Cathedrals have been described as ‘normative space’ insofar as their regulation both shapes, and is shaped by, their architecture. This article extends that description and applies it, by analogy, to listed Church of England churches and examines how the concept of ‘normative space’ relates to, and informs, their regulation within ecclesiastical and secular systems. The article goes on to outline the implications for (1) architectural and artistic innovation and (2) the worship and mission of the Church.

The origins of this comment lie in Charles George KC's article: ‘Do we still need the faculty system?’1 which came towards the end of his tenure of office as Dean of the Arches and Auditor (2009–2020). George himself acknowledged that his conclusion, namely that a no-holds-barred review of the faculty system would now be appropriate, might come as ‘rather a surprise’ and that some might have expected his answer to his own question to be in the affirmative: namely, that we do still need a faculty system.

This article distinguishes contested heritage on consecrated land from the wider secular contested heritage debate. The evolving property law position on contested heritage and consecrated land is analysed in the context of recent consistory court judgments including the controversial decision concerning the memorial to Tobias Rustat at Jesus College, Cambridge. The current application of the ecclesiastical exemption, the statutory guidance on contested heritage from the Church Buildings Council and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission and the Duffield framework are considered together with strong criticisms made by the Archbishops’ Commission for Racial Justice. The article suggests that because issues of contested heritage and the legacies of enslavement have not been properly considered in a timely way by the Church of England, individual consistory court cases have become focal points for wider debates beyond their remit. The article argues that the current resolution process for disputes over contested heritage is untenable in the longer term. Statutory guidance needs to be revised and the faculty process, in particular the Duffield framework, needs to be adapted to address racial justice and mission and worship. Practical advice is offered to individual religious communities seeking to consider contested heritage in their own buildings in the meantime.

Following a brief history and explanation of the extent and role of the faculty jurisdiction, the article considers various reviews of its working, and that of the ecclesiastical exemption, starting with the Report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission in 1984 and the Newman Report in 1997. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport stated in 2005 that the operation of the ecclesiastical exemption would be monitored periodically, and in 2010 that it would be kept under review to ensure the required standards of protection were maintained. The article argues that a no-holds-barred review of the faculty system would now be appropriate, with a view to achieving a less cumbrous structural apparatus, with a markedly less restrictive approach to changes within unlisted churches and a more rigorous and expert approach to changes affecting listed churches.