Following a hearing in chambers, the chancellor gave judgment on six petitions seeking faculties for the installation of telecommunications equipment in different churches in the diocese. In doing so he expressed serious concerns. Negotiations concerning individual parishes had been conducted between the Diocesan Board of Finance (DBF) and the telecommunications company (NET). In several cases, the parishes themselves were either not involved in, or not aware of, the negotiations being conducted in relation to their buildings. It seemed that licence fees had been effectively agreed between the DBF and NET without the involvement of the parishes, such that some of the proposed licences were to be granted at a significant undervaluation on the basis that others would be at an overvaluation. So far as the DBF was concerned, that represented a good deal overall. The chancellor made the points that each PCC was an individual charity; that church buildings were not the property of the DBF, who had no locus in these cases; and that it was the responsibility of each PCC to comply with the requirements of ecclesiastical and charity law. Some PCCs had not discharged those responsibilities, apparently having been induced to regard the negotiations with NET as a diocesan project in which they did not need – or were not entitled – to participate. Some of the PCCs had been told to pass resolutions confirming that certain steps – such as the obtaining of an independent valuation or legal advice – had been taken when that was not the case. Despite the serious concern about the way in which valuation advice had been approached, the chancellor was persuaded, after hearing argument from the solicitor for the petitioners, that it would not be in the interests of the parishes for the petitions simply to be refused given the loss of income and other costs that would result. However, the chancellor said that in future cases he would require to be satisfied that the matter of valuation advice had been approached in a more professional way. The court would adopt that approach so that each parish secured the best financial arrangement for that parish and to protect the position of the PCC members as charity trustees. As to the present petitions, faculties were granted in five of them. In those cases, the PCCs had recognised their legal responsibilities and, having done so, had proceeded accordingly. However, in the remaining case the PCC had passed a resolution confirming that legal and valuation advice had been obtained by it when that was not the case and, despite having had the irregularities pointed out to them by their solicitor, declined to pass any further resolutions in respect of the matter. The chancellor was reluctantly persuaded not to refuse the petition outright but directed the submission of further information before the petition would be considered further. [Alexander McGregor]