The petitioners sought permission to carry out major re-ordering works including the erection of a new thatched pavilion building. Many aspects of the works, including the creation of the single storey thatched building, had also been the subject of a successful planning application to the local planning authority.
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) objected to the proposal to use thatch for the newly created building. Although it declined to become a party opponent, its objections were that:
i. The use of thatch on the garden building would adversely affect the character of the churchyard or church;
ii. The thatch may present a fire risk and had been inadequately assessed; and
iii. Indigenous thatch may be difficult or impossible to source and it may require replacing in less than 30 years.
The court held that the risk of fire was better considered by the planning authority, which had granted the planning application. The ability to source indigenous thatch, its durability and/or obtaining insurance were matters for the petitioners to address. In respect of the remaining objection, namely that the use of thatch would have an adverse effect on the character of the churchyard and church, the court acknowledged it was an unusual choice in an urban setting. However, the building was a modest single-storey new building and physically detached from the church. The use of thatch would not have any deleterious effect on the church or churchyard. Therefore, the petition would be granted.
