Judgement of the Consistory Court
|
Diocese of Newcastle In the Consistory Court
His Honour Judge David Hodson Honorary Recorder of Newcastle upon Tyne Chancellor and Official Principal In the Matter of
ST MARY THE VIRGIN, MONKSEATON
Judgment
Introduction
1. There is before me for consideration a Petition for a Faculty to authorise the re-ordering of the church “including moving the font and the introduction of a nave altar.” That Petition is dated 20th May 2009. It followed the resolution of the Parochial Church Council on 19th November 2008 which voted in favour of the proposals by 18 votes to 4. The Diocesan Advisory Committee considered the matter and duly granted its certificate on 23rd April 2009 recommending the proposed works with one proviso relating to the colour or pattern of the proposed carpet.
2. There were, however, two formal objectors to these proposals. They are Mr W.R Teasdale and Mr J.R Cure. Mr Teasdale’s Particulars of Objection are dated 17th June 2009 and Mr Cure’s Particulars are dated 11th June 2009. In view of these objections and in an effort to save the parish costs I directed the Registrar to enquire of both objectors if they would be willing for this Petition to be determined on the basis of written representations. Neither was willing to agree to that process.
3. It was therefore necessary to make arrangements for a full hearing of the Consistory Court. I directed a Pre-Trial review which was heard on Saturday, 20th February 2010. On that date the issues for determination were clarified. I made provision for the serving of witness statements, representation and other matters. A final hearing date was set for Friday 11th June 2010. Both objectors reiterated that they were still of one mind that the hearing should not be determined on the basis of written representations.
4. Accordingly, therefore, on 11th June 2010 I heard evidence and oral submissions from all parties. I reserved my judgment and I regret that pressure of other matters has delayed the completion of this judgment. I apologise for the delay.
5. Mr David Lax, chair of the Building Development Group, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. I would like to thank Mr Lax for the help that he gave to me and for the measured way he approached his task. This is a case which has provoked understandably strong feelings and genuinely held firm opinions. Mr Lax’s understated yet firm handling of his case contributed very significantly to reducing tension. It could so easily have been otherwise.
6. Witnesses called by Mr Lax were The Revd. Dr Robin Greenwood, Vicar of the Parish, Mr Anthony Keith, the architect responsible for the design of the proposals, Mr William Walker and Mrs Catherine Stobart.
7. Mr William Teasdale represented the objectors. Witnesses called by him were Mr John Cure his co-objector, Mr John Furness, MrDerek Hayes, Mrs O.M Campbell, Mrs Christine Tompkins and Mrs Dorothy Elliott. Mr Teasdale himself also gave evidence.
8. The church of St Mary, Monkseaton was built in 1930 and is not a listed building. By a Licence dated 24th July 2007 The Archdeacon of Northumberland granted permission for temporary re-ordering by the erection of a temporary dais for the exploration of the appropriate placing for a nave altar. Such licence expired on 23rd October 2008 but the temporary use of a nave altar has continued to the present time.
9. At the heart of the proposals for the re-ordering of the church is the introduction of a nave altar and the moving of the font. It is to these two matters in particular that exception has been taken by the objectors.
10. The rationale behind the petitioners’ application is to be found in the “Statement of Need” which is worth reciting in full: “St Mary’s has for the last six years been examining, discussing and consulting on how we can improve, enhance and deliver a broader range of worship within the confines of the existing building footprint.
“The basilica design although extended in the early 1960s still retains the style and form of worship considered appropriate in the 1930s. This emphasises the sense of separateness between the congregation and those ministering to them. This was the view of “church” at the time and is one which continued up to the late 1980s. This in its way reflected how society was structured and organised.
“Contemporary society has become more open (at least in theory), more inclusive and collaborative. A team approach is now the norm for all organisations with leadership devolved and shared. We at St Mary’s are seeking to adopt this approach under the banner of “Making Christ Known Through Building His Church”, with the development of faith and involvement in a variety of forms of worship. The recently taken decision that we are a Local Ministry Parish within the Diocese is a clear expression of this theology and practice. The Local Ministry Development Team is being inaugurated at Pentecost 2009.
“Our building therefore needs both to reflect and promote this change of culture. The layout needs to underscore this approach and to ensure it is easy for parishioners who are putting their toes into church do not find the experience intimidating or unwelcoming.
