Re St. John Hoveton [2024] ECC Nor 2

The petitioners wished to replace all the oak pews, which were installed in 1890, with stackable, upholstered chairs and also replace the under pew heaters with an infrared system. All the statutory consultees criticised the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the removal of all the pews from the Grade II* church and also that the proposed type of chair was unsuitable. He therefore refused to grant a faculty for those items. With regard to the proposed heaters, the Chancellor decided to adjourn the petition, in order to give the petitioners time to decide whether they wished to proceed with that part of their petition and, if so, to obtain an independent expert report as to whether the proposed heaters were likely to affect the fabric of the church.

A confirmatory faculty was sought for the permanent removal of seven paintings from the east end of the Victorian church and their permanent storage within the church. The paintings had been executed on linoleum by the wife of a former incumbent over 100 years previously and had covered the painted Ten Commandments, Creed and Lord’s Prayer. They had been taken down in August 2019 after it was noticed that they were buckling and part of the decoration behind was visible. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the four outer paintings to be permanently removed and stored, on condition that they were to be restored, preserved and stored in the body of the church. He imposed a further condition that the three central paintings should also be restored and then reinstated.

This was an application for a faculty to install a stained glass window in the Grade II church in memory of the late husband of the church organist. The deceased had been a farmer, and the design (recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee) included "two doves and an owl, a small figure in silhouette, possibly sowing in a broadcast fashion, and a donkey and rabbit, with a tree in leaf and on the branches the words: ‘Lord make me an instrument of your peace, where there is hatred let me sow love’". The Church Buildings Council was of the opinion that this design would not sit well with the other stained glass windows, depicting single figures in a more traditional design. However, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty. There was a memorial inscription on the proposed window. The Chancellor did not consider that he had to treat an application for a memorial window in the same way as an application for a memorial in church (i.e., the deceased had made some outstanding contribution to the life of the church, the community or the nation).

A funeral director applied a few days after an interment of ashes for a faculty to authorise their temporary exhumation, as he had overlooked the family's request that a portion of the ashes should be withheld from interment in the churchyard, in order that they could be interred elsewhere. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the the removal of a portion of the ashes from the casket containing the ashes as the funeral director had acted promptly and his mistake was an exceptional reason to justify exhumation, in order that the wishes of the family could be carried out. 

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 petition proposed various reordering works to the Grade II church, including work on galleries and staircases and the provision of a lift and meeting rooms; and the sale of a painting from around 1600. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for reordering works, and that the public benefit would outweigh such harm as would be occasioned to the building. He granted a faculty or the items of reordering, but reserved judgment on the sale of the painting pending further representations, including as to whether there should be an open court hearing.

The Chancellor authorised for each of two separate churchyards 'bespoke regulations' as to the types of memorial stone which may be permitted.

The petitioners proposed works to improve the entrance to the church by installing a disabled access ramp and creating a welcoming open area by modifying and removing a few pews and installation of bookcases, cupboards and noticeboards. There were several objections, but no objectors became parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case was made for the proposals, apart from the removal of two half pews on the east side of the cross-aisle.

The cremated remains of the petitioners' mother, who died in 2016, were interred in the grave of her first husband, who died in 1978. The petitioners obtained approval from the acting priest during an interregnum to remove the headstone in memory of their late father, in order to have their mother's name added to the memorial. In the meantime, the mother's second husband of 32 years arranged for a tablet in memory of the petitioners' mother (including her surname after remarriage) to be laid on the grave. The petitioners wished the tablet to be removed. The Chancellor granted a faculty authorising the removal of the tablet subject to the condition that the headstone be amended by agreement between the petitioners and the second husband by adding words along the lines of: 'a widow for 5 years and for 32 years the beloved wife of N'. In the absence of agreement within 3 months, the Chancellor would invite the Archdeacon to petition for a faculty for the removal of both the headstone and the tablet and their replacement by a single memorial bearing wording directed by the Court.

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.