The petitioners sought a faculty authorising the installation of 48 photovoltaic solar panels on the south-facing roof of a Grade II listed church. Planning permission for the proposals had been granted by an inspector on appeal. The diocesan advisory committee did not recommend the proposals, largely on the basis that the installation of the solar panels would have an adverse visual impact. The Victorian Society and English Heritage (EH) raised objections, being concerned about the impact on the appearance of the church. EH drew to the chancellor's attention Planning Policy Statement 22: renewable energy and the policy that it contained (at paragraph 11):

The Church Buildings Council recommended the granting of a faculty for the proposals on the basis that they were essentially reversible and that the scheme fitted with the Church's environmental agenda.

With regard to the prior grant of planning permission for the proposals, the chancellor applied the principles identified by Bursell Ch in Re St Mary's, White Waltham (No 2) [2010] 3 WLR 1560, (2010) 12 Ecc LJ 122. The burden of proof in faculty proceedings lay on the petitioner and there was no presumption that, unless good reason to the contrary were shown, a faculty should be granted. The fact that planning permission had been granted would not be determinative of faculty proceedings: the consistory court was not bound by the decision of the planning authority; but the planning authority's decision could be accepted as a reasoned starting point from which to begin the consistory court's own deliberations unless the conclusions of the planning authority were demonstrated to be wrong by reasoned and cogent evidence. While there were some matters (for example, traffic) that were almost exclusively within the province of town planners, there were other matters that could and should be raised before both the planning authority and the consistory court. The matter had been properly aired before the planning inspector, and the submission of the Victorian Society and EH did not contain reasoned criticism of his decision. That amounted to a ‘key failing’ in respect of their submissions.

The chancellor went on to hold that he must apply the Bishopsgate questions. The saving of money and acting in accordance with the Church's ‘national stance on ecological issues and seeking to conserve energy resources’ amounted to a necessity for this purpose. The chancellor rejected EH's argument that the proposals would have a significant negative impact on the appearance of the church. The proposals would have an impact, ‘but not a disastrous one’ and the proposals were not irreversible. As to the third of the Bishopsgate questions, the chancellor said that he was persuaded that the proposals ‘do not do as great damage’ as had been suggested and that the plans were ‘sound and well thought out’. The grant of planning permission was not determinative but it was persuasive. A faculty was granted subject to conditions. [Alexander McGregor]