The petitioners sought permission for various re-ordering and extension works in this Grade II* listed Georgian church, including the removal of pews and the expansion of areas of the church which were previously extended in the Edwardian era. The justification for the re-ordering was the church community's rapid growth, especially among young adults.
The court gave a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the Duffield framework, and of the inter-relationship between that framework and the secular National Planning Policy Framework, with particular reference to the concepts of ‘serious harm’ in the former and ‘substantial harm’ in the latter. Applying the fifth Duffield question, proposals resulting in serious harm would only exceptionally be allowed. The court considered that ‘exceptional’ in this context meant something more than ‘a case in which an exception falls to be made’; it was an indication that serious harm would rarely be permitted. A case for change could be very strong without being exceptional; that was the case here. The only basis for finding exceptionality would be the church's designation as a resourcing church, but the court was unpersuaded; the sorts of things that the church wished to do were the sorts of things that all churches would wish to do, even though this church was better placed to do them.
The assessment of the degree of harm was, therefore, crucial to the question before the court. This was straightforwardly a matter for the court, albeit assisted by the views of experts. As far as the removal of the pews was concerned, the harm was aesthetic rather than historical, and so would in principle be reparable. The public good to be achieved by their removal would outweigh the harm. The significance of the pews was assessed as moderate to high, and therefore not in the highest category; and the harm caused by their removal would likewise not be in the most serious category. There was, therefore, no additional exceptionality test. The same benefits could not be achieved by any proposal causing any less harm.
As far as the extensions were concerned, the local authority would have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, when it granted planning permission. The court should, therefore, give considerable weight to that factor. The significance of the extensions was moderate to high, and the harm to the special character of the building by their construction was less than the removal of the pews; there was, therefore, no exceptionality test to be applied.
A faculty would therefore issue as prayed, subject to conditions. The court noted that it might be helpful if the Church Buildings Council's Guidance Note indicated to parishes and those advising them of the potential need for the assessment of harm. [Jack Stuart]
