The petition sought a faculty to authorise the bringing forward of the altar by 60 centimetres. As the proposal would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, the question for the court was simply whether the presumption against change was sufficiently rebutted on the facts of this case. The deputy chancellor inferred that the reason for the proposal was to provide additional space so that the incumbent could genuflect behind the altar. Such action during the celebration of Holy Communion was not unlawful or otherwise inappropriate, and providing the necessary space to enable the incumbent to genuflect comfortably had the potential to enhance divine worship, which could be a good enough reason to overcome the presumption against change. The fact that previous incumbents had not experienced difficulty in using the altar in its current position did not detract from the fact that the present incumbent was experiencing such difficulty. Resolving that difficulty would enhance not only his worship, but the worship of the whole community. Objections which argued that the cost involved could be better spent on other more important causes were matters for the incumbent and Parochial Church Council not the chancellor, as were concerns that such expenditure would inhibit future fundraising. The deputy chancellor held that pastoral concerns, including allegations that the incumbent was not popular and that the proposals would not enhance the mission of the church, were also not matters for the court. A faculty was granted. [Alexander McGregor]