“The experimental arrangements over the past twelve months, with the Archdeacon’s support, have allowed us to see, feel and experience differing layouts. The consensus seems to be that an altar located between the two ambos on a raised dais would meet these needs. It is this concept that the PCC in its deliberations during October and November 2008 accepted.
“At the same meeting it was accepted as a minimum we needed to undertake significant refurbishment of the infrastructure of the church. The heating system needs to be upgraded, the electrical installations have to be renewed and redecoration undertaken.
“In their presentation to the Diocesan Advisory Committee in April 2009 our architects wrote as follows: “We believe our proposals will enhance the church building of St Mary the Virgin, Monkseaton, in the following ways:
11. In his Particulars of Objection to the Petition Mr Teasdale wrote that his objection related to part of the proposed works namely: a) changes at the east end, particularly those relating to the provision of a nave altar, b) other changes to the building.
His grounds were: a) the east end will be irrevocably changed. A hazard will be erected in the chancel. b) the other changes are speculative and, in the short term, are not financially viable. c) the consultation process with the congregation has, at best, been flawed. d) many of the furnishings and fittings have memorial implications.
12. In his Particulars of Objection Mr Cure wrote that his objection related to part of the proposed works namely: a) plinth for nave altar. b) omission of altar rails.
His grounds were: a) compatibility with existing architecture. b) restriction of nave use. c) safety. d) cost.
Mr Cure’s objections were set out in more detailed particular in a document described as Appendix to Form 4.
Evidence 13. In two powerful witness statements the Vicar, The Revd. Dr. Robin Greenwood developed the “Statement of Need.” In his statement of 15th March 2010 he wrote that it was “our desire to create a holy space, where beauty and creativity draw eyes, ears, hearts and minds to God’s loving, active presence in worship and in the whole life of the world.” He spoke of the consensus for change that now exists and how the “proportionally small number of formal objectors is a further indicator of how the mind of the congregation has largely moved to a sense that now is the time to act.”
14. The Vicar developed the theological rationale for the proposed design and spoke of “a strong majority of the PCC (giving) strong endorsement to proposals which, they believe, combine necessary refurbishment with the attempt to make contemporary provision for liturgical, educational and community development agendas.”
15. The Vicar described in some detail the development of the Anglican liturgical tradition which it is not necessary to refer to here. He covered what he described as “Congregational Learning” and, importantly, “Renewing the Theological Vision”.
16. Under this heading the Vicar highlighted the developing theory of ministry in the early 21st century as being rooted in ministry rather than in ordination. He wrote of “sharing ministries” and “growing leaders” and “the need to have a building that helps us more than the present layout is able, to speak of God as among us as well as transcendent.” He went on to write “a strong desire among us is to provide a space for liturgy that helps us, together, to access God’s Holy and friendly presence among us in life’s difficulties and in building inclusive community……A key element of our strategy is to be a church identified through friendship, inspiring worship, growth in the Spirit of God, creating a real sense of belonging, giftbased ministries, developing a vision and effective structures, growing leaders and evangelizing that is responsive to need….to share in the mission of God in the whole of life and to draw all people closer to God, are our primary objectives. Our desired modification of the building is a practical expression of this……”
17. The Vicar also provided a rationale for what he described as a “permanent” rather than “reversible” nave sanctuary. He set out the purpose “of confidently placing a round, solid, central sanctuary between the ambos will say that for the coming decades, at least – and who knows where future generations will make their contribution – rather than a liturgy offered by a chosen few (clergy, servers and choristers within the apse and chancel) to be observed by the laity in general, we intend to become a ‘round’ community of people of varying temperaments.”
18. By distinguishing between “permanent” and “reversible” in the way that he did I understood the Vicar not to be saying that the proposed alterations could never, ever be reversed (irreversible) but rather that they should be fixed as a new arrangement but such fixture did not preclude a return to the present layout at some (perhaps long-hence) future date if that accorded with the wishes of the then congregation.
19. The Vicar further described the proposals as “being rooted in scriptural and pilgrim theology……. that the new sanctuary, at the same level as the chancel floor, would offer greater visibility to the whole congregation and be a theological statement about us becoming more a community constituted in collaboration, inclusion and equality…….”
