The churchwardens petitioned for a faculty for the removal of the old pipe organ and its replacement with a hybrid/combination organ. It was common ground that the old organ was of very poor quality and in need of replacement. Further, it was common ground that a replacement pipe organ would be the ideal. Nevertheless, the petitioners submitted that the expense of a replacement pipe organ would not be an appropriate use of limited parish funds and resources and that the hybrid/combination organ was a good balance between quality and resources. The DAC and the CBC expressed strong reservations about the new and relatively untested technology of hybrid/combination (part pipe, part digital) organs and both preferred the option of a replacement pipe organ. The chancellor held that there was a presumption that a pipe organ would be replaced with another pipe organ and that the burden lay on the petitioners to rebut that presumption. He emphasised that the petitioners had based their decision to seek a faculty for replacement with a hybrid/combination organ on rational and considered assessment of the merits of the respective organs. The faculty was granted. Given the element of risk in using this relatively untested technology the chancellor imposed a condition that the petitioners should commission an independent expert to report upon the performance of the new technology 12 months after its installation, in order that others can learn from the success or failure of the experiment. [RA]