This judgment deals with two outstanding matters following the judgment in Re St. John the Evangelist Manthorpe [2019] ECC Lin 4, namely, dismantling of the pulpit and repositioning of the chancel pews. The reason for the repositioning of the chancel pews follows on from the altar rail being moved westwards to allow more ease in administering communion. The Chancellor approved the proposal. However, he did not give permission for the 're-imagining' of the pulpit into two separate tiems, but suggested that the petitioners should take advice about moving the pulpit within the church.

To improve the accessibility, openness, visibility and welcome to visitors to the church, the petitioners wished to create a glazed outer porch to the main entrance of the church; a ramp within the existing porch space; improved entrance lighting; and adjustments to the current doors. The church was built between 1955 and 1957 and is Grade II listed. The Twentieth Century Society had concerns about the structure of the outer porch. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty. 

The proposal was to replace an existing plain glass window with a stained glass design depicting St. John the Evangelist in the left hand light and St. George in the right hand light. The window would be a gift to the church from the Rt. Hon. Lord Waddington GCVO, and an inscription at the base of one of the lights would state that it was a  gift to the church from him. The Church Buildings Council raised various concerns, one of which was that there was a general principle that living donors should not be commemorated in stained glass or other church artworks. Whilst recognising such a generally accepted principle, the Deputy Chancellor stated that it was possible to allow exceptions. In the present case the donor was a 'son of the village', and had held office as Home Secretary and as Governor of Bermuda. A Faculty was granted.

A memorial was proposed for the grave of a child who had died aged 6. The stone chosen was honed dark grey granite with a stone slab and stone chippings within kerbs. After consultation with the Archdeacon, the Deputy Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for the stone and kerbs, provided that there would be no slab and no chippings. There were already several graves with kerbstones in the churchyard, and the memorial proposed would be in the far corner of the churchyard, where it would only be seen by people visiting that area.

The Vicar and Churchwarden petitioned for a faculty permitting the replacement of their existing upholstered timber framed chairs (installed under faculty as part of a significant reordering in 1985) with new  chrome-framed SB2M chairs, upholstered with a cleanable suede-like ‘Nappa’ fabric , which would be more stackable than the existing chairs. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal. Whilst being satisfied that a case had been made for replacing upholstered chairs with new upholstered chairs, the Chancellor considered that chrome-framed chairs would create too stark a contrast in the Grade II* church. She therefore declined to approve the proposed chrome-framed chairs, but approved the alternative wooden framed upholstered chairs which the petitioners had offered as a compromise choice.

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.

The Deputy Chancellor had three matters to consider in relation to an application for a memorial to mark the grave in which the petitioner's wife's ashes were buried: (a) reference on the memorial to the petitioner, still living; (b) a modified version of the poem “Do not stand at my grave and weep”, and (c) an objection by the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") to the type of stone. As to the first, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the proposal, and to leave space for a further inscription.  The Deputy Chancellor did not approve of the design of the proposed memorial, which included some blue stone, and considered that the wording of the version of the poem was 'over personal and inappropriate', but indicated that he would approve  'a more discrete monument with suitably revised wording'.

The petitioners' parents had intended to be buried in the same grave. The Petitioners' mother died in 2008 and was buried in the chosen grave. When the petitioners' father died in 2019, it was discovered a few days before the funeral that the grave of their mother had not been dug sufficiently deep to accommodate a second burial, and so, as a 'temporary measure', the father was buried in another part of the churchyard. The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of their mother's body, so that the grave could be dug deeper to accommodate the burial of their father's body. The Chancellor accepted that a mistake had been made in that the instructions to dig a double depth grave in 2008 had not been followed, and he granted a faculty for the double exhumation and reinterment, conditional upon it being possible to dig the mother's grave deeper, failing which the mother's remains could be exhumed and reinterred in her husband's grave.

A couple had planned to be buried in a double grave. The husband died in 2006 and was duly buried in the grave. His wife died in 2020, but a trial dig two weeks before the planned funeral date made it clear that the husband's coffin had not been buried sufficiently deep to allow the burial of a second coffin with enough earth above it. The undertakers therefore applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the husband's coffin, to enable the grave to be dug deeper, in order to accommodate both coffins at sufficient depth. The Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the granting of a faculty, due to a mistake by the undertakers when the grave was originally dug in 2006.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for exhumation, finding that there were sufficient special circumstances to justify him doing so. The undertakers had failed to ensure that the grave digger had dug the grave sufficiently deep. In consequence of this failure, the coffin had become exposed to the surface at one end, where the ground had sunk. Additionally, the ground anchors supporting the headstone had pierced the top corner of the coffin and the coffin lid was broken or had rotted since burial. The Chancellor directed that the cost of the exhumation, including the faculty fees, should rest with the undertakers.