20. In the Vicar’s second statement of 7th June 2010 he opined that after the experiments with nave altars and consideration of various schemes for re-ordering the church during the previous two incumbencies “the process in this parish is at a stage when a conclusion now needs to be reached so that the community can be released into a new phase of its mission.”. He thought that after “many years of uncertainty the congregation now has a critical mass of people who broadly agree on the way forward. There has been intense listening to contrary views and pastoral care for those that hold them.”
21. The Vicar went on to allude to the various learning opportunities the proposals would provide and, importantly, and that “to achieve a confidently reordered and refurbished church is not an end in itself but was one element in our Mission Action Planning.”
22. The Vicar also addressed the perceived lack of consultation objected to by some. He wrote “…..Sufficient people have had every opportunity to have their say both positively and negatively. The scheme has emerged from several years of congregational and PCC meetings” and matters have been discussed in Parish Magazine articles. He concluded “…the process of discernment has been well enough considered and that the intuition and judgement of the petitioners is trustworthy.”
23. The Vicar was cross-examined by Mr Teasdale in a way that I regret perhaps generated more heat than light. Suffice it to say that nothing transpired in cross-examination that caused me to doubt in any way the good faith, honesty, accuracy or reliability of any of the Vicar’s factual evidence which I accept in its totality. The Vicar’s theological evidence was only challenged in one minor respect which related to the scriptural authority concerning the taking of communion when standing. No evidence was put before me to enable me even to begin considering that question still less trying to answer it.
24. The petitioners called the architect, Mr Anthony Keith, who is clearly most experienced and has been concerned in re-ordering other churches. His witness statement, satisfactorily to my mind, dealt with Mr Cure’s concerns about the asbestos lagging to the pipes under the floor of the nave. The stone flooring would be laid directly on to the existing concrete under the present boards and in evidence he said that he thought it unlikely that they would come across the asbestos. Mr Keith, also comprehensively, answered Mr Teasdale’s suggestion that granite rather than limestone would be a better stone to use for the floor.
25. Mr William Walker, a retired chartered engineer, and former churchwarden, described the efforts of the past seven years, the previous feasibility study and the ultimate emergence of the present scheme. He convinced me that whilst there were a few people who were against some parts of the proposals there was now a substantial majority who wished to see this plan turned into reality and that, over the years, the PCC and the congregation had been kept well-informed on each of the three proposals made between 2003 and 2009 and had had ample opportunity to comment. He said that objectors apart only two people had expressed concerns to him.
26. Mrs Kate Stobart, Pastoral Warden, and the mother of two young children, spoke in favour of the proposals with particular reference to the support of the younger members of the congregation for the present scheme. She described the limitations of the existing layout of the building and the real need for change “to allow St Mary’s to continue delivering our Mission to the parish and wider community in a relevant and vibrant manner.” She said in her statement “I am confident that the Plans have the support of the majority of the congregation, especially among my contemporaries.”
27. Mrs Stobart was adamant that the font needed to be moved. In her witness statement she wrote: “…..The current arrangement has a number of problems. It is cramped, does not put the font in a prominent position and the wooden steps are rather dangerous if water is spilt on them during the service, especially for the person carrying the child. The proposals alleviate all these issues, although by moving the font further east you do reduce the capacity of the nave, unless the altar is moved to compensate. It is for this specific reason that I support the location of the nave altar between the ambos that will allow it to serve both the nave and the new chapel area and provide the increased nave space resulting from the moving of the font.”
28. Mr Teasdale challenged her views on the font in cross-examination but he was met with resolute resistance to any of his suggestions. She insisted that the existing two steps were more dangerous than what was planned and she was confident that the new scheme would make the church “much more inclusive.”
29. Mr Teasdale made a short opening statement on behalf of the objectors. He submitted that there had been no proper consultation, that the congregation had been “short-changed”, had been given misleading information and that discussion had not really been carried out. He said that following the trial period with the nave altar no debate had occurred; the PCC had simply decided. He suggested that there was no reasonable prospect of raising the very considerable amount of money these proposals would require within the foreseeable future.
30. The second objector, Mr John Cure, gave evidence. He adopted his statement of objection dated 11 June 2009 with its “Appendix to Form 4” dated 26 May 2009. His objections related to the proposed stone plinth and paving for an already existing nave altar and the omission or oversight of portable altar rails. His grounds were that a) he doubted the use of limestone as a flooring material as being compatible with the existing red brick and wood architecture; b) he thought that the introduction of a large area of limestone paving would restrict seating and general use of the nave; c) he was concerned that communicants might slip on the paving if candle wax had been dropped; d) he envisaged constructional problems with the taking up part of the wooden floor and replacing the same with concrete.
