A church in Norfolk has won a battle to keep its new, modern chairs despite the objections of a leading heritage group that says they are 'cheap' and 'dumpy'.
St Nicholas Church in Fundenhall illegally spent £3,053 last September on 50 chairs which are made of brown faux leather with brushed gold-coloured frames. The chairs were described as 'crude' by the Victorian Society.
The church council had previously been allowed to remove the church's pews as part of a refurbishment, but it did not have permission to buy the chairs.
Now it has been allowed to keep them for ten years, after a church court found that it would take too long to fund-raise for replacements.
The Victorian Society criticised the decision, saying that the court had enabled 'unjustified harm to historic churches'. Thesociety said that the chairs were similar to those used as a 'banqueting chair in marquees'.
It added: 'The design of the frame is crude, with the extruded aluminium sections lacking any elegance, and the simple large radius curves of the design having a child-like quality. The thick upholstered seat pads, and the way in which they curve down at the front of the seat, make the chairs appear very dumpy. The matt-'gold effect' finish is a cheap one in a church with a palette of high-quality natural materials.'
The Chancellor of the Diocese of Norwich, Ruth Arlow, said that she had learned of the church's decision to buy the chairs with 'concern and disappointment'.
However, she added that parishioners 'like their appearance and the comfort that they afford' and had made an effort to choose chairs of 'high durability and wipe-clean finish of an appropriate shade'.
She also praised the work of the council in repairing the church and said that it badly needed the refurbishment.
Following the ruling, the Victorian Society said it would have appealed the result except for the 'excellent work' done by the parish in rescuing the church.
The society's director, Christopher Costelloe told Telegraph, 'This is not the first occasion in we have intervened in a case in which the parish has ignored court rules, and the response of the church court has been to allow them to get away with it. The legal reasoning in the judgment for accepting the parish's damaging choice of chair seems gossamer-thin.'
