Before her father's death in 2015, the petitioner had found the task of looking after her parents too great. They both needed constant care. Her father was frail and her mother suffered from dementia. The couple, who had been married for 70 years, were both moved to a care home. When her father died shortly afterwards, the petitioner, in distress and haste, had his ashes interred in plot 734 in the cemetery, which was a family grave of his wife's relatives. Afterwards, the petitioner felt she had made the wrong decision and she purchased plot 1425 close by, with a view to it becoming a family grave for the remains of both of her parents when her mother died. Her mother died in 2020, but her ashes had not yet been interred in plot 1425. There was in fact no further room in plot 734 for her ashes to be interred there. The Chancellor decided that the circumstances were such as to justify the grant of a faculty to allow the exhumation of the petitioner's father's ashes and their reinterment in plot 1425 with his wife's ashes.

Appeal allowed against the refusal by the Chancellor of the Diocese to grant a Faculty to authorise the relocation of the chancel screen.

The judgment relates to two faculty petitions, both relating to re-ordering. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the chancel screen. The judgment contains a detailed discussion of the theological and doctrinal arguments put forward at the hearing.

The rector and churchwardens  sought a faculty for the erection of a church centre by way of a substantial extension to the existing Grade I listed building. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to confirm the renewal and restoration of the 31’ x 21’ mural “Christ in Glory”.

To meet the increased needs of the church and the community, the proposal was for the creation of a meeting room between the vestry and the servery at the west end of the church. The proposed room would have bi-fold doors, which could be opened up to make the room part of the nave when needed. The work would involve re-siting the font. Contentious parts of the proposals were the depth and height of the meeting room and the fact that two pillars at the west end of the church would be obscured. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the justification for carrying out the proposals outweighed any potential harm. 

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the refurbishment of the kerbs surrounding the petitioner’s grandparents’ grave, the removal of a self-seeded tree from the middle of the grave and an additional inscription in memory of the petitioner’s father, whose remains had been interred elsewhere.

Faculty granted for re-ordering, including the creation of a complex of buildings for youth related activities, and removal and disposal of pews from the south aisle.

The petitioners wished, amongst other proposals for re-ordering, to remove the choir stalls from the chancel and level the floor, and also remove the Victorian chancel screen, in order to make the church more adaptable for worship, concerts and other uses. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the chancel screen. Faculty granted.

An appeal by the Victorian Society against the decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Rochester to allow the removal from the church of a Victorian eight bay screen by Bodley & Garner and its reinstallation in a church in Leicestershire, which would necessitate the reduction of the screen by two bays. Appeal dismissed.