31. In his evidence Mr Cure estimated that it might require 10-15 tonnes of concrete as the base for the limestone paving. This, he suggested, would make the resulting stone sanctuary unalterable and therefore permanent. He questioned why there was a need for an alteration “so big, why of stone and so expensive?” It was, he said, an extravagance too far.
32. Mr Cure complained about the main 2009 meeting as being “skilfully arranged.” He said that whilst there had been a big introduction there had been very limited discussion. He felt that there had been a lack of accountability to the congregation. 33. Significantly however, Mr Cure conceded in cross-examination that he was not against there being a nave altar nor was he against the moving of the font.
34. Mr Alan Furness and his wife had been attending St Mary’s for over 30 years and had been heavily involved in the church’s activities. He confirmed his statement of 3 April 2010 and he too lamented what he saw as inadequate consultation. He suggested that these proposals could only be pursued following a clear and significant majority in a secret ballot. He believed that a considerable number of people were not persuaded of the need for change.
35. Mr Derek Hayes confirmed his statement of 10 April in which he set out his long and very close association with the church. He has held many offices including that of warden, treasurer, a member of the PCC, Property Services Chairman, was a member of the Redevelopment Group and he was by training an engineer. His experience as Property Services Chairman led him to conclude that the plans to build a concrete plinth should be abandoned. He said in his statement that during his time asbestos covering the water pipes in the cellar had been removed under specialist supervision. The Inspector who certified that the work had been carried out satisfactorily told him that “in no circumstances should we break the seal, lift the floorboards or disturb the pipes under the church floor because of the asbestos danger”.
36. Mr Hayes suggested that if the present proposals were to be implemented it would at best be both expensive and dangerous to revert to the present lay-out and at worst be impossible. He questioned the Vicar’s assertion to him that the present scheme could be reversed.
37. Mr Hayes resigned from the Development Group when it was clear that there would be no facilities for parishioners to kneel when taking communion. He said that he was always anxious not to cause schism within the parish.
38. Mrs Olive Margaret Campbell had been a worshipper at St Mary’s for 41 years, had been a churchwarden, is a member of the PCC and of Tynemouth Deanery Synod. She confirmed her statement of 13 April 2010. In broad terms she commented that the original rationale for the re-ordering had been lost. She argued that the present plans for the chancel and the east end of the nave had lost sight of the original objective which had been to create greater flexibility. The plinth for the nave altar at one end and moving the font further into the church would lessen the free space available. She felt that some consideration should have been given to introducing a movable font.
39. Mrs Campbell feared that the plinth would be too big and would be hazardous.
40. She did not object to a nave altar as such provided that the high altar would be used for major celebrations and that there should be some provision for communicants at the nave altar to receive communion standing or kneeling.
41. Mrs Campbell felt that the Marian blue colour of the apse should be retained and she was dissatisfied with what she saw as the lack of proper consultation particularly when so much money was to be spent at a time of economic stringency.
42. Mrs Christine Tompkins had also worshipped at St Mary’s for 41 years and had been a member of the choir for 37 years. In her statement of 8 March 2010 her major anxiety related to arrangements for the choir which, of course, is not the direct concern of this Petition. She did, however, feel that a nave altar was a useful addition but was opposed to the construction of a plinth at great expense which would irreversibly change the east end of the church in both nave and chancel. Above all she was worried about the expense of it all.
43. Mrs Dorothy Elliott wrote a statement dated 2 April 2010. She had worshipped at St Mary’s since 1974 but had resigned from the choir, with others, at Christmas 2009. She was clearly greatly upset by what had happened to the choir. So far as this case was concerned she was not in favour of a nave altar on a permanent plinth as she felt that this would be totally at odds with the idea of an open and flexible space. She commented “We have in this church a beautiful high altar set in an impressive apse where one can kneel in reverence (or stand) in one’s space with God to receive the sacrament. Filing along in a queue round the nave altar I feel, robs the occasion of both dignity and reverence.”
44. In her evidence she said that she would prefer to kneel to receive communion. She likened the experience of receiving at a nave altar as akin to “standing in a queue in the supermarket.”
