Go to the HOME PAGE | Go to the Local Information index | Go to the Anglican Church index

The Burbage Consistory Courts; 1999 and 2007
Saturday 20th November 1999 saw Burbage hitting the national headlines. The occasion was the sitting of a Consistory Court to determine the Parochial Church Council's request to re-order the interior of the parish church of All Saints. The need to resort to such a court is a rare occurrence - hence the national interest.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since the 1980s the type of preaching within the parish has become progressively more evangelical. This became more-so with the arrival of the current incumbent, the Reverend Nicholas Leigh-Hunt, in 1991. Tragically, in 1994, the vicars wife Sue died and one of her wishes was that some of her moneys be devoted to the re-ordering (i.e. changing) of the church's layout to better facilitate the modern way of preaching. However this modern way (known as "happy clappy") is not to everyone's taste and has proven to be divisive within the parish.
Through the apparent success of the preaching, the congregation has allegedly grown with converts coming from within and without the parish. But many of the original or traditional parish churchgoers have deserted All Saints to either stay at home or attend more traditional services in neighbouring parishes. The overall result has been a much envied and acclaimed growth in church attendance but with less parish relevance and a divided community.
When the PCC first sought formal approval for the re-ordering it was rejected as a survey showed that the building's fabric was in poor condition. They were told to first restore the building then apply to re-order.
The PCC's approach was to declare the church a village asset (which it is) and appealed to the community as a whole to rise above the differences and accept the challenge of raising £100,000. To avoid controversy, a small band of 'neutral' villagers agreed to form a Restoration Committee to raise the required funds. To their credit, this they did but with notable apathy from certain parts of the community. Many abstainers believed (wrongly) that the money was to be channelled into the re-ordering while other were sceptical why suddenly the PCC wanted to restore a building which they had neglected for many years.
The restoration of the parish church should have, but did not, heal the rift between church and village but it did lay the way open for the re-ordering.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED RE-ORDERING
Following local negotiations and representations from several bodies (e.g. The Victorian Society) the eventually proposed re-ordering was somewhat reduced from the earlier plans of 1994.
For those not familiar with the 1999 layout at All Saints, the chancel has choir stalls on either side leading up to the alter. A chancel rail separates the nave and the chancel and there is a step down into the nave. To the south of the chancel is the Lady Chapel with access to it from both the chancel and the south aisle in the nave. The nave has 4 columns of pews dissected by a cross-aisle from the south door. The main aisle leads from the west door to the chancel. No one is quite sure how many can be seated on the pews as it was quoted to be between 245 and 300. Some of this confusion being caused by the PCC having already removed some pews without consent so it depends upon when you counted.
CHANGES TO THE CHANCEL
  • Make the choir stalls removable. Remove the plinths they sit on so when the stalls are removed the chancel floor is a large, level, open space. Cover the floor where the plinths had been with black and red checkerboard tiles, similar to those existing in the chancel. Due to their weight and bulk, the stalls would normally be left in situ.
  • Remove the chancel rail to create an open feel and breakdown the barriers between the nave and chancel.
CHANGES TO THE NAVE
  • Remove the first two pews in the two central aisles.
  • Remove the first 4 pews in the south aisle. This will balance it with the pews removed above and the missing pews in the north aisle (no one knows when the latter were removed or if permission for their removal was ever granted)
  • Removal of the last 4 pews from the south-central aisle. the corresponding number (or more) having already been removed from the other 3 aisles. (NOTE: some of them were removed since the restoration without permission!)
  • The insertion of a dais from the step up to the chancel (now freed from a chancel rail) into the nave to fill the area freed by the removal of the front pews detailed above.
The aim of the above is to create circulation areas where the congregation can move freely about. The changes to the front are to allow free expression during the service and for the preacher to be more involved with the congregation. Those at the rear are to allow circulation from the coffee area (at the end of the southern aisle) to the new crèche at the rear of the northern aisle.
It was stated in court by Commander Stone that the current seating capacity (i.e. with some pews illegally removed) was 245 and that the plan was to remove another 94, leaving 151. It was expected that chairs would be purchased to provide temporary supplementary seating. It was also stated in court by the vicar that the average attendance at the main Sunday services was 150.
LADY CHAPEL
No changes are proposed although there were several on the original 1994 plans. However the items they wanted to remove and which were listed on the latter, were simply not returned after the restoration (e.g. the alter).
THE CONSISTORY COURT
Even though a public meeting was held at the church on January 31st 1997, it has been impossible for the two sides (the PCC and some objectors from the village) to reconcile their differences and agree on a compromise solution. This culminated in the matter being presented to a Consistory Court for pronouncement.
