{"title":"埃利斯敦的圣克里斯托弗","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/S0956618X22000928","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 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re St Christopher, Ellistown\",\"authors\":\"D. Willink\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0956618X22000928\",\"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 - 123\"},\"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/S0956618X22000928\",\"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/S0956618X22000928","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上市的维多利亚教堂的西门上增加一个门廊。他们拒绝了古迹协会和维多利亚时代协会提出的在内部修建防风廊的建议,认为不切实际;为了更宏伟的设计,考虑到成本。其他的建议也被纳入了设计中。法院根据re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, court of Arches中规定的方法考虑了这些问题:“……不是简单地关注拟建工程对教堂结构或外观的影响,而是要在背景下考虑这些建议,并充分考虑到教堂作为当地礼拜和传教中心的作用。虽然这座教堂是一幢精美的建筑,但它不应被视为已列入名录,因而受到德菲尔德的加强考虑。相反,正确的做法是考虑工程对教堂外观和意义的影响,并确定变化所带来的好处是否有足够的实质超过这种影响。法院满意地认为,增加门廊对教堂外观和意义的影响将是最小的。此外,教会在一个不断成长、恢复和日益参与的社区中传教的好处是重要的。热损失的改善也有力地支持了教堂对环境的承诺。这些综合的好处足以抵消对教堂外观和意义可能产生的任何负面影响。教师会发。(Naomi 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]