Rochester Consistory Court: Goodman Ch, November 2000
St Mary's Leigh is a Grade II* listed church dating from the thirteenth century. The PCC voted by a majority to seek a petition to install floodlighting. The DAC was consulted and recommended approval subject to three structural matters being finalised. Objections were raised by five parishioners on the bases, inter alia, that sky pollution would occur; it would be a waste of money; there had been inadequate consultation; it would be a distraction to road users; and it would attract vandals. At the invitation of the chancellor a meeting was held with the archdeacon to resolve or narrow differences. As a result of the meeting Kent County Council was approached and stated that the floodlighting would not be a threat to road safety, and the local police indicated that vandals would be put off by the lighting although other anti-social behaviour might occur. An open meeting was then held, chaired by the Archdeacon of Tonbridge, where various points were made. The PCC then met and agreed to press for the faculty with a trial period of six months with the lighting on from dusk to 11pm. The petitioners maintained their objections. It was agreed that the matter could be dealt with by written representations. The chancellor considered Peek v Trower (1881) 7 PD 21 at 27 and Nickalls v Briscoe [1892] P 269 in relation to the burden of proof and the weight attached to parishioners' objections. He went on to consider the issues and ruled that:
(i) Effect of floodlighting on the church itself: He was satisfied that floodlighting would enhance the beauty and role of the church.
(ii) Effect on the night sky and environmental pollution: There was no evidence that the floodlighting would be seriously detrimental from an environmental point of view.
(iii) Effect on neighbouring houses and residents: So long as the floodlighting was carried out sensitively there was not sufficient weight to the objection.
(iv) Waste of resources: This was a proper use of PCC funds.
(v) Hazard to motorists: The expert evidence of the Council that there would be no major hazard was accepted.
(vi) Risk of burglary or vandalism: There was evidence that burglars would be deterred and vandals identified.
(vii) Lack of consultation: Reviewing the number of meetings and circulation of relevant documentation, there could be no criticism of the PCC.
A faculty was granted.
(2001) 6 Ecc LJ 167
