Churchyards

The parish wished to fence in a grassed area of the modern, unlisted church’s land in order to provide a safer outdoor space for children’s church activities and for community groups using this open space. There were two objections from neighbouring residents, alleging nuisance from noise created by those already using the church land. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a clear and convincing justification for the proposed works and granted a faculty, making it clear that deciding upon questions of nuisance was a matter for the civil courts, rather than the consistory court.

The churchwardens wished to introduce into the churchyard a statue of King Richard III (who is reputed to have attended mass at the church on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485), as part of a scheme promoted by a group called Bosworth 1485 to create a 12-mile sculpture trail linking sites connected with the battle. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that there would be minimal harm to the setting of the church.

The Parochial Church Council wished to carry out works extending the church hall, next to the southern boundary of the churchyard, in order to improve the facilities that it affords for uses that are ancillary to the church and for wider community use. The proposed works included removal of two trees; relocation of memorials; removal and rebuilding gate post; resurfacing of the path. Letters of objection were submitted by eight parishioners, of whom one withdrew and two became formal objectors. The Chancellor stated that the test to be applied was not the test laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2001] (which applied to listed buildings) but the test set out by Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]: "All presumption is to be made in favour of things as they stand.  If you and others propose to alter them, the burden is cast upon you to shew that you will make things better than they are – that the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before; and if you cannot shew this to the court, at least shew the court that a majority of those for whose worship the church exists desires the alterations which you propose." The Chancellor determined that the test had been satisfied. Faculty granted.

The petitioners sought permission to replace a bench surrounding a tree in the churchyard. They submitted with the petition a report by a firm of arboriculturalists, which indicated that the tree was in a dangerous condition and should be removed. The Chancellor gave directions that he would not grant permission unless the petitioners were able to produce evidence that the tree was not as dangerous as had been suggested in the report. The petitioners submitted a report from a tree expert employed by the borough council, who said that the tree was basically sound, showed "excellent signs of vitality", and a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment had suggested that risk was at a tolerable level. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new bench, subject to some lower branches of the tree being removed, as recommended by the borough council tree expert.

The petition proposed various landscaping works in the churchyard, relating to the addition of a churchyard extension. There was a single objection to the removal of a line of fir trees. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the proposed works.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the current church hall situated within the churchyard (a 1960s building, intended to be temporary and now in need of replacement) with a new single-storey hall, of which one elevation would be faced with brick to match the Victorian church building and the other elevations would be clad in timber.

The petitioners proposed a 21-space car park in the churchyard of the Victorian Grade II church, in order to formalise existing parking arrangements. There was a shortage of available parking for visitors to the church and parish centre and parking in the churchyard already occurred. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works were designed to “have a low impact visually and to protect the grass surface of the churchyard, to minimise disturbance of grave sites and to fulfil an obvious need for visitors to the church”.

The works proposed were for the construction of below ground drainage infrastructure in the churchyard, east of the chancel, to facilitate the future installation of toilets in the church, which would be the subject of a separate faculty petition. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council wished to fell and grind out the roots of a holly tree and to repair a collapsed section of the churchyard wall. A parishioner objected that the removal of the tree was unnecessary; that judicious pruning would allow the wall to be rebuilt; and that the cost was excessive. The proposal was recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, a tree specialist and the church's inspecting architect. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the removal of the tree and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition for a replacement planting in the churchyard.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the felling of a sycamore tree. The petitioners had claimed that the work was necessary because the tree’s roots were damaging the churchyard retaining wall and the foundations of the church. In giving his judgment, the Chancellor set out the legal and practical aspects which should be taken into account when determining an application to remove a tree from a churchyard.