Judgments Recently Received
Click on a citation to view the judgment.
Re St. John the Baptist Belleau [2025] ECC Lin 1
The petitioner’s son had died as a result of a house fire in 1992. Not wishing for cremation for her son at the time, the petitioner arranged for his body to be buried in the churchyard at Belleau. The petitioner’s father had tended to grave until he was no longer able to do so, since when the grave had become difficult to visit, due to problems in the churchyard, including sunken graves, molehills and red ants. The petitioner now wished to have her son’s body exhumed, cremated and ashes interred in the grave of his grandmother, where the petitioner hoped in due time to have her own ashes interred. The Chancellor decided that the creation of the family grave was a sufficient exceptional reason to allow exhumation and reinterment.
Re St. Paul Caton-with-Littledale [2025] ECC Bla 2
The Petitioners, aged 79 and 81, both resident within the parish and on the church electoral roll, applied for the reservation of a double burial plot for the usual period (in the Diocese of Blackburn) of 25 years. Sufficient space remained within the churchyard for some five years’ future burials, but additional land was available for consecration. In 2023, the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") had decided that it would not support new faculties for grave reservations. However, at a meeting in April 2025, the PCC decided to support the present petition. Bearing in mind the PCC's decision, the availability of additional land and the age of the petitioners, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the full period of 25 years.
Re Tuxford War Memorial [2025] ECC S&N 1
A private individual applied for a faculty to authorise the cleaning of the war memorial in Tuxford churchyard and the re-colouring of the inscriptions. The Chancellor highlighted various difficulties presented by the matter: the status of the petitioner; the fact that originally the question as to ownership of the memorial had not been investigated; what should be the recommended method of cleaning; what should be the appropriate colouring of the lettering; and whether (as the memorial was listed Grade II) Listed Building Consent would be required. The Chancellor accepted that the petition had a sufficient interest to present the petition and that investigations after the lodging of the petition to establish ownership were unsuccessful. He granted a faculty authorising the cleaning of the memorial with plain water or steam cleaning and the re-colouring of the lettering only on a like-for-like basis. He also required that no work should be done until the local authority had confirmed in writing that Listed Building consent would not be required.
Re St. Michael & All Angels Woolmer Green [2025] ECC StA 1
The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents, who were part of the Travelling Community. The proposed memorial was to be polished blue pearl granite, with a cover slab with rounded steps and built-in vases. The design included gilded lettering, a carved angel draped over the upright stone, three-dimensional carved climbing roses and inlaid photographs. The original design put forward was, however, amended: the three-dimensional climbing roses were replaced with discreet climbing roses lower down on the headstone; the stone specification was changed to honed light grey granite; the shape of the upright stone was amended; the urns and photographs were omitted; and the angel design was simplified. The Chancellor decided that the amended specification should be approved: “I consider that an appropriate balance has been struck in this case between allowing expression of cultural traditions and beliefs of the Travelling Community and taking into consideration the needs of the settled community.”
Re Chew Magna Churchyard [2025] ECC B&W 2
A breach of the churchyards regulations had been referred to the Chancellor. A memorial had been installed in the churchyard, without waiting for the Rector’s decision, and the design included a red poppy with green leaves. The regulations did not permit coloured motifs. Although the lady who ordered the memorial for her husband’s grave from a local stonemason was not aware of the regulations, the Chancellor pointed out that the stonemason should have been aware of the regulations and should have informed his client that approval was needed from the Chancellor for a coloured motif. The lady had requested a red poppy, as her husband had been involved for 15 years in collecting funds for the British Legion. On compassionate grounds, the Chancellor decided that the colouring of the red poppy could remain, but that the green colouring should be removed and either that part of the design left uncoloured or painted in a manner permitted by the Regulations.
Re St. Mary East Molesey [2025] ECC Gui 1
The petitioners wished to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to it s perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”. The Chancellor granted a faculty.
Re St. Paul Bentley Common [2025] ECC Chd 1
The petitioner’s son committed suicide in 2013. The family had lived since 1971 at Blackmore in Essex. The petitioner’s son’s ashes were not buried in Blackmore, because it was alleged that the then incumbent would not conduct a funeral there. The Petitioner and her husband therefore arranged for their son’s ashes to be buried at Bentley Common, where other members of the family had been buried. After the death of her husband, whose ashes were buried at Blackmore, the petitioner wished to have her son’s ashes exhumed and buried in his father’s grave, where the petitioner also wished to have her own remains buried in due course. The Chancellor decided that there were special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty: the petitioner’s son had never lived at Bentley Common, nor indicated that he wished to be buried there; Blackmore was his home; reinterment at Blackmore would create a family grave; and at the time of the son’s death the situation at Blackmore had been far from ideal.
Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2
The petitioner wished to reserve for himself and his wife a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of his mother, who had died a few months previously. There was room for only five years’ worth of new graves, at the current rate of one a year, though the Parochial Church Council (the PCC) had resolved to re-use burial plots that had not had any burials in them for at least 150 years, so as to create at least another 50 grave spaces. The petitioner lived in the village and had strong connections with the church, and the PCC strongly supported the petition. The Chancellor determined that, in view of the PCC’s plans to reuse part of the churchyard for burials to meet the future needs of the parish, it was appropriate for him to grant a faculty.
Re St. John the Apostle Whetstone [2025] ECC Lon 1
The proposal was to remove twenty-eight pews and four choir frontals and to replace them with moveable, stackable ‘Theo’ chairs with upholstered seats. A representative sample of four pews would remain. There was one letter of objection from a private objector. The Victorian Society did not approve of upholstered seats. The Chancellor considered that the harm to the church caused by the removal of the pews would be low to moderate and that “given the clearly established need for much more space with the changing demographic profile of the congregation and the increased attendance and vitality of this church, the proposed changes are justified.” However, he granted a faculty subject to a condition that the new chairs should be unupholstered, unless otherwise ordered by the court. He gave the petitioners three weeks in which to put forward further detailed representations regarding upholstered seats to be considered by the Victorian Society and the Chancellor.
Re St. Mary Rougham [2025] ECC SEI 1
The petitioners wished to exhume the ashes of their mother, Mrs. Rose, from Roughan churchyard and reinter the ashes in Beyton churchyard. At the time of her death, Mrs. Rose’s children had decided to inter their mother’s ashes in her parents’ grave at Rougham. Mrs. Rose’s siblings had been ‘furious’ that the funeral had taken place and that their sister’s ashes had been interred in their parents’ grave without them being informed, and they refused to accept an apology from the petitioners. Owing to the family tension, the petitioners felt that the only solution was to exhume Mrs. Rose’s ashes and inter them in a different churchyard with the ashes of her husband, who had recently died. Mrs. Rose’s siblings at first objected to the exhumation, but later withdrew their objection. The Chancellor considered that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty to allow a family grave to be created for the remains of Mrs. Rose and her husband.
Re St. Mary Uggeshall [2025] ECC SEI 2
The person whose cremated remains were the subject of the petition had lived in London and had died suddenly at the age of 56. His family had been persuaded by a close friend of the deceased, who lived next to the churchyard in Uggeshall in Suffolk, to have the deceased ashes interred in the churchyard there. The family subsequently fell out with the friend after, as they alleged, he caused a motor accident, as a result of which one family member was admitted to hospital and another was treated for shock. The friend never acknowledged responsibility for the accident. The family then felt it difficult to visit the grave overlooked by the former friend’s house. They therefore wished to have the cremated remains exhumed and reburied in London, giving as their reasons the rift, the desire to create a family grave and the difficulty in visiting Uggeshall for the surviving family. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, as he considered that none of these reasons were sufficiently exceptional to justify exhumation.
Re Exhumation of a Baby [2024] ECC Exe 1
A baby girl had died at birth, though a twin had survived. The baby had been buried in the churchyard of a village in Devon. Six months after the burial, the mother had managed to free herself from her relationship with the father of the baby, from whom she had suffered domestic abuse for two years and she sought help from local domestic abuse professionals and the police. The father had been given a prison sentence for offences relating to abuse. The mother returned to live with her parents in another village. She suffered post-traumatic stress symptoms and could not contemplate visiting the village where the baby was buried. She therefore wished to have the baby’s remains exhumed and reinterred in the village where she and her parents lived. The father objected, as he was under a restraining order not to visit that village. The Chancellor was satisfied that the need to protect the mother and her surviving daughter was sufficient to establish an exception to the general principle against exhumation, and he therefore granted a faculty.
Re All Saints Rainford [2025] ECC Liv 1
An application had been made for a faculty to authorise retrospectively the display of illuminated symbols on the church tower at certain times of the year, for example, an illuminated cross during the Advent and Christmas seasons. A complaint was made by a local resident, living approximately 400-500m away, claiming, inter alia, light pollution and safety concerns. The Chancellor determined that a faculty should be granted, subject to conditions as to limits on the timing of the illumination and to the petitioner first obtaining planning consent.
Re St. Mary the Virgin Sprotbrough [2025] ECC She 1
A large scheme of reordering was proposed, with the aim of improving the experience of worship and also creating flexible spaces at the front and rear of the nave to facilitate increasing community events. There were objections to (inter alia) the relocation of the chancel screen to beneath the east window and the removal of some pews (which were said by the Twentieth Century Society to be part of the works carried out by Sir Ninian Comper in 1915); the division of the twentieth century lectern/priest’s desk designed by the architect George Pace; and the relocation of the pulpit. The Chancellor decided that the proposed changes were well argued, and she therefore granted a faculty.
