Judgment Search

Churchyards

Display:

During the parish priest's absence, whilst attending a course, a burial took place in the closed churchyard. Prior to his absence, the priest had told the funeral director and the family that a burial could not take place, unless in accordance with one of the exceptions in the Order in Council closing the churchyard for burials, namely: (1) where a grave had been reserved by faculty; (2) where a person could be buried in the same grave as a relative. (Also, cremated remains can be buried in a closed churchyard.) The funeral director arranged for the deceased to be buried next to the deceased's brother in a tight space between two graves. The Chancellor determined that the interment was unlawful, and could not be made lawful retrospectively by the Ministry of Justice or the court, but he decided that no action should be taken to disturb the burial or to refer the matter for police investigation.

The Vicar and a churchwarden applied for a faculty to authorise retrospectively the laying flat in the churchyard of 51 memorials which had been found to be unstable in 2015 and also to authorise the laying flat of memorial stones deemed to be unstable by a future inspection. There had been much disquiet locally about the laying flat of so many memorials in 2015, and the Chancellor was concerned that there had not been adequate notification to families who might have been contacted prior to the laying down of the memorials. However, he granted a faculty, subject to a condition that in future no memorial should be laid flat without the express approval of the Archdeacon.

Staff of the Leeds City Council instructed its workmen to erect a fence along the perimeter of the closed churchyard (for which the Council was responsible), to prevent a recurrence of recent anti-social behaviour, involving youths standing on the churchyard wall and throwing stones at traffic. The Council did so without first seeking a faculty or planning consent from its own planning department, even though a meeting had been arranged for interested parties to discuss the best fencing solution. The Chancellor took "a dim view of the petitioner’s conduct in this matter, notwithstanding that it may have originally been animated by an understandable sense of civic responsibility ... the execution of that good intention was characterised by ineptitude, discourtesy and illegality". However, notwithstanding the failings of the Council, the Chancellor decided that a Confirmatory Faculty should be granted.

The Team Rector, a churchwarden and a deputy churchwarden applied for a confirmatory faculty for “retrospective approval for a prayer walk in the wooded area of the churchyard, including the introduction of a path, carved mushrooms inscribed with prayers and artwork designed following a study day.” The Public Notice resulted in two letters of objection, but there were no parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that the works were appropriate and directed the issue of a confirmatory faculty.

The petitioners wished to obtain permission to remove from the churchyard all items that were not allowed under the churchyards regulations, such as "figurine gnomes, garden gnomes, figurine angels, cupids, balloons, and solar lamps, etc." together with rose bushes and other shrubs planted on graves. There were several letters of objection, but no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty: "As a matter of logic and common sense, since there are regulations in force, it would be manifestly absurd to have them broken as each person deems fit ... In my judgment it is not proper for a person to take the law into his own hands, and then cry 'foul' when action is taken against him."

Application for a Faculty for the replacement of existing structures in the churchyard of a redundant church appropriated by a pastoral scheme for the use of an Oxford college. The work to include a new gardener’s office, greenhouse and cold frames and three storerooms and the removal of existing sheds and other structures, new bicycle stands to replace old ones, new fencing and the relocation of six monuments. Faculty granted for relocation of memorials and for only such other items as could not be regarded as "buildings" within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which prohibits the erection of buildings within a disused burial ground.

The proposal was to construct a ramp at the front of a 1960s church, facing an access from the road, in order to allow step-free access to the front of the church for the disabled. Objections were based on the design of the ramp, the possibility of its use by skateboarders and consequent safety issues, the fact that there was step-free access to the church from the car park at the rear, and difficulties of loading and unloading at the front of the church. Faculty granted.

The Chancellor determined to grant a faculty to allow part of the churchyard to be reused for burials, but proposed to stay the issue of the faculty until the parish had considered whether to ask for a set of bespoke churchyard regulations limiting the types of stone which could be used for memorials, in order to preserve the character of the unique setting of the small country church set in the middle of a field.

The churchwardens sought a faculty to authorise the felling of a Scots Pine tree. Two adults had recently been hit by falling pine cones, and there was a concern for the safety of children who used the footpaths next to the tree for access to pre-school events or the Sunday school. Two objectors (who did not become parties opponent) claimed that the loss of the tree would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that a replacement tree of a species approved by the archdeacon should be planted during the current or next growing season at a location approved by the archdeacon.

The petition sought the removal of a row of conifers from the southern boundary of the churchyard and the planting of a hedge of the same kind as that along the eastern boundary. A neighbour objected, principally, on the grounds that the removal of the conifers would affect the privacy of his garden on the opposite side of the driveway between the conifers and his property. The Chancellor was satisfied that there would be little invasion of privacy, in view of the hedge separating the objector's garden from the driveway. The Chancellor accepted the reasons given by the petitioners for the works and granted a faculty.