{"title":"mr . Forstater诉CGD Europe & ors","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x2200093x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The petitioners sought a faculty for the addition of a porch over the west door of this unlisted Victorian church. They had rejected the suggestions of the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society for an internal storm porch, as impractical; and for a grander design, on the grounds of cost. Other suggestions had been incorporated into the design. The court considered the matters in accordance with the approach set out in re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, Court of Arches: ‘. . . not simply to concentrate upon the effect of proposed works upon the fabric or appearance of the church in isolation, but to consider the proposals in the context of and taking full account of the role of the church as a local centre of worship andmission’. While the church was a fine building of architectural interest, it was not to be treated as if it were listed and therefore subject to the enhancedDuffield considerations. Instead, the correct approach was to consider the impact of the works on the appearance and significance of the church, and determine whether the benefit resulting from the change was of sufficient substance to outweigh that impact. The court was satisfied that the impact on the appearance and significance of the church by the addition of the porch would be minimal. Further, the benefits to the mission of the church in a growing, recovering and increasingly engaged community were important. The heat loss improvements also strongly supported the church’s commitment to the environment. These combined benefits were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the church. A faculty would issue. [Naomi Gyane]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"123 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ms M Forstater v CGD Europe & ors\",\"authors\":\"D. Willink\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0956618x2200093x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The petitioners sought a faculty for the addition of a porch over the west door of this unlisted Victorian church. They had rejected the suggestions of the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society for an internal storm porch, as impractical; and for a grander design, on the grounds of cost. Other suggestions had been incorporated into the design. The court considered the matters in accordance with the approach set out in re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, Court of Arches: ‘. . . not simply to concentrate upon the effect of proposed works upon the fabric or appearance of the church in isolation, but to consider the proposals in the context of and taking full account of the role of the church as a local centre of worship andmission’. While the church was a fine building of architectural interest, it was not to be treated as if it were listed and therefore subject to the enhancedDuffield considerations. Instead, the correct approach was to consider the impact of the works on the appearance and significance of the church, and determine whether the benefit resulting from the change was of sufficient substance to outweigh that impact. The court was satisfied that the impact on the appearance and significance of the church by the addition of the porch would be minimal. Further, the benefits to the mission of the church in a growing, recovering and increasingly engaged community were important. The heat loss improvements also strongly supported the church’s commitment to the environment. These combined benefits were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the church. A faculty would issue. [Naomi Gyane]\",\"PeriodicalId\":53956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecclesiastical Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"123 - 125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecclesiastical Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2200093x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2200093x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
请愿者要求在这座未列出的维多利亚教堂的西门上增加一个门廊。他们拒绝了古代纪念碑协会和维多利亚协会关于内部风暴门廊的建议,认为这不切实际;以及基于成本的更宏伟的设计。其他建议已纳入设计。法院根据Maidstone,St Luke[1995]Fam 1,court of Arches中规定的方法审议了这些事项:“。不仅仅是孤立地关注拟议作品对教堂结构或外观的影响,而是在充分考虑教堂作为当地礼拜和传教中心的作用的背景下考虑这些建议”。虽然这座教堂是一座具有建筑价值的优秀建筑,但它不应被视为已列入名单,因此应受到加强的达菲尔德考虑。相反,正确的方法是考虑作品对教堂外观和意义的影响,并确定改变带来的好处是否足以超过这种影响。法院认为,增加门廊对教堂外观和重要性的影响微乎其微。此外,教会在一个不断发展、恢复和日益参与的社区中的使命所带来的好处也很重要。热量损失的改善也有力地支持了教会对环境的承诺。这些综合利益的实质内容足以超过对教会的外观和意义可能产生的任何负面影响。一位教员会发表意见。[Nomi Gyane]
The petitioners sought a faculty for the addition of a porch over the west door of this unlisted Victorian church. They had rejected the suggestions of the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society for an internal storm porch, as impractical; and for a grander design, on the grounds of cost. Other suggestions had been incorporated into the design. The court considered the matters in accordance with the approach set out in re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, Court of Arches: ‘. . . not simply to concentrate upon the effect of proposed works upon the fabric or appearance of the church in isolation, but to consider the proposals in the context of and taking full account of the role of the church as a local centre of worship andmission’. While the church was a fine building of architectural interest, it was not to be treated as if it were listed and therefore subject to the enhancedDuffield considerations. Instead, the correct approach was to consider the impact of the works on the appearance and significance of the church, and determine whether the benefit resulting from the change was of sufficient substance to outweigh that impact. The court was satisfied that the impact on the appearance and significance of the church by the addition of the porch would be minimal. Further, the benefits to the mission of the church in a growing, recovering and increasingly engaged community were important. The heat loss improvements also strongly supported the church’s commitment to the environment. These combined benefits were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the church. A faculty would issue. [Naomi Gyane]