Pursuant to a 2013 faculty, the interior of this mediaeval church was painted in 2014. Instead of the specified limewash paint, the architect selected an alternative paint, which proved to be inappropriate: it was impermeable, damaging the wall fabric and causing the paint to flake off. Following a consistory court hearing in 2017 (reported at [2017] ECC SEI 6), the PCC was ordered to remove the paint, and repaint using the originally specified limewash, the cost to be borne by the architect.

Subsequent investigations revealed traces of pre- and post-Reformation wall paintings under the new paint. The two available options for complying with the restoration order were: to remove the paint, conserving and monitoring the existing plasterwork before limewashing; or to remove the paint and existing plasterwork, before re-rendering and limewashing. The CBC, Historic England and SPAB rejected both options, noting that the paint could not be removed without unacceptable damage to the paint layers beneath. The parish preferred the second option, as the first would require the closure of the nave for up to five years.

The court noted the expert evidence that there were some wall paintings which may be of good quality, but much of them were or may be damaged beyond economic restoration. Removal of the offending paint would cause further damage to paintings beneath. Under the first option, there was a strong possibility that much of the remaining wall painting would be damaged; under the second option, almost everything of any historical interest would be destroyed. However, leaving the offending paint in place would only stack up problems for the future, at a time when the parish rather than the architect would bear the cost of remedial work.

The court was unable to say whether either option would cause harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest; any harm was unquantifiable in either case, but was not sufficient for the court to reject it. The court determined that the superficially unattractive second option had a greater public benefit than the first, in that it would allow the building to be fully used much sooner; and this benefit outweighed the harm that would be caused. A faculty would therefore issue for the removal of the paint and plaster, with the walls to be rendered and limewashed thereafter.