THE Consistory Court of the diocese of Carlisle has granted a faculty authorising the installation of 28 solar panels above the roof of St Anne’s, Ings, despite the refusal of planning permission the Lake District National Park Authority.
St Anne’s is a Grade II* listed Georgian church built in 1743. The refusal by the Lake District National Park Authority, which is the local planning authority, to grant permission in November 2023 was based on its reasoning that the church contributed to the character of the area, and that the solar panels represented a visual intrusion that would have an “adverse impact on the outstanding universal values of the English Lakes World Heritage Site and . . . the character of the area”.
Normally, the refusal of planning consent would make the pursuit of a faculty redundant. The petitioners, however, who were two churchwardens and a member of the PCC, intended to appeal against the refusal of planning permission.
The petitioners stated that the installation of the solar panels would have two valuable benefits. First, it would enable the church to become close to carbon-zero, thus reducing its environmental impact. Second, there would be a positive impact on the financial security of the church. The petitioners emphasised that the church’s energy bills had increased to “an uncomfortably high level”, and the monetary value to the church of a solar-panel installation would be about £2040 p.a.
Before seeking the faculty, the petitioners had consulted the amenity societies. The Church Buildings Council made no objection to the proposal. Historic England, Historic Buildings and Places, and the Georgian Group, however, objected to the proposals, mainly on the grounds of the panels’ visual impact on this historic church.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful James Fryer-Spedding, said that his assessment was that the moderate harm that would result to the significance of St Anne’s from the implementation of the proposal was outweighed by the benefits of installing a solar-panel system. The Chancellor had arrived at that conclusion in view of the “magnitude of the benefits that the petitioners [had] identified and from two further specific factors”.
The first was that, in its website, the Church of England had expressed its approach to net-zero-carbon planning principles in immediate and imperative calls to action directed at “all parts and levels of the Church of England”. That was an approach based on theology, and an express recognition that, as the website stated, “the global climate emergency is a crisis for God’s creation.”
Furthermore, the Church of England embraced the call to net-zero carbon as an integral part of its mission to care for creation, achieve climate justice, end poverty, and create a viable future for this and future generations.
The Chancellor said, however, that that should not be taken as giving a “trump card” to petitioners in every case where there was a proposal to pursue net-zero carbon in a listed church. But the Church’s missional approach on climate change was an important matter to be taken into account.
The fact that proposals were reversible was important. Where proposals were not only capable of being reversed, but must be undone after a certain period of time, that was a way in which harm might be restricted, the Chancellor said. A fleeting and entirely reversible intervention with a listed building would be less harmful to its significance than a permanent and irreversible one.
In the present case, the installation of the solar panels was completely reversible. After their expected lifespan (expected to be about 25 years) had elapsed, it would be possible to remove them and their associated fittings from the roof completely, so as to leave it as it was before.
The faculty was granted, but, before it is implemented, the petitioners must obtain planning consent. It is also a condition that, by 1 May 2050, all solar panels must be completely removed, and any resulting damage to the roof made good.