THE Consistory Court of the diocese of Winchester has granted, partially, the retrospective faculty hunted for the removal and storage of wall paintings that had, for greater than 100 years, been behind the holy table on the eastern wall of St John’s, Marchwood. The paintings covered the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, which had been painted there.
The paintings were oil on linoleum, and had been in position since not less than 1914 at St John’s, inbuilt 1843, and been Grade II listed since 1987. They had been painted by the wife of the then incumbent, Charles Lambert Coghlan.
The current incumbent, the Revd Simon Hones, had had the paintings removed in 2019, after it was noticed that they were buckling, and that a part of the decoration behind was visible. A college had not been obtained for his or her removal. Mr Hones and the parish secretary, Ann Brogan, applied for the retrospective faculty for the removal of the paintings, which were described as “temporary”. Their application was opposed by three parties opponent.
Chancellor Matthew Cain Ormondroyd said that the importance of St John’s as a listed constructing resided particularly in its architectural quality and the standard of its internal fittings, which were all listed as Nineteenth-century originals.
The paintings that were the topic of the college also made a contribution to the importance of the church, the Chancellor said. Some historical significance derived from their association with Mrs Coghlan, because it was unusual to seek out the work of a female artist from that period in a church constructing. Oil on linoleum was also an unusual approach to painting, and was of some interest. The paintings themselves were of excellent, although not exceptional, artistic quality.
There was some debate on the hearing about whether the paintings might be described as “temporary”. The Chancellor agreed with the parties opponent that it “doesn’t make sense to explain as temporary paintings which have been in place for over 100 years and which had been a feature of the church for nearly all of its existence”.
The congregation and PCC had since been consulted, and preferred the choice of everlasting removal and storage of the paintings. The important reason for that was aesthetic, in that the congregation and PCC preferred the looks of the paintwork underneath the paintings to the paintings themselves, which were described as “dark and dull”. Those alleged advantages were strongly contested by the parties opponent.
The Chancellor said that it was “extremely unlucky . . . that the paintings were removed without authorisation”. It had led to very poor treatment of the paintings, and had caused damage to them. The Chancellor was also “critical of the role played by Mr Hones”, who, “as a really experienced incumbent . . . must have known higher and will have taken advice each on the operation of the college system and on the right treatment of historic paintings before taking motion. That advice was not hard to acquire.”
The Chancellor said, nonetheless, that Mr Hones had quite properly accepted responsibility for those failings, and it also seemed that he was under pressure from the congregation, who had “taken a dislike to the paintings”. It was accepted that Mr Hones was motivated by a desire to serve those to whom he was called to minister.
The Chancellor decided that, in view of the special interest of the church, and the contribution made to it by the paintings, their removal had caused harm to the importance of the church, although not harm that might be characterised as “serious”.
The first asserted justification for the removal of the paintings was described as “the need of the congregation”. The Chancellor said that the easy desire of an owner to alter a listed constructing didn’t in itself amount to a transparent and convincing justification.
It was also claimed that the church looked higher without the paintings. That claim was disputed by the parties opponent. The Chancellor said that a claim of that kind couldn’t justify the removal of historic paintings, and the “whole premise of a constructing being listed is that it can’t be altered in response to changing tastes as to what looks attractive”.
In respect of 4 of the paintings, nonetheless, their removal would expose to view an earlier phase of decoration which appeared to fit in additional harmoniously with the rest of the east end. It appeared to duplicate decoration from a really early stage of the church’s existence.
That was “a justification worthy of weight”, the Chancellor said, particularly since those 4 paintings might be stored within the church in a way that continued to permit them to be appreciated. In that way, contribution to the importance of the listed constructing could, to some extent, be preserved.
The faculty was granted for those 4 paintings to be removed, restored, preserved, and stored within the body of the church. The three other paintings were to be restored and reinstated.
