The Grade II listed Victorian church in an isolated rural part of Coventry Diocese had suffered two lead thefts in 2008 and 2011 respectively. The repairs were poorly executed and had led to further repairs being needed to prevent water damage to the interior. The petitioners sought a faculty for the replacement of the roof with zinc in place of lead so as to reduce the risk of theft and the extent of monitoring required for the alarm. They argued that the roof was within 10–15 years of the end of its life and that the increased price for replacement as opposed to repair was a cost-effective investment.

In line with the views of the diocesan advisory committee, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, a faculty was granted for the repairs but not the replacement of the roof. In applying the Duffield guidelines the chancellor held that the balance of harm test favoured the status quo until the existing roof had exhausted its lifespan. In addition, while there had been two thefts in 2008 and 2011, the risk of theft was insufficient on its own to justify total replacement of the roof. It was also noted that when replacement became appropriate justification would be needed for the use of zinc over the more appropriate material of terne-coated steel. [Catherine Shelley]