Neutral Citation Number: [2025] ECC Lic 1
IN THE CONSISTORY COURT OF THE DIOCESE OF LICHFIELD
ALL SAINTS, DARLASTON
ON THE PETITION OF REV. GILBERT DAVID
JUDGMENT
1. I grant a confirmatory Faculty in this petition (Darlaston: All Saints (620168) ref 2025-108809). I have determined this petition because the Deputy Chancellor to whom it would have been allocated, and who granted an Interim Faculty, is on paternity leave.
2. Whereas the confirmatory Faculty was unopposed, a judgment is required because I have departed from the advice of the Diocesan Advisory Committee (“DAC”), which did not recommend approval.
3. The issue is purely technical: the sealant used in the repair of a portion of the church roof.
4. The formal advice of DAC was as follows: “A DAC architect has carefully considered the information provided, and understands that the sealant is rigid. In relation to which, sealing the joints with CT1 is unlikely to be effective, as the copper is subject to thermal movement, which will crack the sealant. It may be satisfactory for an emergency week or so, but cannot be relied upon after this.” (Quoted from “Notification of Advice”)
5. I am grateful for the advice of DAC and Mr Mark Stewart, the DAC Architect. Had this been a prospective petition, rather than a confirmatory one, that advice could have been followed and an alternative sealant approved. This now being a confirmatory petition presents practical issues in refusal: in effect, the work would have to be redone now at significant expense. I considered it was necessary, therefore, to investigate further.
6. Inquiries were made of the roofer who carried out the works, B.W. Roofing Limited. The response was that: “CT1 is known for its strong bond and ability to adhere to a wide range of materials, including copper, without the need for additional fixings. It is a hybrid polymer that can be used for various applications, including plumbing, construction, and even in wet environments. CT1 is also
known for its resistance to chemicals, UV, and vibrations. We used ct1 to bond the lifted copper seals together to stop any water ingress, it's transparent so didn't affect the appearance of the copper. In the event of any water ingress or leaks to the copper roof we would come out to repair roof and any damage caused. Should the ct1 or sealant ever need to be removed it can be done with a plastic scrapper without damaging it.”
7. It appears, therefore, that there is a difference of opinion between the DAC advisor and the roofer as to the qualities of the sealant.
8. I note, however, that the roofer had quoted for the works under the Interim Faculty on the basis of a “15 year guarantee”. This may account for the comment: “In the event of any water ingress or leaks to the copper roof we would come out to repair roof and any damage caused.”
9. On balance, therefore, I do not consider I need resolve the dispute of the suitability of CT1. I will grant the confirmatory Faculty and require that the Petitioner ensures that the Parish retains a copy of the quotation with its guarantee, and other documents, and regular inspects for any sign that the sealant is failing. By these means the parish will be spared the expense of re-doing the works and the risk of CT1 failure will burden the roofer and not the church.
Dr ANTHONY VERDUYN
CHANCELLOR OF THE DIOCESE OF LICHFIELD
11th July 2025