45. Mr Teasdale concluded the witnesses called by the objectors by giving evidence himself. Mr Teasdale is an elected member of the Newcastle Diocesan Synod and by virtue of which he is a member of St Mary’s PCC.
46. Mr Teasdale confirmed the details set out in his statement of 4th June 2009. He had no objection to the up-dating of existing facilities. He had no objection in principle to a nave altar but felt that the proposals went much further than originally envisaged. He was unhappy about the removal of the chancel rails and was concerned that since the Archdeacon’s permission for a temporary nave altar - given in September 2007 - it had been used continuously. Communicants had had to stand to receive communion and there was no provision in the proposals for them to kneel. He was worried that if there were two different types of floor surfacing in the chancel “particularly if one is proud of, or raised above the other, it would create a hazard.” Finally he expressed unhappiness about the level of consultation with the Parish. He acknowledged that there had been consultation at the start of the present process in 2007 but that, over time, it had diminished. He regretted postponements of Parish meetings in 2008 until March 2009 and characterised the meeting on 29th March 2009 as being “for information not consultation.” The Development Group’s final proposals, he said, were revealed at the November 2008 meeting of the PCC which instructed the Group to prepare a Petition for a Faculty. Mr Teasdale attached to his statement a schedule of entries in the Parish Magazine relating to the chronology of events concerning the proposals.
Submissions 47. On behalf of the petitioners Mr Lax submitted:
a) The evidence was very persuasive in favour of the proposals. It demonstrated that over a long period of time the Parish had had the opportunity to contribute their thoughts and ideas and what had now emerged was the distillation of many years of deliberation.
b) The objectors’ assertion that the PCC had proceeded without any meaningful consultation could be refuted and he referred to the minutes of the PCC which demonstrated, he argued, that no one had ever suggested that there been inadequate consultation. He further submitted that congregational meetings had been attended by significant numbers of the Parish.
c) The evidence of Mr Walker and Mrs Stobart were good indicators of the development of the church’s mission and outreach. He suggested that the evidence showed that not all of the older members of the congregation took the same view as the objectors’ witnesses and he pointed to the existence of the young families and single people who were now newer members of the congregation.
d) The Vicar’s evidence was persuasive as to the reason for not having chancel rails. Mr Keith’s evidence effectively dealt with the objectors’ points on the asbestos and other safety issues. He suggested that the PCC had taken proper and appropriate advice on the nave altar sanctuary and that it was mistaken to suggest that the flexible use of the nave was in any way compromised.
e) The petitioners had always accepted that the views of the objectors were deeply felt and had been expressed honestly. However, those views were not those of the majority and did not represent the congregation as a whole. Inevitably there would always be some who did not share the views of the PCC and, further, the PCC had acted appropriately throughout. This was an opportunity to renew and enhance their building for the benefit of all church community activities . f) Despite the fact that this was a contested Petition the reality was that both Mr Teasdale and Mr Cure were supportive of the vast majority of the scheme.
g) Finally, the DAC had given its certificate of approval.
48. On behalf of the objectors Mr Teasdale submitted:
a) There had been no proper consultation. There had been no robust way of obtaining the views of the Parish and, consequently, what the Parish thought was not known. Notices had been addressed to the worshipping congregation and not the Parish at large.
b) This was a far too expensive project to be engaged upon. A number of previous schemes had collapsed for lack of funds and thousands had been spent on schemes which never had a hope of success.
c) This would be a permanent change. If this proved to be a “ghastly mistake” it would be difficult to reverse it.
d) The objectors were not against a nave altar in principle but the present proposals were out of all proportion to what was required to provide a nave altar.
e) This application should be “out of court” because the scheme was irreversible. St Mary, Banbury [1987] 1AER 247 and St Luke the Evangelist, Maidstone [1995] 1AER 321 were cited.
Decision 49. Despite what might have appeared first to have been the case the degree of difference between the petitioners and the objectors was, in truth, relatively limited.
Nave altar. Although both objectors had initially stated that they were opposed to the provision of a nave altar by the time the hearing had concluded it was clear that neither had any objection in principle. There were no theological, liturgical or principled objections to a nave altar. The objections raised were to specific aspects of this particular proposal. Their concerns related to the absence of altar rails, to the fact that communicants would have to receive standing and could not kneel, that the plinth projected too far into the nave, and that for a variety of other reasons already mentioned a safety hazard would have been created.
