A faculty was granted for a major reordering of the interior of the church, to include the replacement of the dais and seating in the nave, the upgrading of the heating, lighting, kitchen and lavatory facilities, improvement of disabled access, internal redecoration and the relocation of the font and pulpit. At a late stage the petitioners made an additional application for the installation of a ground source heat pump and rainwater harvesting tank, with the approval of the planning authority. Funding for the proposed project had been made available through the government's Growth Area Fund, with the support of Ashford Borough Council and the agency Ashford's Future, both of which bodies were petitioners along with the incumbent. The DAC noted that the proposed works would affect the character of the building, but recommended the scheme. The Victorian Society and an individual parishioner formally opposed the application, which was heard in open court. The commissary general applied the Bishopsgate questions, as they have developed, and as summarised by Hill Ch in Re St Mary, Newick (2009) 11 Ecc LJ 127, an approach commended by the Court of Arches in Re St Peter, Draycott (2009) 11 Ecc LJ 365. He found that the petitioners had overwhelmingly shown that the proposed works were necessary. He was only just convinced that they would not adversely affect the character of the building, but that even if they had, the necessity shown would have outweighed the adverse effect.Footnote ³ [WA]