Graves

In August 2024, the Chancellor had granted a faculty for the reservation of a grave space for a Mrs. Bowers, even though there were only enough graves left for the next three years. At the same time as Mrs. Bowers had applied to reserve a grave, a Mrs. Parke, aged 83, who had lived in the parish for 25 years, had applied to reserve a grave next to the grave of her husband, but the processing of her application had been delayed for various reasons. Since the granting of the faculty to Mrs. Bowers, the Parochial Church Council (“PCC”) had discussed passing a resolution not to support any further reservations. In fact no resolution had been passed, and the matter was on the agenda for the PCC meeting in November 2024. The Chancellor decided in the circumstances it would not be appropriate to treat Mrs. Parke’s application other than in the same way as Mrs. Bower’s application, and he therefore granted a faculty, subject (inter alia) to a condition requiring the PCC to pass a resolution not to support any further grave space reservations.

Two related petitions sought the reservation of grave spaces in the churchyard of St. John’s, Cumwhinton. Mrs Patricia Briggs (aged 79) applied for a double-depth plot for herself and her husband, and her daughter, Joanne Briggs, sought a separate reservation. All petitioners owned or occupied property in the parish and both petitions were supported by the District Church Council. The difficulty was uncertainty about remaining burial capacity. One petition stated that the churchyard was likely to suffice for around ten years, while a later petition referred to “5+” years. The churchwarden explained that the churchyard plan was out of date, although some additional space had become available following the loss of a large tree and further options were being explored. The Chancellor applied the principles summarised in Re St Mary, Thame and the test of “exceptional circumstances” articulated in Re St Peter, Hilton. No circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” had been identified, and the petitioners had not advanced any exceptional justification. Taking into account the petitioners’ local connections, the support of the DCC, and the possibility of increasing burial space, the Chancellor granted both petitions but limited each reservation to ten years.

Eltham churchyard was closed by Order in Council. The cremated remains of the petitioner's father had been interred near the west end of the church in 1961 and the interment was marked by a memorial stone measuring 18 inches by 12 inches. In 1989, the incumbent agreed with the petitioner and her mother, that their ashes could in due time be interred next to the ashes of the petitioner's father, though there was only room for one more commemoration on the memorial. The petitioner's mother died in 2020 and her cremated remains were interred under her husband's memorial stone. The petitioner sought a faculty, (1) to secure the arrangement agreed with the incumbent in 1989, so that her own cremated remains could in due time be buried next to those of her parents, (2) to permit a further stone next to the memorial to her parents; and (3) to replace the existing stone, which had weathered badly. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space. It was estimated that there were enough grave spaces in the churchyard for a period of 11 years. The Chancellor had given a preliminary indication that he was prepared to grant a reservation for 11 years, but the petitioner had objected to such a short period. The normal period allowed in the Diocese of Oxford was 25 years. The Chancellor determined that a faculty should be granted to reserve a grave for 11 years, giving the petitioner leave to apply for an extension during the final year, when the Chancellor's successor could decide whether to allow an extension, depending on the circumstances at that time.

The petitioner, a non-parishioner, wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for herself and her partner, next to the plot in which her father was buried. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. There were only 50 available spaces, and burials averaged 7 a year. The petitioner, aged 31, was unlikely to die before the remaining spaces were required within about 7 years' time by those legally entitled to be buried in the churchyard, and so a reservation would prevent parishioners being buried in the remaining spaces.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. She had lived in a house overlooking the churchyard for 51 years. Her mother was buried in the churchyard and it was proposed that in due time her father would be buried in the same grave as her mother. In February 2017 the Parochial Church Council had resolved unanimously that it would not support

This judgment related to two separate faculty petitions by husband and wife for the reservation of adjoining grave spaces. The couple, in their early to mid-seventies, were resident in the parish, the wife had served on the Parochial Church Council for 25 years and as a churchwarden for 10 years, and the couple worshipped in the church and financially supported it. It was estimated that there was sufficient burial space in the churchyard for at least 15 years. A former churchwarden objected to the two particular plots being reserved, claiming that one of the plots contained a Victorian grave and the other was likely to contain the remains of a medieval cross. However, the objector was unable to produce any evidence of his claims. The Chancellor requested that the plots should rodded, and it was found that there was nothing to obstruct burials. In view of this and the petitioners' strong connections with the church, the Chancellor granted faculties limited to a period of 20 years.

The petitioner sought a faculty to reserve a single-depth grave space in the churchyard. She lived in the parish, was an active member of the local community, had supported the church financially and practically, and wished in due course to be buried in the same churchyard as her late partner, whose funeral had taken place there. The petition was supported by the PCC. The difficulty was the acute shortage of burial space. The petition acknowledged that the churchyard was likely to serve parishioners for only about three further years. In those circumstances, the law governing grave reservations where space is scarce applied, as summarised in Re St Mary, Thame, and the petitioner was required to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”, meaning that her case was “markedly out of the ordinary”. The Chancellor accepted the sincerity and depth of the petitioner’s attachment to the church and community and fully understood her wish for reassurance as to her future burial. However, such attachments were not uncommon among parishioners and could not, of themselves, justify prejudicing the burial rights of others. The petition did not meet the required test and was therefore refused.

The petitioners sought faculties to reserve grave spaces in the churchyard, where it was estimated that only four years’ burial capacity remained. All petitions had PCC support; one was objected to by another petitioner, though in respectful terms. The Chancellor reviewed the principles in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 and related authorities, which establish that where space is limited, faculties will not normally be granted unless exceptional circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” are shown. The burden lay on each petitioner. Mr. Bainbridge, on the electoral roll and with strong family connections, relied on his lifelong association with the church and community service. Mr. McAllen, a former vicar, pointed to over a decade’s ministry and continued worship. Mr. Wolstencroft, a parishioner of 65 years and long-serving lay leader, emphasised his extensive service. The Chancellor recognised all three as having longstanding and valuable ties with the church but concluded that none demonstrated circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify grave reservations where capacity was so restricted. With regret, all three petitions were refused. No criticism of character or parish connection was intended.

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.