The remaining pews had been removed from a Grade II-listed church under an archdeacon's licence for temporary re-ordering. On a petition for the permanent removal of the remaining pews and the introduction of chairs to match existing, upholstered chairs, it emerged that the existing chairs had been introduced without a faculty, although their purchase had been referred to in an earlier petition. The court treated the present petition as one additionally for a confirmatory faculty in relation to the existing chairs.

On the confirmatory faculty, the court considered that had a faculty for the existing chairs been sought prospectively, it would not have been granted. The chairs were so far removed from what was appropriate in a Grade II-listed church that no consistory court, properly directing itself, would have authorised them. A confirmatory faculty would not, therefore, be appropriate. However, a restoration order would be oppressive and disproportionate, and the chairs could remain, notwithstanding their unauthorised introduction.

On the main petition, the Duffield framework supported the removal of the remaining pews. However, the presence of the inappropriate chairs did not justify the introduction of more of the same; the Aston Rowant principle of reducing harm by achieving a proposal by less harmful means required that a more appropriate chair be selected. The petitioners therefore had a stark choice: to remove the pews permanently, replace them with appropriate chairs, and phase out the routine use of the inappropriate chairs; or to retain the inappropriate chairs but also retain the pews, which would have to be returned to the church under FJR rule 8(3), as the court's decision terminated the archdeacon's licence. A faculty would be granted subject to the condition that the current chairs be removed from regular use within two years. If such a condition was unacceptable to the parish, the petition would stand dismissed; the PCC was given six weeks to make its choice. [DW]