Display:

The Petitioner, of Italian, wished to have her husband's cremated remains exhumed and interred in a family mausoleum in Italy, where she would also intend her own ashes to be interred. The reason for the request was that after the petitioner's death there would be no surviving family members in England to look after the grave, whereas the family in Italy would continue to look after the family mausoleum. Faculty granted.

A proposed reordering of the parish church included the removal of all the pews and their replacement with upholstered wooden chairs. The Victorian Society were not in favour of the removal of all the pews, and Historic England, whilst not objecting to the replacement of all the pews, objected to the chairs being upholstered, but if they were to be upholstered the fabric should be of a neutral colour. The Chancellor granted a faculty for (inter alia) the replacement of all the pews with upholstered chairs, provided that the fabric would be of a neutral colour, rather than the red colour originally proposed.

The ashes of the father of the petitioners were interred in 2013. The intention of the family was that in due time the petitioners' mother's ashes would be interred in the same grave plot. After the petitioners' mother died and the grave of their father was reopened, it was found that the grave was too shallow to take a second interment, and the mothers ashes had to be interred in a plot a few rows away. The petitioners now wished to have their mother's ashes exhumed and reinterred in a grave next to their father's grave. The Chancellor determined that there had been a 'mistake' in that the father's grave had been dug too shallow, which had frustrated the intentions of the family. He therefore decided that this was an exceptional situation where a faculty could be granted for exhumation and reinterment.

The proposed reordering works included: a two floor narthex at the rear of the Church; moving of the screen and suspended rood; moving the font; extending a dais across the nave; disposal of surplus pews; revision of heating and lighting; and levelling of the nave floor. Retrospective approval of a new piano was also sought. There were twelve parties opponent. However, the Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for all the items with the exception of moving the suspended rood, and he granted a faculty accordingly. 

The priest in charge and a churchwarden sought permission to reuse for burials two areas of the churchyard, which had not been used for burials since 1850. The Commissary General determined that it was appropriate to use the areas for reburials and she granted a faculty. For the benefit of other parishes in the diocese, she indicated that reburial would normally be allowed where there had been no burials in an area to be reused for at least 75 years.

The petitioner wished to apply fine shingle or fine gravel to the area within the kerbs of two graves, for the purpose of weed suppression. The Parochial Church Council ("PCC") opposed the proposal, as the Churchyard Regulations provided that “kerbs, railings or chippings, whether raised or at ground level, are not permitted", and the PCC had been endeavouring to enforce the regulations. They would have preferred the kerbs to be removed. The Commissary General considered the factors in favour and against allowing the proposal and decided, on balance, to grant a faculty: there was no petition for the removal of the kerbs; the introduction of fine shingle would not make mowing or strimming more difficult; the appearance of fine shingle was more natural than chippings; and the fine shingle would slow down the growth of weeds.

The petition related to improvements to the entrance and pathways to the church. This involved removal of a large number of old memorials which had been laid as paving during the 1900s. These memorials were inclined to be slippery underfoot when wet, giving rise to health and safety concerns. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that within nine months a report should be submitted concerning progress on the work and as to the most appropriate way to deal with the old memorials removed from the pathways.

The petition proposed the following works of reordering: (1) install access ramp to south door (2) introduce entrance lobby to south entrance (3) remove 2 pews at west end of south aisle and install disabled WC (4) re-order west end (5) upgrade kitchen facilities and (5) install a trench arch system with gravel and paved pathway over. There were objections to the moving of the pews and the access to the WC. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for their proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The proposals were to remove two pews and book boards from the west end of the nave, to re-site the font centrally in the west bay of the nave, to introduce kitchen cupboards against the north wall of the tower, to introduce display units and cupboards at the west end of both aisles and to do various works in the vestry. There were objections to the moving of the font and the loss of some pews. The Chancellor determined that the proposals were both necessary and appropriate and granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for some minor reordering of the chancel of the church, to include moving the stone altar forward by 1 metre, to allow the celebrant to face westwards. The work also included the removal and disposal of the children's choir stalls.