Archdiocese of Cardiff Appeal Panel, September 2001
An application was made to the Historic Churches Committee for Wales and Herefordshire (a body operating under the ecclesiastical exemption for determining alterations to Roman Catholic church buildings) for the introduction of a lighting scheme to a Grade II listed church. Concern was raised about the scheme and particularly the intrusiveness of proposed uplighters. The committee voted against a motion to accept the entire scheme except for the uplighters. The uplighters were not voted upon, the bulk of the scheme having already been rejected. The applicant appealed. The appeal panel overturned the Committee's rejection of the scheme subject to certain amendments. There was some confusion as to whether the uplighters (which formed one part of the scheme) had, in fact, been rejected by the Historic Churches Committee as it had not voted on the issue. This led to a question whether the appeal panel could overturn a decision that had never been made. The appeal panel came to the conclusion that the determination of the Historic Churches Committee was an administrative act in Roman Catholic Canon Law rather than a judicial act. The appeal was not, therefore, a judicial appeal but 'an administrative procedure put into place by the bishop to resolve a hierarchical recourse against that administrative act'. The written determination of the Committee was a singular decree as defined in Canon 48 of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. Further, Canon 57 §2 states that when a decree is requested (in this case for permission to install uplighters) and no reply is received from the competent authority (in this case the Historic Churches Committee) within three months then the reply is deemed to be negative. That time having passed, the appeal panel was able to assume that the proposed uplighters had been rejected. That point established, it overturned the rejection, approved the whole scheme as amended and urged the Historic Churches Committee to 'make a determination of such proposals' in the future.
(2002) 6 Ecc LJ 412-413
