Graves

he petitioner wished to reserve a grave next to that of her late husband. Since before the interment of the petitioner's late husband, the Parochial Church Council had had an informal policy of not supporting any further reservations of graves, in view of the small number of available grave spaces left in the detached burial ground. The Chancellor decided that this was not a case where there were special circumstances to justify him in acting against the established policy of the PCC. He therefore refused to grant a faculty to reserve the grave next to the petitioner's late husband's grave. However, in a note attached to the petition, the Chancellor recorded that he had had a discussion with the parish priest with a view to seeing what could be done by way of pastoral provision. The parish priest agreed that the gravespace next to the grave of the petitioner's husband would be the last space to be used in this burial ground, unless before then it came to be used for the interment of the remains of the petitioner.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

Faculty refused for the reservation of a grave space for the petitioner's children, none of whom had a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The PCC objected on the ground that the grave would be in the way of a proposed extension to the churchyard, and the Team Rector, for the same reason, would not give consent. The Chancellor stated that, where a person does not have a legal right of burial, the consent of the incumbent is required.

The Chancellor refused to grant faculties for the reservation of two separate grave spaces in the churchyard, notwithstanding that the applicants had connections with the church. The churchyard was likely to be full within 5 years. The Chancellor said that the remaining spaces must be filled by the burial of individuals with a right of burial or a strong connection with the church in the order in which they die, until such time as the churchyard becomes full.

The Petitioners sought to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their daughter. The priest in charge and churchwardens became parties opponent, objecting to the reservation on the grounds that the PCC had for many years had a policy of resisting the reservation of gravespaces and of operating a “first come first served” approach, which many parishioners had followed. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the basis that, where there was a long-standing PCC policy in place, he should not override that policy unless there was an exceptional reason for doing so. To grant a faculty in this case "would be to create the risk of real injustice to others who in circumstances of loss have themselves accepted the existing policy".

The petitioners, who had lived in the parish since 1978, applied to reserve a double grave. At an unspecified date since 1978, the PCC had adopted a policy of not supporting future grave reservations. The Chancellor granted a faculty, as he was satisfied that the couple had been given the impression before the policy was adopted that they would be able to be buried in the churchyard: "It would be unreasonable, in my view in all the circumstances not to honour that indication."

The petitioners wished to reserve a single-width, double-depth grave space. They did not live in the parish, but attended the church occasionally and supported the church financially. Some parishioners objected to graves being reserved, saying that interments should be on a "first come, first served" basis. The Chancellor determined that it was appropriate to grant a faculty in this case: the petitioners had shown a sufficient connection with the church; at the time when the petition was lodged, the PCC had no formal policy about grave reservations; the PCC had supported the petition; and there was space in the churchyard for 20-30 years of burials.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of a grave space for 20 years, rather than for the customary 50 years. In view of the number of spaces available and the rate of interments, the graveyard could be full and closed before a longer reservation would need to be exercised. The Chancellor gave the petitioner leave to apply for an extension of the period of 20 years within six months of its expiry.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of a double depth grave space for the  period of 50 years usually allowed. He distinguished this case from Re St. Mark Ocker Hill Tipton [2022] ECC Lic 4, where he limited the reservation for 20 years, because the graveyard could be full and closed before a longer reservation would need to be exercised; in the present case, one of the joint petitioners was terminally ill, so that the double plot would be in use quite soon.