THE combination light and heating chandeliers, which the PCC of the Grade I listed St Bartholomew’s, Orford, had unlawfully installed, weren’t as attractive as those they’d replaced, the Chancellor of the diocese of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich has said.
Because the unique chandeliers weren’t a side of the Grade-listing of the constructing, nonetheless, and since the harm attributable to their removal was small, the Chancellor, the Worshipful Justin Gau, ruled that a confirmatory faculty must be granted to regularise their illegal installation.
‘I’d prefer to welcome Mr Bobsworth, who will probably be conducting today’s service of the heating system’
The parish had been dissatisfied with the old oil-fired heating system, which they’d considered expensive, inefficient, and unreliable. In March 2022, the PCC voted to have bespoke heating and lighting chandeliers manufactured to resemble the chandeliers being replaced. The recent system was according to the Church of England’s commitment to net zero emissions (News, 12 February 2020).
The petitioners said that its ease of use and efficiency had increased community use of the church and its outreach to varsities and for musical events in addition to worship.
Historic England raised no objections to the scheme, and there had been no objections when public notices were displayed. The petitioners subsequently assumed that the petition can be a fait accompli, and went ahead with the work without having first obtained a school. They apologised, and guaranteed the court that the PCC had acted in good faith.
There was one party opponent to the petition for a confirmatory faculty, Nicholas Bridges, a member of the parish and of the congregation, an architect and expert in heritage. He accused the petitioners of failing to take proper advice from the diocesan heating adviser, of creating no assessment of potential condensation issues, and of using an electrical contractor with insufficient understanding of historic buildings, leading to damage attributable to the cabling installation.
Mr Bridges said that the unique chandeliers had been a part of Gothic revival work inside a part of the church, and that these had the identical character because the church lamps. He argued that there had been a high level of harm caused to the constructing, and that there had been no advantages from the heated chandeliers — comparable to increased liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, or opportunities for mission — which didn’t exist already with the old boiler had it been repaired.
In his judgment, the Chancellor said that the petitioners had “acted unwisely but didn’t intend to interrupt the principles”. They had “jumped the gun”, he said, and accepted their apology. He ruled that the brand new chandeliers would harm the importance of the special architectural or historical interest of the constructing because they weren’t as attractive and sympathetic to the inside because the originals.
Creative CommonsThe original chandeliers, pictured in 2004
He disagreed with Mr Bridges, nonetheless, by way of the seriousness of this harm. The church was not listed Grade I due to its lights, which he said “were attractive but not so beautiful or special that they could possibly be considered anything aside from noteworthy, and the harm attributable to their removal was small”.
The recent lighting and heating chandeliers had proved efficient, economic, and versatile to make use of; they’d allowed further outreach, public profit, and missional work to thrive. The confirmatory faculty was subsequently granted, subject to the conditions that the Church Building Council’s mitigating advice was followed as to the wiring and damage caused to the constructing; that the unique chandeliers were photographed and a full description was fabricated from where they were originally hung; and that this was archived.
The original chandeliers are to be sold or auctioned.
