Churchyards

In 2007 the Parochial Church Council passed a resolution implementing a policy of restricting the interment of ashes in the closed churchyard to those of people on the electoral roll at their death and whose names has been on the roll continuously for at least the last ten years; also that no further memorial stones should be permitted. The petitioner wished to have his wife's cremated remains interred in a new plot and a memorial plaque placed over the plot. The petitioner's wife had been on the electoral roll for three years, but the family had worshipped at the church for many years and members of the family were buried in the churchyard, with the burials marked by memorials. The Chancellor stated that the PCC's policy could not override his discretion and granted a faculty for the interment and memorial.

The proposals were for a major re-ordering of the churchyard, which included the removal of a section of the 19th century churchyard wall included in the Grade I listing of the church, the creation of a piazza with seating and a new parking area. The reason for the proposed removal of a section of the wall was to open the church up to the adjoining public square, so as to allow for greater community use of the square and churchyard. The Victorian Society objected strongly to the removal of the wall, but did not wish to be a party opponent. Looking at the wider context of a growing church and a developing and culturally growing city, the Chancellor determined that the significant potential benefits of the scheme to the church and community would outweigh the moderate loss which would be caused by the development.

This judgment is supplemental to the judgments in two earlier faculty applications relating to a project by Highways England ("HE") to widen the highway next to the churchyard. The first faculty, allowed for archaeological works to be carried out in that part of the churchyard required for road-widening. The second faculty allowed for landscaping works to be carried out. In addition, HE had been given licence to occupy part of the churchyard, but the licence had expired in March 2021. Since then, HE had been carrying out further preliminary groundworks not covered by the licence. They now sought an interim faculty to continue with works under a Development Consent Order, pending the completion of a Pastoral Scheme to transfer the land to HE. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The church is surrounded on three sides by iron railings with a bar at the top surmounted by finials in the shape of a fleur-de-lys. In 2014 a child climbed the fence in an attempt to recover a frisbee, which had flown into the churchyard. The child slipped and impaled his head on one of the finials, causing damage to his jaw. The PCC sought to remove the risk of another similar incident by seeking permission to place a bar across the tops of the finials. Notwithstanding that the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve the proposal, but suggested alternatives, the Chancellor granted a faculty.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought permission to reuse for burials three specific areas of the churchyard where there were no memorials and no evidence of recent burials. The Chancellor considered that it was appropriate to grant a faculty to allow reburial, rather than have the churchyard closed for burials after the remaining space for five new graves in the currently used part of the churchyard had been filled. As it appeared that the risk of encountering human remains was greatest in area 3, the Chancellor directed that areas 1 and 2 should be used first. The Chancellor added a number of other conditions to the grant of the faculty.

Faculty granted for the erection of metal railings surmounted by Raptor anti-scaling barrier on the north and west sides of the churchyard, as a security measure to prevent further lead thefts.

The Court of Arches held that, where a local authority was responsible for a closed churchyard, a parish council had sufficient interest to intervene in faculty proceedings concerning the laying flat of memorials there. Where memorials had been laid flat, the duty on the local authority to maintain the churchyard included an obligation to take into account the safety of memorials and the appearance of the churchyard, but a district council was under no duty to reinstate memorials it had laid flat. (This case is fully reported at [20o9] PTSR 968.)

Mill Road Cemetery in Cambridge, which was closed in two stages in 1904 and 1949, and has since been maintained by Cambridge City Council (“CCC”), is owned by the incumbents of several parishes in the City of Cambridge. CCC applied for a general faculty to carry out further maintenance of the cemetery. The Chancellor considered that there was merit in reducing the need for the Consistory Court to be involved in the faculty process whenever works were needed outside those normally permitted without faculty. He therefore granted a faculty.

Following a complaint by a parishioner, there were two petitions relating to the churchyards of two parishes. The Rector and Churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty to allow the retention of several grave markers and other items which have been introduced without lawful authority, either because the Rector had allowed items to be introduced which were outside the delegated authority he had under the churchyards regulations or because items had been installed without his permission first being sought. In his judgment, the Chancellor emphasised the importance of clergy complying with their responsibilities under the regulations. The Chancellor granted a faculty with conditions requiring that several items should be removed from graves in the two churchyards.

The University of Oxford proposed a redevelopment of the site of the former Radcliffe Infirmary burial ground, which had been consecrated in 1770. The University therefore petitioned for the exhumation and subsequent reinterment of the human remains contained in the burial ground. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which restricted building on disused burial grounds, did not apply, owing to an exception in the Act which excluded burial grounds transferred by statute (the site having been transferred to to the Minister of Health under the National Health Service Act 1946). He was also satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation, namely, the public benefit to be derived from using the land for academic purposes.