The court convened in the church at 10 o'clock on Saturday 20th November 1999 with Judge Samuel Wiggs - chancellor of the diocese - presiding. The PCC (at some considerable expense) had hired a barrister and were represented by Mr. Holden while the objectors represented themselves.
The case lasted all day with only an agreement not to cross-examine all objectors allowing it to end by about 5.30 P.M.
No decision was reached on the day but Judge Wiggs stated that he intended to give his judgment by Christmas.
I have deliberately not given any details of the discussions in court (other than the seating capacity stated above which I believe helps put the proposed changes into perspective) as I hope the Judge's eventual comments will be more impartial for it is difficult to live here and not have a view one way or the other. I only find it sad that it has gone as far as it has and do not believe that the outcome - whatever it is - will go any way to healing the rift between church and village.
THE COURT'S VERDICT
On December 3rd 1999 Mr. Wiggs published his verdict and overall, the re-ordering was approved and the work was duly carried out. Despite the instructions the judge gave in paragraph 31 of his report, the Lady Chapel was not restored to its former glory, the altar remained in the nave, and the area seems to be used as an informal meeting place.
In his summary paragraph the judge said "I know that there has been acrimony in the past, but I very much hope that that will be confine to the past, and that the implementation of a modest reordering scheme which in many churches would not have been contentious will not cause future difficulties in the community".
PHASE TWO
Time moves on and in September 2004 the PCC partitioned for a new faculty to make changes to the South porch and in June 2005 raised another seeking permission to remove all the pews and replace them with chairs etc. There was no opposition to the first but there was 1 objector to the second.
The objector realised that for 1 person to stand in the way of progress would not necessarily be in the public interest, so undertook a survey by sending a questionnaire to every household in the parish - about 750, although the number 800 is quoted in the judgement. He was somewhat taken aback by the response; 182 households replied representing 298 people. Of these 242 were against the changes, 36 in favour, 4 were "concerned" and 16 "unconcerned". He was obviously not alone in his feelings about the changes so pressed on with his objection.
Several attempts were made to mediate but these proved futile. The reason for this was revealed at the court when the vicar stated that he would not accept any compromise and would not accept any changes to the original plans. Indeed, if the pews were not totally removed then he would not undertake the changes to the South porch.
To ascertain the numbers of the congregation in support of removing the pews, in 2006 the PCC organised a petition which was placed in the nave of the church. In total 65 people signed, and although a significant number were not residents of Burbage, this accurately reflects the congregation's abodes.
THE CONSISTORY COURT
There was nothing else for it, another Consistory Court was called and Judge Samuel Wiggs returned to hear the case on Saturday 27th January 2007. There were two main differences between this and the earlier court; firstly the evidence would only be taken by cross-examination, the assumption being that the witnesss' written statement would be sufficient unless the other side wished to ask questions. Secondly the objector as well as the proposers were represented by a barrister.
The court convened at 10:30 and only 3 witness were called; the Reverend Leigh-Hunt and Joy Guy (churchwarden) for the proposers and Robert Hector, the sole objector. There were several quite acrimonious exchanges but thankfully it was all over by 3:30 and the outcome was promised by Easter.
THE COURT'S VERDICT
The judgement was released on 14th February and to everyone's surprise, the faculty was thrown out. Why? The law requires that changes to a listed church cannot be undertaken unless there is a proven "need" and not just a "desire" (the Bishopsgate Question) and that at Burbage he felt this need had not been proven. He also felt that the changes would have a detrimental effect on the architectural value of the building. Finally he felt the changes would have a negative effect on the village although he phrased it thus:
One element of "necessary" concerns pastoral well-being, and when considering this I do give some limited weight to the degree of opposition. There has clearly been considerable bitterness within the village, and a feeling that a relatively small number of active church members (although it may well be a majority within that membership) is determined to enforce change upon a much-loved village feature. To allow that change would not make for pastoral well-being in its wider sense.
THE AFTERMATH

At the time of writing, 24th February 2007, I can testify that the objectors are elated and feel that at last justice has been done. The situation and feelings of the proposers is unknown. I am told they had never contemplated losing so have not yet made any public statement about their intentions. I will update this site when they do.

However both parties must recognise the true depth of bitterness felt in the parish and unity will only come after a positive and practical programme of activities aimed at addressing a problem that has been festering in the village for many years.

Go to the HOME PAGE | Go to the Local Information index | Go to the Anglican Church index

©Colin Younger 2007