This significant, Grade 1-listed church has a Victorian stone font, with an ornate timber cover, in its south-west corner. The petitioners proposed to replace it with a modern timber and copper font at the west end of the central nave aisle, mirroring the design of a modern altar installed in 2020. The existing font would either be moved to a Roman Catholic church in Sussex, its cover remaining suspended in its current location; or be disposed of by sale, along with its cover.
The DAC did not object, although maintained concerns about the new font remaining uncovered. The CBC (which provided advice on customary and canonical issues as well as general advice) advised that removing the existing font would not be appropriate. The Local Planning Authority and Historic England had identified some harm to the building from the proposals, and the Victorian Society strongly objected to its loss from the building. Further, six local objectors raised concerns.
Applying the Duffield tests, the court determined that neither the proposed new location for a font nor the introduction of a new font would harm the significance of the building. However, removing the current font would cause harm to the significance of the building, given its historic and communal value, albeit that such harm would not be serious or substantial, noting that the special significance of the building arose substantially from its architecture and mediaeval wall paintings. The harm would be mitigated if the cover was retained in situ. The court considered that the harm was outweighed by the public benefit in terms of mission and liturgical freedom.
The reduction of harm by retention of the existing font would not be impossible, but would have a limiting impact on the space in the church and its activities. The court also referred to the 1992 House of Bishops' paper ‘Baptism and Fonts’, which stated that a second font in a church was generally anomalous. In terms of the disposal of the existing font, the court commended the sequential approach set out in Re St Michael and All Angels, Blackheath Park [2016] ECC Swk 13, preferring a disposal which would allow its continued sacramental use, even if it meant the separation of the font from its cover.
Finally, the court considered the requirement in Canon F1 para 1 for fonts to have a cover. Despite examples of uncovered fonts, and the relative recency of the requirement (as identified in Re Holy Trinity, Wandsworth, Southwark Consistory Court, 4 September 2012), the court considered it was bound by the canonical requirement for a cover and could not approve by faculty the introduction of a font in breach of the requirement. Rather than refusing the petition, the court would grant a faculty, subject to conditions including that provision be made for a cover. [Jack Stuart]
