The petitioners sought a faculty for the renewal of the church's heating system, including the replacement of an aged gas boiler with two modern ones, with an anticipated overall reduction in fuel consumption of some 35 per cent.
The Church of England is committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 and the Church Buildings Council has published guidance on new heating systems in churches, which states that careful consideration should be given to moving from fossil fuels to electricity or hybrid boilers. In this case, there was no evidence that any alternatives had been considered. If they had been, details would have had to have been provided to the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), under rule 4.2(2)(b) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, and to the court, under rule 5.5(3)(e).
The court referred to re St Mark, Mitcham [2020] ECC Swk 5 and re St Mary, Oxted [2021] ECC Swk 1, in which the chancellor decided that, so long as the petitioners had considered the implications of the proposals for the carbon-neutral agenda, it was not for the court to substitute its own judgment as to how the issue was to be addressed. In so far as these judgments might be read as suggesting that a chancellor should not consider the environmental implications of a proposal, at least where the petitioners had already done so, the court respectfully disagreed. Addressing the climate emergency was the responsibility of everyone, whatever their role. This was particularly the case for those operating the faculty jurisdiction at a time when the Church of England had committed itself to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. This was underlined by rules 4.2(2)(b) and 5.5(3)(e) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. If documents showing the consideration of the environmental implications of proposals were to be provided to the court, those implications must be relevant to the court's deliberations. In the absence of sufficient information, the court might direct that it be obtained, for example by way of an expert report.
In the present case, the court decided that, exceptionally, it would not require a thorough appraisal of options before considering the petition further. This was because of the need for procedural fairness, in that the petitioners had not been on notice of the court's requirement for detailed assessment of energy use and the consideration of carbon-neutral alternatives. Further, it would be possible to mitigate the adverse effects by the imposition of conditions on the faculty. In granting the faculty, the court imposed conditions that a green gas tariff be used where possible and that emissions caused by any non-renewable gas sources be offset.
In the future, the court would require thorough, informed consideration of alternatives in petitions seeking permission to install a heating system that generates substantial carbon emissions. Knowledge of this future requirement would give support to the DAC and the diocesan environmental advisers working with parishes to consider carbon-neutral options at an early stage of any proposals. [DW]
