proposals’), laying a new, marked-out car park surface with an accessible car parking space, and fitting a cast iron grille to the ventilator serving the disabled toilet. The Victorian Society contested the petition in part, challenging the access proposals.

The Chancellor granted the petition in part, but dismissed it in respect of the access proposals. First, the church was a building of singular importance both nationally and internationally. The Chancellor rejected an approach which attributed greater or lesser merit to different components of the building. Second, the correct approach was to: (i) apply the questions identified by the Court of Arches in Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, (ii) consider the law governing proposals to improve access (including statutory guidance issued by the Church Buildings Council on ‘Equal Access to Church Buildings’), and (iii) consider whether the access proposals could be achieved in a less harmful manner (Re St Peter & St Paul, Aston Rowant [2019] ECC Oxf 3).

Implementing the access proposals would cause a high degree of harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest. There was also a compelling need for improved and equal access to the church, and a high degree of public benefit would result. The balance to be struck was not a straightforward one. However, the petitioners failed to properly consider whether the access proposals could be achieved in a less harmful manner. Their view of the viability of those proposals was affected by their innocent misunderstanding of their rights in and over the church car park. It was reasonably possible, therefore, that the same or substantially the same benefit could be obtained by works other than the access proposals while causing less harm to the character and special significance of the church.