RE ST THOMAS A BECKET, FRAMFIELD (Sept 1987, now (1989) 1 All ER 170)
In this case the warning was directed to architects. When considering the proposal to redecorate the interior of a sixteenth century church in the Diocese of Chichester, the Diocesan Advisory Committee considered the structure to be worthy of a lime wash application. The merit of using lime wash in old churches is that moisture can pass through it. whereas if emulsion or oil paint is used, moisture is trapped within the walls. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Diocesan Advisory Committee, the petitioners proceeded, without any lawful authority, to apply emulsion to the walls. They then sought a confirmatory faculty. Although Chancellor Edwards granted such a faculty, he was critical of the parish priest, the churchwardens and the architects instructed in connection with the work. The Chancellor held that architects who undertake ecclesiastical commissions are under an obligation to comply with the requirements of the faculty jurisdiction; it was therefore no excuse for the architect to say that he was unaware that a faculty or archdeacon's certificate had not been issued. The sanction available against an architect who failed to discharge his professional duty lies in Section 10(a) of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964, whereby the court has power to make a faculty subject to a condition that works be carried out under the
supervision of an architect. A chancellor could therefore state that he was not prepared to make it a condition of any faculty that offending architects should supervise any works authorised by the faculty. The effect would be to exclude such architects from a substantial degree of involvement in ecclesiastical work. In the event. Chancellor Edwards adopted a milder course of requiring in future personal undertakings from those architects as a condition of granting faculties.
(1988) 1:2 Ecc LJ 35-36