I am completely satisfied that the specific proposals relating to the provision of a nave altar have the support of the parish as a whole, that there is no objection either theologically, liturgically or in principle to a nave altar and such objections that have been raised are not of sufficient weight to justify my refusal to grant a Faculty.
Font. Only one minor objection – the reduction in nave space - to moving the font has been made and in my judgment it has been more than countered by the evidence of Mrs Stobart which highlighted the risk of harm the present position creates. I accept the petitioners’ submissions.
Expense. The objectors have questioned the very considerable expense – over £500.000 – the proposals are likely to cost. Equally the petitioners are alert to the mammoth fund-raising efforts their scheme is going to demand. I, too, have a concern as to how such sums are going to be raised particularly when the country is already experiencing real economic difficulty and will continue to do so for some years to come. However, the means of financing this scheme once it has been adjudged to be in all other respects a proper one is not a matter for this Court. The petitioners recognise that the scheme will have to be carried out in phases and have prepared an appropriate schedule for the staging of the work. It is not my intention to be prescriptive as to how the work should be phased or the scheme implemented.
Consultation. Having read all the papers in this case and after having listened to the evidence called I have come to the firm conclusion that what has motivated the objectors to take the line that they have is their perception that there has been no adequate consultation. That, it seems to me, has been their driving force.
I am in no doubt that this is a thoroughly genuine view held by them in good faith and has not been advanced out of a desire to make mischief or just to be awkward. Indeed, the petitioners themselves have recognised the objectors’ bona fides throughout the long history of these proceedings.The burden of proof lies on the petitioners who are seeking a change to the status quo and the standard they must achieve is proof on the balance of probabilities. The desires of the parishioners are of considerable weight and the general approach of the Consistory Court is - that all other things being equal - the wishes of the majority of the parishioners should generally prevail.
The difficulty always, of course, is determining what those wishes are. Here the objectors submit that there is a considerable body of opinion opposed to the proposals, that there has been insufficient consultation and that, in truth, no one can say what the real views of the Parish are. A ballot might have been held and it has not been. On the other hand the petitioners point to the publicity they have given the proposals, the congregational meetings they have held, the affirmative resolution of the PCC and the evidence they have called of the widespread parochial support for these proposals.
Mindful that the objectors will never be reconciled to the petitioners’ view of what has happened I have asked myself whether or not the petitioners have taken all reasonable steps to consult and take the views of the Parish. I am satisfied that they have. I am not persuaded that they should have done more and I am entirely sure from all the evidence that these proposals have the approval of the vast majority of those people associated with St Mary’s. Perfect unanimity can never be achieved and far-reaching proposals such as these are bound to cause dissenting voices. In my judgment the dissenting voices heard in this case are very much minority ones and are not representative of the parish as a whole. They cannot hold sway over the undoubted majority.
One of the advantages of the Faculty procedure is the requirement to display the Public Notice of the proposals for a period of one month and which, in effect, invites comments from outside the church-going community. So far as I know the notice displayed here has not produce any responses.
Is the scheme irreversible? The two authorities cited by Mr Teasdale related to churches which were listed as being of “special architectural or historic interest.” St Mary’s, of course, does not fall within that category. It is, however, right to remark that in St Mary, Banbury the Dean of the Arches said p255, c “(iii) whether a church is so listed or not a chancellor should always have in mind……………. a change which is permanent and cannot be reversed is particularly to be avoided.” (My emphasis). I have that approach well in mind.
It is undoubtedly the case that here the change is intended to be permanent and not just temporary. It is, however, not the position that the proposed work, when completed, could never be undone. It might be expensive to reverse what will have been done but these proposals are not in themselves irreversible . The approach I have adopted (and, indeed, would have adopted even if I had concluded that the scheme was irreversible) is that a Faculty should be granted unless there are good reasons for saying that it should not be. Here there are no good reasons for saying that this Faculty should not be granted.
Accordingly, it follows from what has gone before that a Faculty will issue as prayed subject to:
i) the condition imposed by the DAC requiring the introduction of another colour, or a pattern, into the carpeting to be considered and a further submission made to the DAC; ii) confirmation from the DAC that it does not wish to alter the certificate given in respect of the said works and iii) the said works to be completed within five years from the date hereof or such other extended period as may be allowed.
As is customary in these cases I make no order as to costs.
Dated this 6th day of September 2010 18 |
 Printable Version |