London Consistory Court: Cameron Ch, June 1998
A major re-ordering was proposed, the cost of which was in the order of £770,000. Several parties opponent raised the question of the morality of spending such large sums of money on buildings. Since this was not the first time this argument had been presented to the chancellor, she stated in her judgment that it is not the function of the consistory court to refuse to authorise works because they will be expensive, nor to seek to direct the PCC as to what proportion of the funds at its disposal should be spent on various aspects of mission, both at home and overseas. Further, the court can and does exercise control by permitting works to be executed in phases, each part only being permitted to commence as and when funds become available through cash, grants or loans. This can be policed by the registrar. The court is always conscious of the need for the PCC to have funds to make its proper contribution to the diocesan budget or common fund but where there is an appeal and money is donated with a particular purpose in mind, it would be quite wrong for the PCC to divert the money to another purpose. The duty of the PCC to co-operate with the minister in promoting in the parish the whole mission of the church, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical (see the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956, s 2(2)) includes matters of expenditure. The re-ordering was a major project whose evolution had begun with a more modest and less costly proposal. There was criticism that during the metamorphosis there had been insufficient consultation with the congregation. The chancellor considered it her duty to give guidance to other parishes to help avoid the problems encountered here:
'Having considered the evidence in this case, I have concluded that the guidance I should give is that in contemplating re-ordering parishes should address at least three core questions: (a) why? (b) how? (c) when? Under why, the PCC should address the perceived problems and need for change and produce a written document identifying them. Under how, there should be a feasibility study with drawings and approximate costs based on a detailed brief, which tackles the identified problems and needs and offers alternatives, if any. Under when, consideration should be given to whether the changes could or should be introduced in stages, for cost or other reasons, and the extent to which experimentation would be appropriate or desirable.
The congregation can be informed as each question is examined (this can usefully be done through the parish magazine or an informatory leaflet) and there should be an opportunity for the congregation to consider the results of the examination of all three questions before any final decision is made by the PCC to proceed with a re-ordering scheme. The lesson to be learned . . . is that a petition for a faculty should not be presented until full consultation has taken place. This does not mean that the PCC has to secure unanimous support before a petition is presented, nor that it has to jeopardise parts of a scheme to try to meet objections if those parts are regarded by the minister and PCC as important in promoting in the parish the whole mission of the Church. The matter has then to be put to the test in the consistory court to be decided by 'the disinterested authority' in the words of Lord Penzance, namely the chancellor'.
(1999) 5 Ecc LJ 213