Re All Saints Featherstone [2025] ECC Lee 1
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council sought a confirmatory faculty for the felling of a tree that had been removed from the churchyard without authority. A routine safety inspection by the Council had revealed that an ash tree was affected by a fungus and was suffering from ash die-back, which would cause the inner structure of the tree to deteriorate. The tree was duly felled without permission, which the Council could have sought from the Archdeacon under List B of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 (as amended). After explaining the various methods whereby permission can be obtained for the felling of a tree, including in the case of an emergency, the Chancellor pointed out that the Council’s initial allegation that “We have always had an agreement that if the works are for safety reasons, then no applications are required” could not override the requirement for permission in accordance with the faculty rules. However, he concluded that it was appropriate in the present instance to grant a confirmatory faculty.
Re St. Bartholomew Colne [2025] ECC Bla 1
The Rector and Churchwarden sought a faculty to regularise the installation of four infra-red heaters in the north aisle of the church, the subject of an interim faculty, and also to make permanent some minor reordering carried out under an archdeacon’s licence, namely, the removal of four pews, a pew frontal, and two altar rails from the north chapel and the installation of free-standing shelving and refrigerators as storage for the church’s food bank. The Victorian Society and Historic Buildings and Places objected to the proposals to remove the four pews, pew frontal and the altar rails from the north chapel. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the petitioners had made a clear and convincing justification for the proposals in terms of the resulting community and missional benefits. The faculty was subject to a condition that the four pews, their pew frontal, and the two altar rails should all be retained within the church building or in the adjacent Parish Rooms.
Re St. Paul Heslington [2025] ECC Yor 1
Following a major extension and radical reordering of the church in 1973, a “bold stainless steel font … surmounted by a dove” was introduced into the church. The nineteenth century font was placed outside the church and used as a plant holder. In recent years its condition had seriously deteriorated and in 2022 it had been brought back into the church and its parts had been stored on wooden pallets behind a pew. Having considered various options for the font, the petitioners had decided that burial of the font in the churchyard was the best option. The Church Building Council, Historic England and the Victorian Society did not support the proposal. The Chancellor considered that the redesigned interior of the church had made the retention of the older font no longer practical or desirable, and after considering all other options she concluded that there was no viable alternative other than to allow the burial of the font in the churchyard.
Re St. Mary the Virgin Bruton [2025] ECC B&W 1
The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to authorise the installation of a kitchen and servery unit in the north aisle of the church and two toilets on the ground floor of the tower, with a new meeting room and gallery above. The works would involve moving the tower screen forward a short distance. One parishioner objected, being concerned that the relocation of the screen and the construction of the balcony would have an adverse impact on the west window. She also was concerned about the loss of the 19th century doors from the screen. The Victorian Society had expressed similar reservations. The Chancellor granted a faculty: although the works would involve some harm to the fabric, and the lowest part of the west window would be obscured, such harm, though regrettable, was outweighed by the practical need for modern facilities within the building.
Re St. Lawrence Lechlade [2024] ECC Glo 1
An extensive programme of reordering was proposed, including raising the nave floor and introducing new limestone flagstones; underfloor heating; air source heat pumps in the churchyard; replacing the nave pews with chairs, introduction of a west end gallery with two toilets underneath; and other items too numerous to be listed in a short summary. The main object of the proposals was ‘putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission.’ Approximately 40 letters of objection were received, but no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works.
Re Holy Trinity Langdale [2025] ECC Car 1
The petitioner wished to install in the churchyard a headstone commemorating two members of his family whose ashes were scattered at a local estate. The intention was for the stone to be placed with memorials to other members of the family. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal for the following reasons: it was not possible to determine whether the deceased relatives would have wished to have a memorial in the churchyard; available space in this popular area should be retained for graves rather than family memorials; the requested memorial would mark neither a grave nor an interment of cremated remains; and, whilst the proposed memorial was intended to match other family memorials, a new stone and its lettering ‘could be very conspicuous next to its weathered neighbours.’ For these reasons, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He also declined an amended proposal to attach a white marble plaque to an existing family memorial.
Re The Wisdom of God Lower Kingswood [2025] ECC Swk 1
This judgment concerned a preliminary issue as to whether a faculty would be required for the sale of a Greek lectionary, which had been given to the church in 1948. The church is unlisted and unconsecrated, but in 1990 the Bishop of Southwark made an order under the provisions of section 6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964, making the church subject to the faculty jurisdiction. The lectionary had never been kept in the church. It was originally put into a bank vault, but allegedly displayed in the church occasionally on festival occasions. In 1968 it was loaned to the British Library. In 2019 the British Library informed the parish that it no longer wished to have the lectionary on loan, and it was transferred to Trinity College, Cambridge. Notwithstanding that the lectionary had rarely, if ever, been in the church, the Chancellor decided that it could still be described as part of the contents of the church, even if its whereabouts were not physically inside the church. Therefore, a faculty would be required to authorise a disposal of the lectionary.